User talk:Bbb23/Archive 38

ThomasMatt22 et al

I have a suspicion that this user is back in the form of Special:Contributions/JayMehta1995 and probably Special:Contributions/CollingwoodFC1980 & Special:Contributions/SteveHA. The previous incarnation had a technique of edit warring with himself, so possibly also some other accounts that already have been blocked, a couple of them you can see here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Soccer_in_Australia&action=history. I suspect 1.39.8.40 involved there is him as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.217.48.63 (talk) 22:44, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks much.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:31, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

And again it seems, Special:Contributions/JayKM22 with presumably a new IP Special:Contributions/1.39.47.82 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.132.233 (talk) 06:45, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

HarveyCarter

Seems obvious that Hoohahhah is another HC sock. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:08, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

• Nevermind, Favonian blocked him. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:09, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Getter Saar

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.

---

There were at least three contributions to this article (one, and the most voluminous (facts/refs filled), by etwi admin Andres), so, we made the article into article, to be in the row with other badminton players; besides that, started with deleting all copyright violation related text (resulted basically in one sentence, "X is a Y", plus infobox). Do please undo your action, thanks!—Pietadè (talk) 17:55, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Or else, I like badminton, prhps not the only 1...—Pietadè (talk)

I agree, too much paranoia is not good for Wikipedia. Florentyna (talk) 18:38, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Here is much too much paranoia in the game. I invested a lot of time into the articles of this author to make from the stubs a little bit better stubs. This is not a way good for Wikipedia like it went here. You are blocking the user and then you are wondering when he creates articles (no vandalism!!!) under a new name??? Seems that he is not an English native, so poor English can be expected. Teaching users, not penalting! Florentyna (talk) 18:46, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Enough. The article was restored.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:56, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

What was his illegitimate behaviour in the first place? Why was he blocked? I think we should restore all his stubs and unblock him. If something is to be deleted then perhaps not deletedly. Andres (talk) 19:10, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree. Too much work was deleted without consensus. Florentyna (talk) 19:14, 18 October 2016 (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.

66.87.77.21

Hi Bbb23,

I just wanted to inform you that this IP who you blocked has made an unblock request. I was the IP that they were claiming had edit warred. Thank you. 2607:FB90:815F:8DAD:0:0:27A:7B01 (talk) 22:19, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up and your vigilance at the RfA.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:27, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Question

Have you checked in on this situation yet? Particularly since the battleground mentality, dramatics, and invented conflicts with others – all issues which this user has a deep history of, chronicled at ANI – are returning. Chase (talk | contributions) 06:05, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Chase is a hound. You, as an admin, should know better not to follow a troll's advice.--MaranoFan (talk) 06:08, 19 October 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MaranoBoy (talk • contribs)

In addition to the unfounded "hound" accusation above (and in a series of recent reverts), Bbb23, please also note the personal attacks here, incivility here, and a suspicious set of anonymous user page vandalisms detailed here. Chase (talk | contributions) 06:14, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Also, the editor in question has access to their main account again, fwiw, where the disruption and incivility have continued. Chase (talk | contributions) 07:03, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Note to Bbb23, If you don't hat and archive this discussion now, the troll will make heaps and bounds of walls of text on here that mean absolutely nothing.--MaranoFan (talk) 07:14, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

OMG I found his sockpuppet..--MaranoFan (talk) 07:20, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

That's the best laugh I've had all morning. Even I can tell the difference between a legitimate alternative account (which is allowed on Wikipedia) and a sock account (which are not allowed). Perhaps brushing up on the differences first would be better than trying to play spot the difference whilst wearing a blindfold. Wes Mouse  ^T@lk 07:49, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

MaranoBoy is a legitimate alternative account, used to edit Wikipedia on public computers to maintain security. There's your explanation, Bbb23, bwahaha..--MaranoFan (talk) 08:11, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

And even I can see through that as a lie. One is your true account. The other is a sock account, because your main one was blocked. That is the definition of a WP:SOCK and quite a wiffy one at that. When was the last time they got put through the washing machine? Wes Mouse  ^T@lk 08:17, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Are you dumb or just mildly idiotic? I wasn't blocked at all. I haven't been for almost half a year.--MaranoFan (talk) 09:14, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

One of the badmittion player pages made by the banned user that was not deleted

Here Getter Saar-someone deleted the speedy also (which I did restore) Wgolf (talk) 22:42, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

I declined the G5. If you look at the closed discussion about this article not too far above this section on my Talk page, you should be able to follow why. If you have any further questions, let me know. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:57, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Would you please tell me where I could continue the closed discussion? Andres (talk) 07:34, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

If I understand you properly, you want the sock master unblocked and any articles deleted per G5 restored. An unblock request should come from the blocked person. There's nothing to do without that. The master made an unblock request through UTRS, which was rejected. Why he went through UTRS rather than a normal unblock request is a mystery, but he has access to his Talk page and he can still request an unblock if he wishes. As for the deleted pages, you can restore articles if you think they are appropriate per Wikipedia's guidelines. You don't need my permission to do that.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:36, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for advice!

For a newcomer it is difficult to find the proper way, so I don't think it's a mystery that he doesn't know how to proceed. Andres (talk) 13:57, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Ana Rute Serra

Ana Rute Serra (talk · contribs) is evading block at João Vale e Azevedo, with second sock puppet of Jose Enes (talk · contribs). User also vandalized Luís Filipe Vieira. SLBedit (talk) 18:14, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Blocked, thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:27, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sevcohaha

Hi Bbb23. Would you mind taking a look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sevcohaha when you have the time? I believe you were the admin who issued the original block against the master. The editor seems to be contributing more positively than before and is even asking to granted autopatrolled rights at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Autopatrolled. Although I think they are sincere, they still are engaging in socking and block evasion and probably would be best to request an unblock of their master account. Perhaps there are special circumstances that will allow you to consider unblocking them or you can advise them on what they need to do to be unblocked? -- Marchjuly (talk)

Question for: Ivanvector + BBB23 - This user is a valued contributor. What needs to happen in order for the editor to be able to further contribute? cc: Marchjuly Hmlarson (talk) 20:20, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

@Marchjuly and Hmlarson: why should this be considered "special circumstances"? They were blocked for flagrant personal attacks, and continued making those attacks with sockpuppet accounts after they were blocked. The user was advised of the standard offer; had they any interest in being a "valued contributor" they would have taken it. Instead they flipped the bird at our rules and edited around their block anyway, even going so far as to request advanced permissions with a sockpuppet account, a flagrant and egregious abuse of trust. I would not support an unblock request from this editor. But do feel free to ask again in six months, I give a lot of credit to users who take the standard offer seriously. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 00:19, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: Which account was blocked for flagrant personal attacks? Hmlarson (talk) 00:22, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

@Hmlarson: see [1] and [2]. The user is blocked; it matters not which of their multiple accounts they are logged in with at the time. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 00:27, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: The first link you share is the only one to mention "flagrant personal attacks" from a 9/20/15 edit war where both users were blocked for 2 weeks. Your second link is a duplicate of what's already in 1. Per Marchjuly's original message and my inquiry, it seems appropriate in this case to advise the editor on what they need to do to be unblocked. Hmlarson (talk) 00:44, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

No, it doesn't, and this discussion is closed.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:46, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Then seems the cycle will continue endlessly. Not my cup of tea - but good day to you, sir. Hmlarson (talk) 00:52, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Just to clarify things, I was trying to play the role of devil's advocate above and find out if there were any other options available to this editor in order to provide them with accurate information on how they might be able to get unblocked. My experiences with this editor have been less than amicable, and I have added a number of their socks to the SPI. Personally, I think they should have just accepted the standard offer made by Vanjagenije, waited the required time period, and then requested that their original account (whichever one that is) be unblocked via UTRS. Unfortunately, they chose to try and circumvent the process by creating new accounts, perhaps hoping nobody would notice. I think that even now if they were to accept the standard offer and abide by it, then the community might be willing to reconsider things and give them a second chance. Sorry Bbb23 if my original post brought some unwanted drama to your talk page. I was just asking in good faith. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:01, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Z07x10

I note that you have declined the CU as the master (I assume this is Z07x10) is stale. Please forgive my ignorance of the SPI process, but as Z07x10 is indefinitely blocked he/she won't have made any recent edits, however I am sure that the alleged socks I listed are socks of Z07x10. If the master hasn't made recent edits (because they're blocked) how are we supposed to link the socks back to them? Do I need to start this process again with the oldest alleged sock as the master? If so how can this be linked back to Z07x10 whose disruptive and abusive editting I wish to protect against? regards Mztourist (talk) 16:08, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

The matter will be decided based on behavioral evidence.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:40, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

OK, but I would have thought checkuser would be a much faster method. regards Mztourist (talk) 17:14, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

To obtain a technical finding between two accounts, you compare the CU data of one against the other. If one of them is "stale", that means there is no data for that account. Data is retained for 90 days. The alleged master hasn't edited in well over 90 days.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:18, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Aquila Records

Hello, you deleted my article Aquila Records, even after I made the corrections necessary. I was still adding information to the page. I believe it was deleted due to the lack of importance of the company. Aquila records is a record label in Nigeria that houses three major music artists under its umbrella. I was going to add more information to the page, but at this point I cannot access the article. Could you please restore the page, and I will add on to the article outlining the labels importance, please. I would appreciate your assistance in this matter. Snzeakor (talk) 06:39, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

You shouldn't create an article in main space unless it is ready. If you wish to work on the article some more, I can WP:USERFY it for you and you can then submit it through WP:AFC to get feedback from other editors as to whether it meets Wikipedia guidelines. Let me know if that's you want me to do.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:40, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes could you please do that. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snzeakor (talk • contribs) 07:59, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

I just noticed that you already have a draft of this article. Why do you need another one then?--Bbb23 (talk) 12:22, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

SPI

Wasn't aware of the rule that I can't change a close status of an SPI investigation, which I can't find written anywhere. What is the right way to have someone look at the link between the accounts that wasn't provable until after the checkuser was done? agtx 01:02, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Best thing is to comment as you did and ping someone, me or a clerk.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:36, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

In any event, I put the case on hold so I can review it later. That way it won't archive until after it's closed again.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:41, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Mass deletion of pages by Mom393

Hi! There are some articles by Mom393 that I already edited, and I think it shouldn't be deleted like Chiang Mei-hui, Lee Chia-hsin, and Teo Ee Yi. --Stvbastian (talk) 17:17, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

@Stvbastian: The more important question is do you think the articles satisfy Wikipedia's guidelines for inclusion? If so, I'll restore them.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:21, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, and if there are any shortage i will try to fix it. Thanks --Stvbastian (talk) 17:48, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

 Done --Bbb23 (talk) 17:55, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks--Stvbastian (talk) 20:38, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi! Please restore Stefka Hargiono and Tessy Aulner articles because they are meet WP:NBADMINTON and I already edit this artilces.--Stvbastian (talk) 14:02, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Revoking talk access

I have no problem with that. It was going nowhere. I've been experimenting with this for a couple of years. It's not worth the effort now, but I hope to be able to boilerplate them one day and turn the time investment into minutes and be successful with a higher percentage. Right now I'm at about 12%, no so good. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 18:54, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Anna, I've watched you implement your system. Maybe you should patent it. :-) I think 12% is pretty good myself. Do you know I was running a check against her and found several other accounts to block. A few were using the same range with the same technical data as she was. Some people are just a waste of time. Best.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:49, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, I'd better get it to work a little better before I patent it. :) As for who is who, it was clear to me the whole time, of course. My aim was simply to help her understand what an utter, utter waste of her precious life this has been. I sure hope she tries Wikia. Best wishes, my friend. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:23, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Nairspecht

Hi B, I'm curious about the Nairspecht case. Could I trouble you to please comment on his page to clarify what generally you found that led to his block? And does his explanation that he might have edited at work make a difference in terms of plausibility? I do notice the intersecting articles, but I also notice that Vini2611 marked all his edits as minor and didn't use edit summaries while XFLRG6174 used copious edit summaries and not too many minor edits. Any info is appreciated. Thanks mate, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:00, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't comment.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:03, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

OK. Thanks for responding. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:05, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb: I can say one thing. Of the five socks, three were the most obvious behaviorally. You picked out one of them (XFLRG6174); the other two were Sonixgirl and Sportonion555. Sonixgirl and Nairspecht even edited the same AfD. I don't think you can expect that all the voicing details will be the same. That's often so in many socking cases. Indeed, in one instance here one sock reverted another sock. I actually found that more persuasive in support of socking.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:27, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

17th Satellite Awards

Would you be willing to redact the recent edit summaries at 17th Satellite Awards, per WP:CRD #2? I left the editor who wrote them a very firm talk page message, so hopefully they will stop. Thank you very much. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:44, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

That really is very odd. Done.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:18, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	Good block here by the way.[3] Thanks for all you do. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:12, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Jim.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:22, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

TheMagnificentist

Dear @Bbb23:, would you please unblock @TheMagnificentist:. If he's starting edit wars, I'm not condoning it, but he can stop. TheMagnificentist is a GREAT Wikipedian. I wouldn't be advocating for him if he was really a reckless user. Please acknowledge and consider my request and reply soon. Thank you. Infopage100 (talk) 02:48, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Except in unusual circumstances, I never unblock someone who hasn't made an unblock request. This user was already going over the edge. He was sternly warned about his conduct by another administrator. He then proceeded to go over the edge, at which I point I blocked him. Edit-warring wasn't the immediate trigger for the block.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:21, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

@Bbb23:, ... Why not give him one last chance? He obviously does and has done a lot of bad things, but he also has done a lot of good things too. Has he requested an unblock? .... Infopage100 (talk) 17:44, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Hugh Jackman sockfarm

Since you edit the article and are familiar with the case, I thought I'd cut out the middleman of SPI and post here. We have another rather obvious sock of Roarkp, the editor who endlessly tries to post the "Sexiest Man Alive" thing on the Jackman article, is obsessed with Wolverine, etc. Eyesweetsugarcandy started with some diversionary edits, but the bulk of his editing has been on Hugh Jackman, his first being this "succession box" for "Sexiest Man Alive", which appears on no other article at all: [4]. Edit-wars on Hugh Jackman over trivial irrelevancies he has added. Created Broadway To Oz, which stars Jackman, edits the Wolverine articles, etc. Softlavender (talk) 06:34, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

@Softlavender: Good catch. I'd noticed him around, particularly because of the username, but it's been so long since the last sock I didn't make the connection. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:56, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Just dropping a note

Hope this is okay! :) --QEDK (T ☕ C) 08:51, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Can you refresh my memory? I don't see when you went from active to inactive.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:57, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm not aware of who made that change either. --QEDK (T ☕ C) 15:52, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Ah, it was you. I have high school on top of work and co-curricular so I tend to take frequent breaks, that time (May) must've been when you moved my name. --QEDK (T ☕ C) 15:55, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

I think you said something about being inactive on the training group work page, which probably has been deleted. Anyway, good to see you back. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:15, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Ahh, that was in January-Feb-March, when I was having my first standard exams (we have 2). But I worked quite diligently for a while after that. It was the break after that which got me moved, I guess. Anyway, the current pace (which is almost nothing compared to real actives) is what I intend to continue since I can't afford any more time on this project. --QEDK (T ☕ C) 16:20, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Abdu Kiba-a page on the new page feed that links to a sock puppet report

Here Abdu Kiba, I'm not sure though if this is made by a previously banned user or not-figured you can go check this though! Wgolf (talk) 22:03, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

It was, thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:53, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

You deleted my message.

Why did you delete the "good luck" message I sent to @TheMagnificentist:???? Really??? What the FaCK??? And yes, I meant to say, FaCK. You can't just randomly delete someone else's messages. Delete your own. Not mine. Infopage100 (talk) 14:27, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

I reverted it again. Please don't re-add it. It has nothing to do with the good luck part but for privacy reasons. I suggest you use the Wikipedia interface to send the other editor an e-mail.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:42, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

• Reply - Then can you submit a link of the Wikipedia interface via this talk page?

Infopage100 (talk) 14:57, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

• Go to the user's userpage. On the left under Tools, you should see a link "Email this user". Click on that. This will work for any editor who has registered an e-mail with Wikipedia.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:03, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Reply - I can't find the tools. Is that something exclusive to the desktop version?Infopage100 (talk) 17:41, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Maybe this will help to fit your situation: WP:EMAIL.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:46, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Reply - Hey @Bbb23:, sorry for being a DuCK. I know now why you kept deleting my messages. Next time I won't be such a DuCK about awkward situations like this one. Hope you're not mad. A sincere apology from Infopage100 (talk) 01:19, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Nope, not mad. I'm glad you understand now.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:24, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Reply - I feel like a JoCKarS. Thank you for not being mad at me and also for correcting my JoCKarSEDNESS.Infopage100 (talk) 01:45, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Anyways, @Bbb23:, I'm glad this feud has officially reached its end.Infopage100 (talk) 01:46, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Creating the Sukuma Calendar with Different Content

Bbb23, sorry to contact you in this way because of this trivial issue.

The Sukuma Calendar article was deleted but I think I have got some good sources now to make a good article:

1- Adler, P. J. and Pouwels, R. L.: World Civilizations: To 1700 Volume 1 of World Civilizations, p.169. (Cengage Learning: 2007) 2- Stroeken, K.: Moral Power - The Magic of Witchcraft (New York: Berghahn Books, 2013) at: https://books.google.com/books?isbn=0857456601 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nghwaya (talk • contribs) 12:47, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mikethebeast228

Hello. Could we have a longer block on the master? Otherwise they'll go off their block on the master account a few hours from now, in spite of having been blocked twice today as different IPs... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 15:08, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

You'll have to take this up with the blocking administrator.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:13, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

OK, will do. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 15:15, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Copyvio revdel, por favor

Howdy! Please consider a wave of the magic wand over [5], which is a copyvio of [6]. I've reverted and warned the new user (who unfortunately appears to be a SPA spamming vallartalifestyles.com links and content). Muchas gracias! - Julietdeltalima (talk) 23:20, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't usually get into deleting copyright vios (other than new articles), but you asked so nicely and I really should expand my horizons, so waved.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:53, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Much obliged! - Julietdeltalima (talk) 00:02, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

User:AC9900

Since you blocked the account for being a sock, care to take a look at User:MillionRacing? Three dits, all to racing articles, and a newish account suggests this could be a sock too. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:29, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Unless he's on vacation, the account is  Unrelated.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:54, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

CheckUser enquiry

Bbb23, sorry to contact you in this way. However, I have come across a rather unusual case in which as user as stated the phrase "please do not block me again!", yet their logs show they have never been blocked before. Furthermore, a second comment by the same user states that their next block would be for a period of 1-month. How can they know that length of time if they have never been blocked before, unless they are evading a block and editing under a sock account. Any advice would be truly appreciated. Wes Mouse  ^T@lk 22:49, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Please provide diffs.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:12, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

This is when the user has said "Don't block me again". The Blocklog for "RVFan1930" contains no blocks. At that point I assumed good faith that the term "again" was a typo error. However, moments later they say their next block would be for "one-month". Solo edit from Rvfan101 (talk · contribs) to Red Velvet (band) (an Asian girl band). And what triggers a possible connection is this with a list of Asia-related "role-play" list - although I could be grasping straws on that connection. But it is the talk page comments and the clean-sheet block record, and the similarities in user name that just doesn't add up. Wes Mouse  ^T@lk 01:01, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

I can't check the two accounts because Rvfan101 is  Stale.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:45, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Hmmm, stale account. I'm guessing that is due to the lack of edits. Do you not find the comments a bit peculiar though? To say tell one person not to block them again, and then to tell another that their next block would be for 1-month as if they have already been warned the duration of their next block. Yet neither of those RV accounts have ever been blocked. I find it rather strange. Ah well, I'll let it pass I suppose. You know what they say, give 'em enough rope and they'll hang themselves. I'm sure they will slip up and the name of their blocked account will come out eventually. They have to be one crafty sock to be evading scrutiny. Thanks for checking anyway, really appreciated. Wes Mouse  ^T@lk 04:17, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Bbb23, the user RVFan1930 is now becoming a bit of a problematic user. 6 warnings in the last 5 days about adding content without providing any citations. And after checking their changes, even I could not find sources to back-up their claims. I'm wondering if a soft-block is in order as a preventative measure, as they are clearly not taking heed of the warnings. Wes Mouse ^Talk 09:36, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

@Bbb23: sorry but I think RFFan1930 and RVFan 1930 is way too similar. Looks like this and the others are a historical sock that have evaded very cleverly. Along with Rvfan101 (talk · contribs), is making more obvious. I'm wondering if a SPI is in order here. Wes Mouse ^Talk 23:07, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Rocky De La Fuente

Thanks did a search and RDLF opened exchanges "on both sides of the border". I got sidetracked and forgot to revert. Thank you! Jim1138 (talk) 10:15, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Why did you revert my edit invoking a false reason?

Very nice indeed! Instead of replying to my comment on your pseudo-vandalic revert of my edit to the Nicolás Maduro article, you now take the short way out, rudely deleting it from your talk page. My question still stands. --AVM (talk) 23:34, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Putting aside BLP for a moment, your addition was taken almost word-for-word from the source. It's a copyright violation if nothing else. clpo13_(talk) 23:40, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Apology

I woke up and logged on this a.m. to find a note from GAB that I'd posted to a closed SPI discussion. Somehow, the closed discussion had popped up on my watchlist as if it were current. I wrote this to GAB and will include MelanieN and the other editor whom I'd pinged on my edit.

Thanks. I somehow didn't realize that the discussion was closed. I apologize. Activist (talk) 14:06, 29 October 2016 (UTC) Activist (talk) 15:52, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:56, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

howdy

thanks for correction!

i forgot, where do i report user's misbehavior? is it on the page itself (not talk page)? 176.221.76.3 (talk) 18:05, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Let's not go there just yet. I responded to your comments at the Libel Talk page. I'm assuming the editor will not revert both of us.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:07, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Huh, i am two seconds late.. already posted to ANI. :( 176.221.76.3 (talk) 18:07, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

and removed it.. so yes, i will answer at libel page.. thanks . 176.221.76.3 (talk) 18:09, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Really?

What? "a marriage can't become "troubled" "? What planet do you live on? Britmax (talk) 19:20, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Although I don't appreciate the incivility, I've researched the issue using several reputable dictionaries, and despite the fact that it sounds completely wrong to my ear, your usage is correct.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:38, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, that was supposed to be humour but I forgot the effect of lack of context. Of course the idea that an individual marriage is troubled should be sourced but marriages can be troubled, in grneral. Britmax (talk) 20:49, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Elektrik Fanne/Archive

Are you fine if I un-archive and hold the most recent SPI here? I would behaviorally connect the account to the IP, or is Katie correct that we are not supposed to behaviorally connect IPs to accounts either? (CheckUser was not requested here.) Thanks, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 00:54, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Don't unarchive it. Let it go.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:57, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Actually, please let me look into this privately and I'll update this section after I've done so.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:01, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

@L235: I have removed the post-archival comments and unarchived the SPI. I have also put the SPI back in the position it was before Katie's comments and closure. Without going into detail, suffice it to say that Katie's actions were a result of understandable confusion and my subsequent actions were equally confused. You may now treat the case as you would ordinarily and make whatever determinations and recommendations you deem appropriate. My sincere apologies about my earlier comments here. You were right to push the issue.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:27, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 22:16, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Homechallange55 again

Can u please ban this user, he's keeps vandalizing the Shadow the Hedgehog, David Humphrey and Jason Griffith articles and keeps removing sourced/correct information from the articles, he keeps removing the voice actors on the Shadow the hedgehog article, and he is also being very abusive with his edits and keeps posting threatening messages in his edit summaries. Please do something about him, he needs to be stopped. I asked him kindly to stop too. 2600:1000:B07D:E01E:24BD:5E66:77D0:D18C (talk) 03:04, 31 October 2016 (UTC) It's ok never mind, were all settled now. 174.192.5.193 (talk) 04:03, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

I am at a loss -- what is the problem here?

Regarding this, I was essentially punished on the basis of hearsay, and now am not even being allowed to respond, even to address the original point of the accusations.--Froglich (talk) 17:45, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

This is not a court of law. You either drop this issue, or you risk being blocked and it will be longer than the previous block.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:49, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

ANI closing (Special:Diff/747135294)

Why not? ⁓ Hello71 17:44, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

If you can't figure out why you can't close a topic you opened with your analysis of the result, then you have a real problem.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:47, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Although I am fairly confident that I said nothing controversial (by virtue of saying almost nothing at all), I suppose you are right. ⁓ Hello71 18:16, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

"Myth guy"?

Hi B, I saw Joshua Jonathan's comment here while looking into some disruption at Shirish Kunder. Do you know who Joshua might be referring to? He seems to be to be a campaign going on to slam the subject, for instance this edit where one of the IPs (the subject of the discussion above - US-based ISP: AT&T) seems to think the subject should be identified not as a director or writer, but as the husband of an Indian film actor. Very, very bizarre. Similar edits sprang up here (also US-based, AT&T). And looking a little earlier in the edit history I see this stuff, which is clearly POV what with the "supposedly". There appears to be something of a promotional campaign coming from an Indian IP editor, so I can see where AT&T guy might feel a twang of injustice, but he's really dialing it too far in the other direction. (His comments at the bottom of my talk page say a lot.) I've semi-ed the article for a few days per a request at the Noticeboard for India-related topics, and I may wind up getting involved if there's nobody at the article capable of explaining why he's wrong. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:42, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Also: [7] Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:49, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb: Yeah, I hate it when editors make cryptic remarks like that as if I can read their minds. The only account I could come up with was User:Abdulgoswami, but the IP's location doesn't match. In any event, I almost never get involved in IPs unless it's something I'm very familiar with. Otherwise, I let others handle it.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:36, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb: there is/was an editor who repeatedly removed the term "mythology" from Hinduism-related articles. I'm awfully bad a remembering the names of problematic editors (there's also this editor who's involved in Brahmin Buddhists and whatever; I've also repeatedly forgotten their name), but I hoped that others, with much better memories, would know who I mean with "myth-guy." It looks like Bbb23 is right with this user "Abdulgoswami." My apologies for making "cryptic remarks"; they're not being meant as such. Next time I'll say that I don't remember a name, and need help from others to identify the username. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 21:44, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks all. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:55, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Actually, one more thing, B, I have a whole write up on this with many diffs, showing relationships between the various IPs, but I'm not sure where to put it. (Careful!) The IPv6 user has been POV forcing across multiple IPs. On the one hand I could do an SPI case, but IP-based SPI cases tend to get kinda messy. How do I remember the IP? Anyway I'm not so sure it's as much sockpuppetry as just POVing from whatever IP he has handy at the moment. It seems more of a general admin thing, so I'm thinking ANI. Really what I'm hoping to accomplish is get someone to extend the page protection and have an admin look at the edits and figure out whether the guy is adhering to NPOV and educate him accordingly. I would have done some of this myself, but he seems unhappy with my service, and has made me involved by lobbing personal attacks that resulted in one of the IPs getting blocked. Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:33, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

SPI:Roshan.bhondekar

Hello Bbb23, I just notice you deleted Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Roshan.bhondekar which I opened earlier today so can I know the reason. Thank you – GSS (talk) 15:48, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

It was in the deletion basis. Your SPI, except for the alleged master who hasn't edited since 2011, is a duplicate of another SPI in which three of the four puppets have been CU-confirmed.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:53, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Oh Okey, I did not notice that Roshan.bhondekar is not active since 2011 and the other sock is already blocked. Thank you for your kind reply. GSS (talk) 16:41, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

WikiCup newsletter

Hi Bbb23- Based on this revert, should the recipient be removed from the newsletter list?--Godot13 (talk) 04:51, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

There are various subscriptions to publications on Wikipedia, and I tried once in the past to remove indefinitely blocked editors from those lists, but I had problems, so I gave up. Now, when I happen to see a delivery, I revert. If you want to take care of removing the user, great.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:03, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

If you add Category:Opted-out of message delivery to a talk page it will stop all MassMessage deliveries. — JJMC89 (T·C) 16:44, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate both pieces of advice. I may not be the right person to do anything to this particular user's page as it was their behavior toward me that factored significantly into the indefinite block...--Godot13 (talk) 20:09, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Klayman edits

Please refrain from deleting factual an informative content unless you have a Wikipedia policy based reason to do so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cerberus0 (talk • contribs) 19:58, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

For you information, here is Wikipedia policy on edit wars: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Edit_warring Note that you have already reverted twice. A third time will put you in violation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cerberus0 (talk • contribs) 20:06, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

And please note that you have reinserted essentially the same material four times. --Weazie (talk) 22:40, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Can you please semi protect the talk page too?

Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/RickinBaltimore. Thanks. Lourdes 14:21, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

I understand the reason why you think it should be protected, but I'd rather not if I can avoid it because it shuts the IPs out of the process entirely.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:25, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Sure. Thanks. Lourdes 14:29, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Frauke Petry

I don't understand your decision to semi-protect the article. Please explain why you don't act against the behaviour of User:Tataral to delete sourced material by the BBC and Reuters, to edit-war against several others and to slander me and attack me personally. Not to mention the previous, obviously biased block against me. Do you act here to support a certain agenda or political position?--Gerry1214 (talk) 18:42, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

2602:306:3357:BA0:0:0:0:0/64

• 2602:306:3357:BA0:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

Hello Bbb23,

If you remember back when you blocked 66.87.77.21 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) for admin noticeboard abuse. They appear to be back with this IP range, which has been blocked many times in the past, so this may be a pretty long-term issue here. Since you were the last admin to block the /64 IP range, could you please take a look into this? Thanks! 2607:FB90:A481:CB89:0:37:7F55:7201 (talk) 21:55, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Have you been too nice and sweet?

Hey, Beeb, considering the contribs here, especially the page moves, do you think a two-week block for socking is enough? Looks like NOTHERE to me. Also, do you mind if I delete Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ms Sarah Welch, which one of the moves created? It doesn't seem to be doing any good. PS, I just noticed the Spaceman asking about it above. Bishonen | talk 05:13, 5 November 2016 (UTC).

As you can see above, I've now deleted the Sarah Welch redirect. I wrestled with the block duration of the master. Other than the obnoxious attitude once Sarah filed the SPI, neither account had any blocks or even much in the way of complaints on their Talk pages, IIRC. Instinctively, I felt like the block should nonetheless be indefinite, but I do far more indefinite blocks of masters on a first offense than other members of the SPI team, so I was reluctant to give in to my instincts. A lot of people go ballistic when they're blocked or at least "found out", so I discounted that part. My two-week block does not prevent you from blocking the account indefinitely as NOTHERE, though. You aren't permitted to unblock or reduce the duration without my permission, but you don't need my permission to increase it. It doesn't happen often, at least not immediately, but I don't have a problem with it if that's what you think is warranted.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:37, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

A couple of questions

1. Are you vehement that this isn't LX?
2. For my education (as this is what I was thinking of doing when I got the ping and before I saw your actions - moving back and deleting the Sarah Welch SPI title) is it practice to leave even disruptive sock move titles of spi pages under the names of editors in good standing as a redirect? (I think I've deleted such a move title once before and won't do that again if that isn't the correct procedure). cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 03:42, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

I should have deleted the Sarah Welch redirect. I've done so. There are different kinds of "unrelated" findings, which depend on all sorts of factors. Some of them are more conclusive than others. A simple example (would that most cases were simple) is the two accounts are consistently editing from legitimate ISPs from different continents over a long period of time. It's hard to classify each unrelated finding, and I don't usually do so because it invites more such problematic analyses. So, think of this as a bit of a favor to you because of the respect I have for your behavioral analyses in these cases. The Yoyi ling unrelated finding isn't absolute. Sorry I can't be of more help.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:30, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

ok, thanks, in this case the refuting text (on being LX) sounds all too familiar and I also agree with Smsarmad that the more these discussions happened, the greater the behavioral link. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 13:56, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Universidad Empresarial

Are you kidding? You erase an edition I worked on for 2 hours, with all related links? I think erasing someone else contribution, is not a fair use of been a wiki editor!Taesulkim (talk) 16:54, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

You are a SPA with an agenda. So far, I have seen nothing of value you have added to this encyclopedia.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:56, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	For your great work over at SPI. Enjoy this and keep up the good work :) Class455 (talk) 16:04, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Class455, and thanks also for highlighting the block notice problem (it's related to an SPI script but I hadn't noticed it before). I'm seeing if I can get it fixed.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:55, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Any chance you could look...

Hi B, this guy is giving off bad vibes. He's doing stuff like slapping block templates on blocked users,[8] fixing sock templates[9] and speaking in riddles and dodging questions of prior experience.[10][11] With three days of experience he's familiar with WP:FILMPLOT? Smells fishy. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:11, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb: More than fishy. You can see my warning on the user's Talk page. Unfortunately, if I follow the rules strictly, it would be tough to block the user as a sock, even though in a sense that's exactly what he is. I told him I'd monitor his edits. It'd be nice if you could do the same.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:17, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Saturday night, drunk and bored ...

... not me, though, but Evlekis. Tonight's obvious socks, so far, are Special:Contributions/Thomas Brownfingers.W and Special:Contributions/1wayToBeCool, but as usual there might be more of them lurching in the shadows... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 20:53, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Everyone always beats me to it. Good thing we have so many administrators who are quick on the uptake.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:20, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

User:IQ125

Hey Bbb23, I understand that you would find the whole business with this user to be tiresome. I can walk away from the change that I was proposing to the article in question - it really isn't important. What concerns me is the user's attitude. His/her approach of reverting, deleting, and ignoring an administrator is a bad sign for someone who had been editing for three years. But it seems to have worked for him. Any thoughts on how to deal with him/her? Ground Zero | t 14:07, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

I sympathize. The user has significant attitude problems and I came close to blocking them for reasons other than edit-warring, but at the point we reached, it would have been a slightly messy block, so I let it go, at least for now. If you want to pursue the language issue, which, frankly, isn't that a big a deal to really warrant your time, I would chose other methods of dispute resolution given that IQ125 refuses to engage with you on the Talk page. Otherwise, your only avenue for the conduct problems is ANI, and you'd have to make a strong case that this isn't an isolated incident. Best of luck.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:16, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Okay. I'm not in a good position to pursue the matter of the user's behaviour, so I will let it go. Thanks for your time. Ground Zero | t 15:06, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

How fishing?

[12] Tivandir2 explicitly stated that he had interacted with me in the past, which means he is somebody's sockpuppet. WP:NOTFISHING defines fishing as "to check an account where there is no credible evidence to suspect sockpuppetry" (my emphasis), but the evidence that sockpuppetry is taking place (a confession) is overwhelming in this case. Do you mean thatI should just ask Mr rnddude and Tivanir2 if they are the same person? Or open a new SPI under the name of the sockmaster that the puppet appeared to be claiming to be? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:18, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

No. It was the most wishy-washy case I've seen opened in a while. Might be so-and-so. No, might be this other so-and-so. Well, he's gotta be someone's sock. We don't open cases like that. You're supposed to suspect sock puppetry of a specific master and connect the alleged sock to that master with persuasive evidence. You didn't even come close to doing that. It was almost as if you were musing about the possibilities as you went along. Sorry to be blunt, but you asked.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:22, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

But you accepted another case just like it three weeks ago, with the only difference being that while in that case the user was denying sockpuppetry allegations, here the user (accidentally) admitted to having another account. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:54, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Wait, I was honestly considering not publicly posting my (later) suspicion that it might be Mr rnddude because that might discourage CU -- are you saying I would have been right to do so? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:56, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Independently of anything you do, I have discretion to run a CU. In the other case, there were things about the case that grabbed my interest, so I checked. In this instance, no, and again, I am not saying you should or should have opened another case involving this same account.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:19, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

I really don't mind I you run it, it will show either my phone or my comp and will be really quick to disprove. I find it actually sort of amusing. Tivanir2 (talk) 16:08, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Suspicous user

Could you take a look at Special:Contributions/Lenpritanda? It looks likely to me that they are a sock of someone who clearly knows how to game the system - random edits to reach autoconfirmed, then first of all recreated an article as a redirect: [13] followed today by adding spammy content to it. Thanks SmartSE (talk) 17:12, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

@Smartse: This may take some time. It looks to be a rather large farm.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:03, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks for looking. SmartSE (talk) 19:58, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

You can count them at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lenpritanda.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:59, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Excellent. Plenty of sweeping up to do! SmartSE (talk) 21:14, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Evlekis ...

... is at it again, even though it's only Thursday. Obvious sock Dancing Drake was nust blocked, and Special:Contributions/Goldfish 6 finger is with all probability also Evlekis: created last Sunday, the day after he lost a few socks, "finger" in the name, and seems to be following med around tonight; all other edits by that editor are also vandalism, BTW, so E seems to be in vandalism mode right now. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 20:03, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

• It was indeed Evlekis, but is no more, since the account has been blocked. But there might be more of them... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 20:15, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
• ... and the third one tonight is Bin Laden Was Innocent, who's also blocked but might yield some IP-addresses, if you feel it's worth looking at it. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 21:18, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Email

I just got an email from MIKEL S. SARWONO reading "Don't nominate Senyuiedzorn Awusi Adadevoh for deletion." Is there a link to DKRJ? Thanks, GAB^gab 16:32, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

The accounts are  Unrelated.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:48, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

I've had 2 emails from him but not about this. Doug Weller talk 21:33, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Your revert of my edit

Hi, even if you think you have to get involved in that section - and I see absolutely no reason to so, multiple users modifying working lists is a standard procedure and cyberpower678 clearly knows how to revert edits - it would have been nice to keep my reply in. Anyway, cyberpower678 reverted your edit, done. --mfb (talk) 00:41, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins

Hello,

Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:32, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Malicious SPI

I note that you recently rejected the malicious SPI complaint against me, for which I thank you. Is it possible to get that and the other two such SPI complaints deleted completely? I cite as a precedent that a similar complaint against Andy Dingley was deleted from the record sometime around March of this year. --Elektrik Fanne 12:27, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Your opinion is requested

Hi. Can you offer your opinion on which photo is better in this discussion? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 02:14, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Do you mind taking a look at Stephen Barrett?

I think I may have been a little hasty in reverting an IP on the article, but I really don't know what's going on with their claim. I'm not in the best of moods to be sorting it out, do you mind taking a look at it? Zupotachyon (talk) 05:11, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Also with the removal of the logo at WTIC-FM. Sorry about this. Zupotachyon (talk) 05:14, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Request for comment on ANI thread involving you

Your name, based on a warning you issued eight months ago, has been repeatedly invoked in an ANI thread.[14]

If you posted some clarification as to whether you think recent actions would constitute a violation of the warning, and if so whether your warning is still in effect (if you yourself have forgotten about it then the answer is probably "no"), that might almost instantly clear the issue. I read (pronounced like "reed", not "red") your warning as applying to "the immediate future", and I have no idea if Burnintruthesky repeatedly flouted your warning or if this is a case of throwing mud in someone's face for something that happened eight months ago and was never mentioned again.

Either way, if you think Burnintruthesky deserves to be blocked, you should block him, and if you think your warning is no longer in effect, specifying that would probably make things a lot calmer.

Best,

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:13, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

A new user right for New Page Patrollers

Hi Bbb23.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins).MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Please answer ALL my questions then here, I have to understand since I want to avoid such in the future

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.

---

Hi, I read through WP:NPA again and I found nothing there I could have been accused, so please make me understand how this mechanism is working. Please note - that's why I did not appeal of raise another incident - that my primary goal is to UNDERSTAND, since I am struggling all the time to keep the rules of Wikipedia, but it seems something is wrong

(1) EdJohnston's made a warning, although also in that report of mine nothing complied with WP:NPA, and I warned him also about this, on the other hand he missed many other information I told him later, he did not even read or remembered the content

(2) The diff here you shown did not contain any attack or anything that would comply with WP:NPA, so you cannot argue I did not take seriously a warning that anyway was based on no evidence. I just reacted on the factual matter and I pinpointed the users bad faith, provocative behavior that is permanent since almost 3 months

Question A: If you disagree, please exactly quote what from the diff complies with WP:NPA or what is considered to be an attack, since then I want to understand how this mechanism is working, it is prohibited to describe a negative behavior of an other user?

Question B: How is that possible that an ANI complain is closed without hearing the other party, I've never met of such procedure? Why I could not express i.e. this opinions of mine and the demonstration why the reported - anyway truncated, directly selected without proper context - diffs are not fulfilling the claims, attack or any violation of WP:NPA?

(3): I have the feeling that if anyone consideres something as an "attack", even when the person is not mentioned or not even affected or directed but he considers this despite, in case with a vicious aim he wants to compromiate an other user, the subject can easily compose a bunch of diffs and the busy Administrators could easily judge quickly without proper investigation of the validity of the complain.

Question C: What are my options if I see from an other editor that he's primary activity in WIkipedia to check other users contributions and immediately persisting trolling on talk pages, reverts, provocations, generating incident and this goes over more months? (I see WP:NOTHERE or WP:I just don't like it not enough and I don't know any rule that would sanction this)

Question D: In the case mentioned in the previous question, if I recognize, condemn, describe the activity, why I have to deal with incidents and complaints of incivility or personal attacks as an innocent victim? (i.e. The mistake would be I did not earlier reported such incidents, despite there is not an exact rule ot name such activity?)

Question series E:

- If I describe literally a negative activity of a user, why it considered as an attack? Does it matter if it is true or not? Will that mean that nothing can be named on his name and under the pretext of personal sensitivity it is considered as an attack?

- i.e. if I tell "EDITOR A is beating an old lady in the street", just because I described an activity that is true, it really happened and it is verifiable, am I to be condemned because my proper description points EDITOR A negatively?

- Not EDITOR A iwould be guilty for what he commited, but the one who name it?

Thank You Very Much for your time and clarification!(KIENGIR (talk) 15:04, 16 November 2016 (UTC))

(tps) @KIENGIR: I only had to read the first paragraph here to find personal attacks meriting a block. To be honest, if you can't see how calling someone stupid and uneducated to their face is personal attack, I don't have much hope that you will ever understand WP:NPA. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 15:25, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

@DoRD:,

ok this is the problem, could you show where "calling someone stupid and uneducated" is in this quote?

"I hope I do not have sank deep to Kindergarten level and to manifest in a such a way that not more than 70 IQ is needed to distuingish a CITY from a COUNTY, a FROG from a CAT, etc."

Thank You!

PS: I am scientist with a Master Degree with extraordinary comprehesion capabilities, in an advanced way regarding flawless logical inference and modal statements, so I have to reject this statement of yours "I don't have much hope that you will ever understand".(KIENGIR (talk) 15:43, 16 November 2016 (UTC))

User:KIENGIR is not very polite after his unblock either: "Which of these two are not understood, as I see you are a first level English speaker, should I try French or you prefer other langauges? If you wish to communicate with me, feel free to wite on my personal page, there we may discuss and answer of all your questions, I am intending to finish here! Mercy!" from here: [15] 123Steller (talk) 00:04, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

@123Steller:, and why don't you also link the cause of this answer, that another user misused my name, situation and disregarded my wish to communicate with me in my personal page (4 times!!!) and he tried to influenced another discussion although I had no business with and he accused and defamated me falsely? Where is your objectivity? On what ground you are intervening in my other matters, you start again a tracking presecution or similar? What is your goal with this, does it have any connection with good faith to again present truncated diffs without any prelude? Could you imagine how many incident I could have raised if I would make steps of many impoliteness I received?(KIENGIR (talk) 00:09, 18 November 2016 (UTC))

You are a valuable contributor and I am against any new additional sanctions against you, but I think you should admit that your tone is not always the most suitable. 123Steller (talk) 00:19, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

@123Steller:, thank you at least that you acknowledge that I'm struggling for quality contributions and please understand if I perceive continous willful provocations I can be sarcastic or harsher, but no violation of WP:NPA. I am sorry that the admin still did not answer to my questions, you see I really struggle to keep the rules...(KIENGIR (talk) 00:28, 18 November 2016 (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.

Apologies

For editing the sockpuppet investigation archive - I wasn't aware this was a problem, will file ordinary investigations in the future. -Darouet (talk) 22:20, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks but not to worry.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:58, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Alright. Do you need anything more for that case? -Darouet (talk) 03:29, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Beals back on Commons

See User_talk:Ian.thomson#Beals back on Commons. It's been a while. Same ceiling fan as always... lNeverCry 06:08, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Hamlet94 and Webbjones

Thanks for your action on this. It's greatly appreciated. I wasn't going to touch the articles again or consider starting the SPI until the ANI was finished. Meters (talk) 22:30, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Evlekis seems to have ...

... found a new IP-range, so a CU-check on Doctor Harold Shipman might be worthwhile. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 20:20, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Bbb23, they popped up in one of my checks. My CU log will show the range, or you can email me.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:58, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

@Ponyo: Aren't you already handling this yourself? Is there something you need from me? Or do you just want me to share the misery of looking at Evlekis socks?--Bbb23 (talk) 00:22, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Nope, I'm good! I will take one for the team on this one.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 00:32, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

I have a special place for those invoices.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:03, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Checkuser question

Hi Bbb23. Is it acceptable to as for a checkuser on an newly created SPA whose first edit was a !Vote in an ongoing AfD discussion, or does a SPI need to created? -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:33, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Please don't ask these kinds of hypotheticals. Who is the user?--Bbb23 (talk) 15:23, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for being vague. The account is IP 2605:E000:6303:A500:AC68:6E8D:F045:54D6 and the !Vote was at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Tunberg (artist). I think it might be a case of Cstwct simply forgetting to log in because Cstwct has admitted they have done that before. Cstwct has acknowledged they are IP 2606:6000:618B:300:3C7C:D15:E961:6AF9, and implied that they might be either IP 2606:6000:618B:300:D889:B60A:74C7:B4D2 or IP 2606:6000:618b:300:e07c:235b:9cfc:9dc9, or perhaps even both in a post at User talk:Marchjuly#Tunberg's page -- I did not vote twice.... FWIW, Cstwct has stated they are not IP 2605:E000:6303:A500:AC68:6E8D:F045:54D6 on my user talk, so maybe it is another person. -- Marchjuly (talk) 17:05, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) CheckUser is not possible on IPs. If you think the user is vote-stacking by logging out, please compile evidence in an SPI report. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:07, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

User:Ivanvector - I think that the real policy is that CheckUser, for reasons of policy, doesn't look at the IP addresses, not that they can't, because how Checkuser matches sockpuppets is precisely by seeing that they have the same IP addresses. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:14, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: bad wording on my part. CheckUsers are not allowed to use technical results to publicly connect an IP address to a named account, which is what Marchjuly appears to be asking. I suppose they could connect the IP addresses to each other, but I don't think that would be useful. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:23, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

User:Marchjuly - I think that you may be over-worrying. Figuring out exactly who the real people are behind an AFD in order to get a perfect numeric vote is very seldom one of the tasks for which Checkuser is needed. AFD isn't a numeric vote, as you probably know. A good AFD closer knows about shifting IP addresses and failure to log in. Most AFD closers will typically discount unregistered editors anyway, unless they are unregistered editors who have reasonably long histories to establish that they are editors and not just logged-out users. I don't think that you need to obsess about how to tell who are behind the IP addresses. In the rare case that the AFD closer makes the mistake of treating the AFD as a numeric vote and counting shifting IP addresses more than once, that is one of the things that deletion review is for. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:12, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: Thanks for the info. and the clarification. However, I agree with Robert's assessment above and will just drop the matter. Sorry Bbb23 for bringing some unnecessary drama to your user talk. -- Marchjuly (talk) 17:24, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: Yes, you're right. Much Ado About Nothing. -- Marchjuly (talk) 17:25, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

MariaJaydHicky

Special:Contributions/Whatisluv2017 is considered a MariaJaydHicky sock. 115.164.181.30 (talk) 02:48, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Have you forgotten or something? (I'm the same person of 115.164.181.30) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.164.218.52 (talk) 01:57, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Maynooth University project

Hello Bbb23. I will ask the students to add information to their user pages regarding their participation in the project. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 07:36, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

@AugusteBlanqui: Thanks. Still one question. There are two accounts mentioned at the SPI. QuornNugget (talk · contribs · count) is on your list of students, but I don't believe Jedwardisthebomb (talk · contribs · count) is. Did I miss it or what?--Bbb23 (talk) 16:59, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

@Bbb23: Yes, Jedwardisthebomb (talk · contribs · count) is a class tutor. Apologies for the time this has taken.AugusteBlanqui (talk) 20:04, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Bbb23. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

32.218.32.0/20

You rangeblocked on this range in mid-June because of an unexplained reason due to CheckUser beyond being that of an already banned user (of course I don't expect the reason to be revealed); the 3m block has expired and they've returned to bouncing various IP's and generally being rude and belligerent about their edits like they were the last time (for instance, this edit where they referred me to go to grammar school, and this one where they were plain rude to an IP and then it took several edits on my part to prove the subject's term of service to source to their satisfaction). They now seem to be bouncing past 32.218.32 now so I'm not sure what to do, and trying to work with them on a talk page is impossible due to their bouncing. Can you look at this? Thank you. Nate • (chatter) 04:49, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

@Mrschimpf: Could you please get me additional examples of disruptive editing by the IPs? The examples you gave, honestly, aren't all that bad; some are even correct. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:01, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Question about a web host block

As you can see from this block log, you blocked the IP range 89.249.73.128/25 as a web host. I had previously blocked it for a shorter time for block evasion. It has now come to my attention that an editor (not the one who led to the block, and as far as I know perfectly innocent) who used to use IP addresses in that range then switched to IP addresses in the range 89.249.73.0/25. That makes me wonder whether the range blocked is too small, and the whole of 89.249.73.0/24 should be included. Certainly it is the same ISP, but I can't tell whether the whole range is used for web hosting or not. Since I get the impression that you know more about this sort of thing than I do, would you be willing to have a look at it? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk)

 Done.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:36, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:45, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Suspicious user

Could you take a look at FriendsForever2016 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)? They recreated Marcia Reynolds that is fairly obviously undisclosed paid editing. The account has the usual pattern of contribs prior to page creation and they clearly know what they are doing. Based off the article and the username it could be Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/FlowerStorm48 but all of those are stale. Cheers SmartSE (talk) 20:38, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the purpose would be. I'm not familiar with the SPI. As you say, it's stale, so running a check isn't likely to gain anything. Finally, the account hasn't edited in over two months.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:38, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

It reminded me of the behaviour of this user you checked a few weeks ago. It's obviously not related to that, but the minor edits of random articles, followed by reposting a deleted article previously written by undisclosed paid editors, made me suspect that this isn't the only account that they have used recently. I should have been clearer about the username - a substantial number of the usernames you found at the FlowerStorm48 SPI were two words followed by a year, like this account. Obviously we won't be able to link it to that SPI but I feel that a check is justified to try and find the master. SmartSE (talk) 22:26, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

@Smartse: FriendsForever2016 and SunShades (talk · contribs · count) are  Confirmed to each other. They were both created on July 7, 2016, within minutes of each other, and both stopped editing in September. I couldn't find any other accounts, though, so I'm not sure it gets us very far. Nonetheless, I blocked them both without tags.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:57, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Hmm. Well at least I wasn't completely off, buy yes I agree that doesn't get us very far this time. Thanks anyway. SmartSE (talk) 17:47, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Block evasion

Bbb23, I'm not sure if you can recall a blocking sanction that you imposed on 21 February 2016, in follow up to this SPI investigation, and the block-evasion. Anyhow, the user has been editing again. Is this normal after being blocked for sock-puppetry and their block expiring? Wes Mouse ^Talk 22:13, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it's normal. If there's evidence the user is socking again, that's a different story. Why would I block an account for one week if I didn't want them to edit again?--Bbb23 (talk) 23:50, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Ah thanks for explaining that to me. I've never seen a sock be blocked for a week before, and then return to editing duties. It threw into confusion, hence why I thought I would ask. I've been a Wikipedian for 5 years and still find it fascinating when I learn something new. Thanks once again. Wes Mouse ^Talk 01:53, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

ANI yesterday

Hi Bbb23, thanks again for closing that ANI report against me. Yesterday, I saw another suspicious report, resulting in two IP addresses being blocked. The pattern of providers and geolocations look familiar, and one of the IP users in the April ANI linked by Ritchie333 is one I have reported before. Kuru helpfully linked the report of a familiar character you blocked some time ago. Are LiveRail & Co. still with us? Any more sleepers? Burninthruthesky (talk) 09:48, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Speedy delete for blocked user

Hi You reverted my speedy delete for blocked user on Darvas-Laroche House saying that it wasn't applicable, I think i may have missed something could you explain please. thanks--Domdeparis (talk) 15:50, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Just because a user is blocked as a sock doesn't mean their created articles can be deleted. It's a chain. First you have a blocked sock. Subsequently, another sock is created and that sock creates an article. That article can be deleted per WP:CSD#G5 ("This applies to pages created by banned or blocked users in violation of their ban or block").--Bbb23 (talk) 15:55, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Another sock?

Check out User:Samantha9798 vis-a-vis User:Judtojud and User:Tyree999 ... same focus on Cat:Wikipedia people => Cat:English Wikipedia people, at least —David Eppstein (talk) 16:32, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Blocked. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:00, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Your edits to Sheldon Solow

Hi, could you explain the deletion of the entirety of this section? Its a foundation that he created himself, in his name. Its widely mentioned and deserves inclusion in the entry. What makes you think it's not notable? Bangabandhu (talk) 16:37, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

"widely mentioned"? A couple of blogs. It's self-serving. The first source is a puff piece. The second source mentions pretty much only that it's permanently closed, and the third is a small mention among a whole bunch of others in a list. If you could find reliable sources that discuss the impact the foundation has had on "art and architectural studies", that might at least provide some context and some justification for including the material. If you disagree with my analysis, please take it to the article Talk page. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:06, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Calculus I

Er...I'm not blocked or banned? Would you mind checking the page history again? Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 21:41, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Oops. I've restored it and undid the AfD closure.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:25, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much! =) Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 22:31, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

My gratitude and thanks

I'd thank you for every edit you've done, but that would be hella a lot of notifications and I thought that would annoying. So I am here to just say thank you with the socks on Protests against Donald Trump! I owe you my gratitude and thanks. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 23:01, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:49, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Decreek(Solo artist)

why is it not not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject? How can i solve this problem? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guyj7878 (talk • contribs) 22:10, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

I see you've created a draft version. That's the best way to go.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:23, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Category:Catholic cathedrals by church

I am curious why you declined CSD with a reversion on Category:Catholic cathedrals by church. The creator has renamed it by way of creating a new category. Is it your recommendation that we should go to CfD instead? Elizium23 (talk) 19:59, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

A3 is for articles not categories.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:00, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I wanted to know why the editions on Catholic cathedrals were reverted? If you really check that in the discussion it was clarified that because the Catholic church has 24 particular churches, it was convenient to classify them so, and not as separate churches which is a common mistake--Warairarepano&Guaicaipuro (talk) 20:03, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Michael Danielov

My apologies I thought that as the creator was a banned sock that the article was eligible for speedy deletion. Theroadislong (talk) 21:30, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't work that way. There has to have been another account that was blocked prior to the creation of the page. In this instance, I blocked the four accounts at the same time, so any pages they created will have to either remain or be deleted through an applicable speedy criterion or another deletion process.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:34, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Date changing IPv6 editor

Hi! I saw you blocked 2602:306:B852:1360:B08B:2F2C:E773:4F1E for 72 hours. It looks like the same user has been on many addresses from 2602:306:B852:1360/64 as there are similar patterns of date-changing edits from the following:

• Special:Contributions/2602:306:B852:1360:4895:B340:88D0:141C
• Special:Contributions/2602:306:B852:1360:53:4AF4:4716:D4CE
• Special:Contributions/2602:306:B852:1360:AD03:9623:6881:DC8F
• Special:Contributions/2602:306:B852:1360:EC28:FE7D:9F43:B461
• Special:Contributions/2602:306:B852:1360:9490:5E96:48B:8AC4
• Special:Contributions/2602:306:B852:1360:78A8:4374:ADCD:E1D6 - 93 edits today

Is it technically possible to block the whole /64? This seems like it will be necessary due to the way IPv6 ranges are allocated by ISPs to end-users. Ttwaring (talk) 00:16, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:33, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Cool... understood

Special:Diff/751503109. Lourdes 03:30, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Erm?

I'm sure you were trying to be helpful, but your edit summary made about as much sense to me as advanced calculus would. Can you explain? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 22:00, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

@Dweller: (laughing) Sorry about that. You can only add to a case by reopening it. If you don't know how to do that, then you should follow the instructions at WP:SPI. The SPI and archive pages are interdependent on each other, and if you don't hew to the correct structure, archiving won't work. Substantively, I'm assuming you're saying that you believe that those two IPs are operated by Internetwikier and you want them tagged accordingly. First, IPs are generally not tagged. However, if you want them tagged, you can do it yourself. If you need help on how to tag them, I or an SPI clerk can help you. I hope I've beaten that down to simple arithmetic.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:15, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll just leave it as simple duck blocks. Happy to play whack a mole. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:15, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Help...

Hi Bbb23. I said apologies for my mistakes in an investigation and explain myself. [[16]].

Today I saw that you pointed like "unrealited" I'm new in Wikipedia and I would like to ask you if you can help me with that... What is the meaning?? Thanks for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patricia.martinh (talk • contribs) 18:44, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

SPI investigation

"To open an investigation (or case), enter the user name (or if there isn't one, IP address) of the oldest-created account (the "sockmaster"), or the previous case name, in the box below, then click "Submit". Note: Do not include "User:" or any other commentary."

The oldest created account is the IP address, I'm sure that is common for the IP to exist and then create a user to bolster their position. Instructions followed to a tee in regards to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/78.32.117.47. Cotton2 (talk) 15:03, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

An IP address does not have a creation date. The key phrase is "enter the user name (or if there isn't one, IP address)" (bold added).--Bbb23 (talk) 15:06, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

(or if there isn't one, IP address) of the oldest-created account the IP account is created when used to edit the article. It's the oldest. Cotton2 (talk) 15:18, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

You're being obtuse. There's a difference between creation and use. A named account is created. An IP is not. I have nothing more to say. Just remember in the future not to open a case with the IP as the master if there is a named account. That said, had you opened the case properly, I still would have closed it with no action. In other words, I didn't close it purely for procedural reasons.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:25, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

You're being obtuse. The oldest account is the sockpuppet whether a named account or an IP account. And the instructions clearly ask for the oldest editor, who is the master. Cotton2 (talk) 15:33, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

I know Bbb23 said he wasn't going to respond anymore, maybe a different prospective will help. An IP address is not an account it is only used to attribute any edits for someone who edits without logging into an account. An SPI should only be listed with an IP as the master if there is no named account. Looking at the SPI above, there is no sockpuppetry there. They edited first as an IP and then created an account, there is nothing wrong with that, I did that when I first started editing. I see many editors do that, they edit an article with an IP and then decide to make an account. There is no attempt to deceive anyone into thinking two different people are saying the same thing. The SPI was closed properly and you added it incorrectly as you made it under an IP when there was a named account included. - GB fan 16:13, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory

Okay, so how likely do you think it is that OneFourZero was created by Essex-1799 to bolster his 3RR case? When I filed the SPI, I thought the similarities were a little too convenient. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:32, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

What you thought might be true is not. However, my check opened up a can of worms. I need to sort it out, and it may take some time.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:01, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

OK. I'm sympathetic to your extra work. :) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:54, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Also, I just noticed sock accounts in the SPI edit history. Any chance you could look into those? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:34, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Actually, those might have just been some crank who wanted to disrupt a bunch of SPIs. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:43, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

That's correct - no need to check them.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:01, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

• @Cyphoidbomb:. The following accounts are  Confirmed to each other:
  • Inside the Valley (talk · contribs · count)
  • Charles Turing (talk · contribs · count)
  • Essex-1799 (talk · contribs · count)
• Inside the Valley is the master. Blocked and tagged.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:06, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

WHAT?!! Not Charles Turing! Shit... I'm running out of quality editors. He was good. I had faith in him. Why did he have to sock?! Awww man... Can of worms indeed. This really sucks. I'm already in a bad position of playing babysitter to most of India. This doesn't help. Aughhh. Thanks for the efforts, B. Will this be logged somewhere central like at an SPI for Inside the Valley? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:15, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

You know what's ironic considering Essex's allegations at the TRUEV140 case? the person who operated these three accounts made a lot of logged out edits. I don't plan to create an SPI. I usually don't unless there's a relatively large number of accounts. Doesn't SpacemanSpiff help out a lot, or does he deal with other kinds of Indian socks?--Bbb23 (talk) 20:26, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

I've largely lost track of the film industry socks and have also been away for a while. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 16:21, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

B, I've still got a problem. Essex and TRUEV140 were engaged in an edit war across a number of articles, and it seems to have persisted with IP editors. One article is Kerala Varma Pazhassi Raja (film). The problem is that TRUEV140 doesn't have clean hands and so far the edit-warring case has been unaddressed. He should defs be sanctioned, but there's also the issue of these other socks popping up. OneFourZero was one of them, but you said they weren't related to TRUEV140. Another ducky one V4VICTORY has arisen, but I expect that's probably a decoy, perhaps a sock of whomever was behind OneFourZero. Is there any way you could look into those last two to determine a connection, and is there any way to check into TRUEV140 to see what other accounts they've been using? It seems odd that a person who's so edit-warry and who edits while logged out all the time (according to Essex) would not have other accounts. Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:27, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb: TRUEV140 (talk · contribs · count) and V4VICTORY (talk · contribs · count) are  Confirmed, blocked, and tagged. I'd already checked TRUEV140 for "other accounts". I reported on a possible couple at the SPI. That's all I found.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:38, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Okay, was unaware of the earlier check. My fault. Thanks mate. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:43, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

User:Hydloc009

Hello bb23 and SpacemanSpiff, you guys blocked Hydloc009 recently for SPI. He has now started canvassing against me on his talkpage. Can you please look into this? He is a very disruptive editor, who is only busy fighting with other users. I pinged you two on his talkpage, but he reverted citing "uninvolved editor & personal attack". This guy does not seem to slow down at all. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 21:37, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Possible sock puppet editing

Hi I was wondering if you could advise me as i have a doubt about whether this is sock puppetry or COI editing and whether it should be notified or not. The page Gary Russell Libby who is very closely linked to the UFCOTA was created by User talk:Prgradassistant.ufcota I advised him about COI editing and asked him to make a disclosure as his name shows that he is clearly linked to the university of Florida. He removed the COI tag that I had placed on the article I reverted and asked the question again and still no reply. Since then 2 new IP address editors have started editing and both IPs are identified as coming from the University of Florida. I left a COI notification on both but neither have replied or commented. Is there any action to be taken?

• User talk:Prgradassistant.ufcota
• User talk:128.227.136.230
• User talk:128.227.110.203

Thanks for your help Domdeparis (talk) 09:27, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

There is now a 3rd IP editor from the University of Florida that is editing and has just removed the COI tag.

• User talk:128.227.251.29 --Domdeparis (talk) 16:58, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

• I don't normally get involved in a possible socking issue unless there's more than one named account. As for the COI, that really isn't my area of expertise, but you could always take it to WP:COIN if you wished. The best I could do if the disruption continues is to protect the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:04, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks for the advice. --Domdeparis (talk) 17:28, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

• Hi the COI tag has been taken off again by another IP address user and of course no-one has replied to my questions. Would it be possible to semi-protect the page to stop IP users from editing? --Domdeparis (talk) 16:41, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

• there is now another named account that has removed the COI tag so I think this is a sockpuppet User talk:Cawooster --Domdeparis (talk) 17:02, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

The two accounts are very  Unlikely to be socks. However, they are more than likely meat puppets. I'm unwilling to block meat puppets outside an SPI. I don't guarantee they would be blocked, but if you want to see any action against them, you'll have to open a case.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:30, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

• Ok I understand but in that case would it be possible to semi protect the page and I'll deal with any vandalism by named users as it happens? Domdeparis (talk) 08:58, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/OccultZone/Archive#15_September_2016

Why is Special:Contributions/AmritasyaPutra not tagged with Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of OccultZone? On reading the case, it looked to complicated for the likes of me; is it something to do with that? Ugog Nizdast (talk) 08:35, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, the evidence was not clear enough to make the connection.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:45, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Edits made on IIM Nagpur Page.

Dear Bbb23,

This message is in reference to the edits made by me on wiki page : Indian Insitute of Management Nagpur

I spent about 5 hours on editing and collecting authentic data along with citations to make changes to the Page. Indian Institute of Management Nagpur is a new IIM which was set up in 2015 under the Aegis of Government of India. Yes, I understand that the page is new however it is not by any means any advertisement. I myself am a post graduate student of the institute.

The Indian Institutes of Management (IIMs) are a group of 20 public, autonomous institutes of management education and research in India.

They are well recognized in India and Abroad.

Also, the other new IIMs which were established along with IIM Nagpur don't have such issues. Please look at: Indian Insitute of Management Vizag

and also Indian Insitute of Management Amritsar

I am taking this opportunity to revert the page back to the last edit made by me.

Thank You for making wiki great :) I am overwhelmed by your wiki stats.

xlf3n newbie

Xlf3n (talk) 16:48, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Continued sockpuppetry of Phantasus Magician

Hello Bbb23. JamesBWatson suggested I could ask a CheckUser to block the IP behind Phantasus Magician, as they have recently created further user accounts (X-Skull (talk · contribs), V-Mort (talk · contribs), ETC!ETC! VIP (talk · contribs), which have all been blocked by admins for obviously connected edits bar the most recent (Cuddly-Wuddly (talk · contribs)). If there is an IP connected to these users, can you please look into blocking it so the user can stop creating accounts? As I understand it, you aren't necessarily able to disclose the IP or that you've blocked it, but if you could look into this, it would be much appreciated, as other admins have connected the accounts already by blocking them. Ordinarily I would file an SPI, but this user is a prolific editor and will probably make 10 or so more accounts by the time the SPI process is through. Thanks. Ss112 19:04, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

I suggest reopening the SPI.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:21, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Done. If you'd be able to take a look at it soon, it'd be much appreciated. Ss112 19:57, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Hi Bbb23, the IP 86.187.163.107 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is continuing their disruption over at Ruth Bader Ginsburg in addition to talk page vandalism. Just a heads up. -- LuK3 (Talk) 13:51, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

FYSA, this is the latest incarnation of Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Best known for IP. I've extended and blocked without TPA, since he's always going to do the "imaginary newbie" routine. Kuru (talk) 15:40, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

@Kuru: The technical stuff doesn't match the LTA page. The location is completely wrong. Am I missing something?--Bbb23 (talk) 15:45, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

He floats from range to range. Will e-mail you in a sec. Kuru (talk) 15:47, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

@Kuru: Very helpful. Thanks!--Bbb23 (talk) 16:16, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

R1a

Hi Bbb23. Can you have a look at [17] and [18]? Same editor? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:45, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Do you believe the edits by either account are disruptive?--Bbb23 (talk) 20:48, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Never mind. I figured it out (not a subject area I'm familiar with). Both blocked and tagged.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:15, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Maybe this ip diff is also involved. And yes, disruptive. The familiar smell of pov-pushing, using everything that looks like textual support. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:53, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Eddie

Why did you delete my edit about Jackie palmer stage school, because it is fact, he mentions it on James corden interview? Elykxila (talk) 11:19, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Allen Meadors

Can you run a CU on the sockmaster that has been plaguing that page please? The latest one is a sleeper that was created in March. Thanks! --Majora (talk) 19:47, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm not a mind reader. What account(s)?--Bbb23 (talk) 20:01, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

You already blocked it and protected the page. Not much more to do. Thank you. --Majora (talk) 20:03, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations/Ciaran olives

When you find a chance could you please check out Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations/Ciaran olives. 2602:306:3357:BA0:1856:CD51:E7BC:9F20 (talk) 16:58, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Are you saying

that ALL Men's rights activists (in the Men's rights movement) contest claims by feminists that men have greater power, privilege or advantage than women and argue that modern feminism has gone too far and has harmed men's rights. ? Carptrash (talk) 02:47, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Tere Naam 2 recreated

Hello Bbb23, I noticed you deleted a previous article as created by a blocked user. Unfortunately the log message doesn't mention the exact sockmaster, so it's hard to tell the background of this article's history and if it's worthwhile to look into a SPI. Anyways, just fyi: a new version of the article (a blatant copyvio) has been recreated by a newly created account. GermanJoe (talk) 02:37, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

@GermanJoe: It turns out it wasn't the sockmaster I thought it was, but the account was a sock. Other previous socks had been blocked (not part of an SPI). I blocked this one and tidied things up tag-wise. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:53, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Giuliani misinformation

Listen Bbb23 Rudy Giuliani is an important figure in our country. He will be serving in our new presidential administration. The wikipedia page on him is filled with distortions and lies. I simply linked a page showing that the NYC murder rate dropped dramatically during his 8 year term (1994-2001). The facts are the facts, he lowered crime dramatically. This is vandalism? Now I am new to editing wikipedia so if I went about adding facts the wrong way, tell me the proper way to add those facts and I will do so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aceruss (talk • contribs) 04:04, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Not so new that you don't know how to subtly vandalize an article. I have requested that you be blocked. General Ization ^Talk 04:10, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

I tried to be reasonable. I put in FACTS that were verifiable and sources cited. I did this in good faith and you falsely accused me of vandalism and edited my contribution. Do it again and I will report you and request that you be blocked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aceruss (talk • contribs) 04:20, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

There is nothing reasonable about negating existing content to contradict its cited sources and then claiming only to have added new content. So long and good luck. General Ization ^Talk 04:23, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Bbb, would you consider reviewing the 31 hour block Materialscientist provided this editor last night? I personally think this kind of vandalism merits a longer block, if not indef (but of course it's not my call). General Ization ^Talk 17:09, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

You have trouble with the facts, Bbb23?, Wikipedia's policy is stick to the facts, so I ask what was your reason for deleting my factual paragraph?```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aceruss (talk • contribs) 04:14, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

What to do?

Hey there, so this guy has admitted to being Mriduls.sharma. He's been a pain throughout most of November. On the one hand my instinct is to suggest he take the standard offer, but he says that the Mriduls.sharma account is compromised, so I don't know what option that leaves him, other than to start a new account. There was some indication that Harry.singh12 was the older account, so maybe he could request an unblock there? I'm also not sure if he's just doing more trolling since he is sort of claiming he has stolen Krimuk90's account. Not sure what to make of that. Anyway, Krimuk90 was renamed, so I don't think that's a legit issue. Thoughts? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:23, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Sounds like total BS.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:55, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Ok Cyhoidbomb thanks for blocking me but one thing i wanted to tell you that my Mriduls.sharma account is compromised and i don't know it's password. Can i request the standard offer after 6 months from Harry.singh12. What can i do please answer my question? Regards Mriduls.sharma or Harry.singh12. You can Harry.singh12 as sockmaster account. 59.91.244.139 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:33, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Considering these deleted "contributions", I believe we can dispense with all assumption of good faith. Favonian (talk) 12:10, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Ah, perfect. Thanks Favonian. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:51, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Shall I move it?

I have PM, but don't want to cross a clerking line. Crow^Caw 21:38, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't know what you're referring to, but if it's moving an SPI, no, please leave it alone. Even admins aren't supposed to do moves.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:07, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigations

My bad. The lack of an edit summary in your reversion had me thinking that it was an accident. Can you please keep an eye on the IP? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:36, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm glad we resolved the problem.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:28, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Evelyn Lozada

Hi Bbb23. I hope everything is well with you. I just wanted to let you know that the IP keeps inserting the same unsourced or poorly-sourced BLP violations at the article and AIV does not seem to be responding. Best regards. Dr. K. 02:35, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

investigation protocol

Hi, new to the whole sock puppet thing so apologies if i'm doing it wrong. You recently blocked JP8077, and I'm pretty sure the same person is posting from another account. It's an IP address with no log-in (which I can give you), but I don't want to accuse if that's not the correct procedure. This account is using the same method and same kind of edits on similar pages. So can you let me know, what's the way to add that to the list of this person's aliases or can I just post the IP address here? Thanks Mramoeba (talk) 06:11, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Normally, you would reopen the case following the instructions at WP:SPI and list the IP as a suspected sock, along with your evidence in support of that allegation. I don't generally get involved with IPs directly, but if you want to tell me which IP you suspect, I will at least see if there's anything obvious I can tell you about whether you should or shouldn't reopen the case.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:52, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for that, the User is this one: User who is having a lot of edits reversed, marxist-leninist and communist edits, atheists categories etc. Thanks for looking. Mramoeba (talk) 13:59, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

You're the one reverting the IP. You'd have to show persuasive behavioral evidence connecting the master and the IP with diffs showing that they are doing the same things. FWIW, there is no previous reported history of the master editing with IPs.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:08, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes I reverted 2 edits as i've just recently rewritten a page that made DYK so I was watching it, it was only when I started looking that I saw lots of the edits this person did were being reversed by other editors. I came across your sockpuppet guy and I thought it looked like the same person because of the style of edits he did on Hitchens was exactly the same as he did on Aroup Chatterjee, the anti-catholic agenda, and then the marxist leninist edits elsewhere. It seemed like the same kind of inflammatory editing. To be honest I didn't keep notes as I don't really have the time. It just didn't look like a new account either. Anyway thanks for looking and thanks for the info Mramoeba (talk) 16:35, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Sockpuppet

V2478 sockpuppet of TRUEV140 (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TRUEV140). His last account FaVe123 was blocked on 3 Dec 2016, this account was created on 4 Dec 2016, first edit itself on Annan Thambi, a page frequently edited by the master. User is currently trying to auto-confirm his account for editing protected pages. Like the master, this account is also editing ONLY the box office sections of Malayalam movie articles, even the edit summaries are similar "adding sources and information", there are several instances were the master used "sources and information" in edit summary. And "V" along with some numerical is part of this username too. LineTrajectory (talk) 18:11, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

@LineTrajectory: Your post here is an odd thing for a brand new editor to do, but you are correct. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:35, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Restore Lavanya Nalli

@Bbb23: can you please restore the article Lavanya Nalli as a draft.--Satdeep Gill (talk • contribs 13:30, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

 Done.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:58, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Instead of just reverting, try explaining how things need to be done differently

Hi Bbb23,

Why not explain what needs to be done differently rather than revert wholesale like you just did on A Voice for Men? You've taken out edits of material interest (notably that AVfM lost whiteribbon.org to WR Australia) without evident reason in your edit message, nor have you added anything to the applicable talk page. In fact, I added a section there to alert people to what I had done, why and to draw to attention my specific CoI.

Note that the article in question violates BLP because it imputes income to Elam that cannot be verified (so violating V) and which I know for a fact that he does not have. I'd appreciate some engagement rather than revert-without-comment. — Strix ^t 13:47, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

You shouldn't be making any substantive edits to the article given your position. You should propose all changes except gnomish-type changes, e.g., fixing a typo, on the Talk page and let other editors decide whether the changes are appropriate. If you think there's currently a BLP violation, take it to WP:BLPN, but not to my Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:51, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Very well. So much for being bold, I guess; I didn't think I was making any changes that were controversial and that declaring COI and noting what I had done on the talk page was sufficient. Still, live and learn. I'll post to the talk page what needs changing. If it is ignored, I'll escalate it via the appropriate channels. — Strix ^t 14:10, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Checkuser

Hi, user Duqsene has created his account just 9 days ago and it seems he knows how wikipedia works very well and not confused like most new editors. Something tells me he had accounts previously. Moreover, user is editwarring on the same article, Abyssinian people, for the same issue like user User:Zekenyan (sockpuppets of Shawwal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Shawwal) used to [19]. I will appreciate it if you can just do checkuser. Thank you — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 14:49, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

No. You already filed Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Puhleec.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:52, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

apologies

I dont think I have ever opened it properly for this particular editor - I take that I am inconveniencing proper process - will do it differently next time (as sure as sun rises he will be back to edit brisbane rail subjects) JarrahTree 03:04, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Checkuser with suspected IP socks

Bbb23, I saw that you denied my CU request related to the sockpuppet investigation (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HughD) I requested. I do get that Wikipedia wouldn't want to disclose user IP addresses, no dispute there. What do we do in cases like this where the blocked user is suspected of editing without an account? Is the only option a behavior review or are there other technical checks? In this case I felt like the behavior pattern was close but not solid proof. The IP geolocation was a big red flag and hence I asked for the technical check. Anyway, I would be interested to know how these things should be handled. Thanks! Springee (talk) 16:42, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

The only option is a behavioral review.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:46, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

OK, thanks I see my confusion here. In the when to use CU guide under the use it section I thought I had this case, "Likely undetected or "sleeper" socks, getting an IP block (of a repeat sock-user)". It appears instead I had this case from the don't use it side, "Checkuser to confirm a user has been using a specific IP address". Sorry for my confusion. Springee (talk) 17:12, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Blocked user

Sorry about that. Doing some new page reviewing and the curation tool doesn't show them as blocked. Thanks for removing. Robvanvee 16:32, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

No problem.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:47, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Digitalravan sock post

Only reason I had any suspicion was the fact Digitalravan had prior socks usernames previously insulting MusikAnimal. Thank you! --WNYY98 (talk) 00:14, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/PhoenixS15

The reason I opened it here is because per the Charlesvvvv case PhoenixS15 is a separate master from Charlesvvvv. Unfortunately, the clerk action of splitting the Charlesvvvv case has yet to take place. Should I still file the case request at Charlesvvvv's case page, even though this sock is unrelated to him (as will all of PhoenixS15's socks)? Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 21:17, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

When was the clerk action requested (a link would be helpful)? Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:32, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

It wasn't explicitly requested so far as I can see, but this is where I was getting that. Basically, Charlesvvvv belongs under Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Isaiasad and is not the master of PhoenixS15 et al. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 23:37, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

@Vanjagenije: Can you please look into this and straighten it out? After you've done so, please let me or Ks0stm know. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:39, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Since the two cases are not connected (apparently), I moved the case back to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/PhoenixS15 and reinstated Ks0stm's request of today. Vanjagenije (talk) 00:03, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Appreciated, thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:17, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Mughal Lohar/Zarao/Jinnhoppan

Hi Bbb23, what's your own take on the case/diffs/new accounts coming in one after another, apart from the technical data? Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 21:28, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

I haven't really analyzed it. I leave that part to you. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 15:23, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Tsk tsk, and what about all that tax money we pay?! Thought we'd see more in return! :-) - LouisAragon (talk) 17:15, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Jokes aside, I think the diffs and overal evidence posted speaks for itself, and objectively, there's not much more to be added about it. Whichever CU/clerk that will analyze it will have an easy time, though you're obviously the most well acquainted with these socks and the sockmaster(s). Unfortunately, I'm neither a clerk nor a CU, so other than what I have already done, there's not much more than I can additionally do I believe. - LouisAragon (talk) 17:15, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Possible socking?

This anonymous edit might be socking; any way to check? Anmccaff (talk) 20:34, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Matisse socks

Hi -- The User:WordSeventeen account (and subsequent outed socks) has long bothered me as being similar to other accounts I have come across before both in editing style, type of articles edited, talk page comments, behavior, user space set up. It dawned on me a bit ago as to who the similarities belonged to: Matisse and a User:Mattisse sock I had run into a couple of years ago, User:MathewTownsend. Is it possible to have a CU run on the WS account (since it's already indeffed for socking) to see if there is a connection or would it have to go officially through an SPI? For evidence, when I ran an Editor Interaction Analyzer on the three accounts, it came up with three articles that WS and MT have in common, two of them pretty obscure. For me, that sealed it in the "ah-ha!" department, hence this message to you. Here is the link to the findings [20]. What say you? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:10, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

WordSeventeen, Mattisse, and MatthewTownsend are  Stale.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:09, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Okay, and...? Is this supposed to be a brush off of my message and me as if I'm lint on your collar? I have never understood why you have to be so brusque and seemingly annoyed when I try to ask you a question or communicate with you. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:24, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

What you think of as brusque I think of as concise. You asked if a CU were possible, and I thought it was clear that the answer is no because all the accounts you mention are stale. It was not intended as a "brush off", just an answer to your question. That said, if you don't like the way I communicate, make it easier on yourself and talk to another CheckUser who might be more warm and fuzzy. I'm off to bed. I'm very tired. It's been a tough day. Take care.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:54, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

It's not so much a matter of not liking, rather, a matter of not understanding why you so frequently choose brusque and very limited when I attempt to communicate with you. I see your comments to others, and brusque+limited isn't what's used with them. I don't really care about warm and fuzzy, because I've never considered myself to be that way or to expect it. Just a little more than a few words would be appreciated. What you say = "brusque" comes of as annoyed and not worth your time, to be honest. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 05:13, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Yago Roche

Hello, a few weeks ago you decided to delete my page created for the Spanish singer Yago Roche that he was a member of the boyband "clover". I made the links template, the links, everything 100% true, with important press sources and your argument to delete the page does not convince me at all and I think, with all my heart and with all the respect of the world, that the page should Be restored. In fact, in the page for the restoration I have been informed that I contribute the argument and that it would even help me to make the page Can you please restore the page? Look here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Yintan#Speedy_delete_Yago_Roche_.C2.BFWhy.3F

--ShayminCat (talk) 03:27, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

This may also be of assistance. (talk page stalker) JudgeRM (talk to me) 04:05, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Hello Bbb23: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, Class455 (Merry Christmas!) 16:37, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

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

Burj Khalifa

Hi, you protected Burj Khalifa last week due to disruptive editing by IP users. The block has now expired and the IP user is back, could you please look into it? Thanks. --Marbe166 (talk) 12:56, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

 Done.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:46, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

User:Delotrooladoo

• WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Delotrooladoo
• Delotrooladoo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• es:User:Delotrooladoo

Hi Bbb23. This blocked user pinged me and asked me to look at his recent indef block for sockpuppetry. I realize that checkuser evidence is quite convincing, but I'm unclear if there is a good match on behavior. For example, the use of 'POV' in edit summaries: Delotrooladoo himself doesn't appear to do this. es:User:Delotrooladoo has 36,000 edits on the Spanish Wikipedia and has never been blocked there. Is there any chance that Delotrooladoo could be the victim of a poor choice of IP address to connect to Wikipedia? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 15:59, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

There is other behavioral evidence. As I stated at the SPI, one of the focuses of this master is on Jewish-related articles. Delotrooladoo has a strong focus on those articles, and they are quite diverse, including categories, articles where the subject is Jewish, comic book Jewish characters, and even actors who are well-known for being in a film or films where the the theme of the film is Jewish. The master account is less aggressive than his socks, but, as you know, the abusive behavior belongs to the person; it doesn't matter if some accounts used by that person are more constructive than others. I'm very comfortable with the behavioral evidence, and the technical evidence is straightforward and clear.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:09, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Gerry1214 sock

Thanks - [21]. I hadn't read that it should only be used by admins and clerks. I've added so many of them as an admin, I thought it was the way of notifying him of the SPI. Toddst1 (talk) 18:01, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Merry Merry

Season's Greetings, Bbb23! At this wonderful time of year, I would like to give season’s greetings to all the fellow Wikipedians I have interacted with in the past! May you have a wonderful holiday season! MarnetteD|Talk 16:14, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

A [uh...] Question...

Hi Bbb23. I've got a question for you – what should I do if I suspect a (newish?) editor has effectively socked, but don't think it rises to the level of needing an WP:SPI filing, or even a block (of the master) for socking (at least, not yet...). Basically, if it is socking, I'd just like to see the "sock" account shutdown, and the editor restricted to the master... At this point, I don't even want to name the accounts (though I will if you ask) – just looking for some ideas/advice. Thanks. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:37, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm afraid you don't get to decide whether or how long the master is blocked. But it's up to you whether to file it in the first instance.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:30, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Solitary confinement

Concerning your revision of my edit on Mordechai Vanunu, in my opinion WP:OVERLINK does not apply because the vast majority of people don't understand the degree of controversy over solitary confinement, whose psychological effects are far more pronounced than one would naively suspect, hence the severe nature of the punishment is likewise—in all likelihood—also misunderstood. Furthermore, it's a model for what Snowden might reasonably expect, were he to return to America, so the unrelenting harshness of the Israeli treatment of Vanunu is hardly a minor point. — MaxEnt 04:45, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

WikiBlame Tool

Hello Bbb23, real quick: wondering if you know of a better tool than WikiBlame for searching for diffs including a specific term for a given article. This WikiBlame search didn't really yield all the evidence I found in this SPI case in that one article. I know you're busy, but since you're probably involved in these types of searches more regularly, though I might ask. Thanks! --JustBerry (talk) 13:50, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm afraid I can't help. I'm not even familiar with WikiBlame.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:44, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Okay, thanks anyway. --JustBerry (talk) 23:31, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Rollback

Please do not use rollback to revert me outside of your userspace, as you did here. Thank you. Linguist If you reply to me here, please add {{ping|Linguist111}} to the start of your message 00:02, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Stop doing things you have no business doing.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:03, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Why do I have "no business" adding sock tags? Linguist If you reply to me here, please add {{ping|Linguist111}} to the start of your message 00:07, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

They are added by members of the SPI team or by administrators when they block, not by editors. If the blocking administrator wanted to tag the account, they could have. They chose not to. Don't usurp their role. Your reverts of the socks at the SPI are appreciated.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:10, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Bbb23 is correct. This is no different than your attempt at assisting at WP:UAA that ended up aT the admin noticeboards; regardless of your belief you are helping you are actually hindering and causing additional work and confusion for adminstrators (and in this case Checkusers and Clerks). --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 00:14, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Okay. But in the future, please, Bbb, leave an edit summary when reverting good faith edits by me, instead of using rollback, which is unhelpful. Thank you. Linguist If you reply to me here, please add {{ping|Linguist111}} to the start of your message 00:17, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

I understand and I'll try to remember. Sometimes I'm in a hurry and also mildly annoyed because I had to undo a couple of your edits. Still, you don't deserve the rollback, and I should be more patient.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:18, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2017!

Hello Bbb23, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2017. Happy editing, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:27, 23 December 2016 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Merry Xmas!

Happy Yuletide!

Merry Yuletide to you! (And a happy new year!) --5 albert square (talk) 21:37, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Season's Greetings

	A hot chocolate for you!
	It's cold out there, so have one on me and enjoy the season. It's been a pleasure working with you this year :) GABgab 23:01, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

The best hot chocolate I had was in Paris many years ago. Cost an arm and a leg, and I had little money at the time, but it was worth it. So I'll hop on a plane, go to Paris, get my hot chocolate, return, and send you the bill for the airfare and the chocolate. Of course, first I have to figure out how to get to the airport because at the moment we're sort of snowed in. Happy Holidays!--Bbb23 (talk) 23:26, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Please assist

Hello Bbb23, I am referencing the removal of the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GI_Go_Fund for significance issues. The page was discussing a national nonprofit for veterans that has been working for 10 years, and references within the article where towards external pages and news sources as well as to the group's own programs page. I had placed this information in the talk section of the page, but it has been removed for some reason. Please advise on how to remove this hold on the page and get it back up. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:87:103:7160:3546:82C5:448E:4E2E (talk) 01:39, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

I won't even consider such a request unless you log in.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:48, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Ok I am logged in now. Please any assistance you could offer would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.Jafanous (talk) 14:50, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

I will not restore the article because it has no claim of significance justifying an encyclopedia article. However, if you want to try to improve it, I will WP:USERFY it for you. Let me know.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:54, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Ok, thank you. I will work on it in the userfy. Jafanous (talk) 17:33, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

It's now here: User:Jafanous/GI Go Fund. When you've finished with it, please submit it through WP:AFC so you get feedback from more experienced editors.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:59, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/36hourblock

I don't understand why an investigation can not be opened up against 36hourblock (as master). You said at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Chie one/Archive that 36hourblock is unrelated to Chie one. It would seem to me that since 36hourblock is unrelated to Chie one someone should be able to start one with 36hourblock as master. - GB fan 21:43, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

It can be added but it requires some advance work. At the time, the case was moved because 36hourblock is an older account than Chie one. But then there was no finding that 36hourblock was related to anyone. To do what Chris wanted, a clerk would have to detach the linkage between the two cases, recreating 36hourblock as a separate case. It seems like a fair amount of work when the only socking they are being accused of is not logging in ... once. I'd rather see the IP blocked if someone determines the behavior warrants it. All that said, if you want a separate case recreated, I'll request it.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:01, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

I am not asking for the investigation. The evidence provided is pretty slim and I don't think it is enough to block. It just looked like you were saying the sock puppet investigation can't be opened and it needs to continue to be at the unrelated case. Thanks for the explanation. - GB fan 22:16, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

70.95.186.49

70.95.186.49 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) IP needs talk page rights revoked here Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 21:00, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!

Hello Bbb23: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, JustBerry (talk) 23:55, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

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

Thank you

Per [22], and very happy holidays. Cheers from 99, 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 18:58, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

We now live in a place where it actually snows, not as much as many parts of the country, but more than California. Indeed, we had a white Xmas and there's still snow (and ice, unfortunately) on the ground. Happy 2017.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:04, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

No snow here, which is fine by me. But the season's young. By the way, I think it's a safe bet that both 'Nikitin' articles are hoaxes, perpetrated by a teenage boy. Cheers, 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 19:06, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

The troll is back

Hi, and first of all, hope you had a great Christmas. Few months ago you blocked a anonymous contributor for vandalism and racist comments. You asked me to warn you if he was doing it again. Well as usual he is back on the same pages, with the same edits, with the same obsession and hate [23]. [24] and [25]. It would be nice to block him before he messes with to much articles as usual.. all the best --Gabriel HM (talk) 21:13, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

 Done.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:43, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

How to reopen old sockpuppet case?

Special:Contributions/KaityPotaity and Special:Contributions/KatyPotaty look as if they belong with Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Kaytoepotato/Archive. Is there an easy way to just reopen the case? I noticed you are editing right now and had blocked some of the users. Thanks - Ttwaring (talk) 14:01, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I'm not aware that a CheckUser can open a case again once it's been closed and archived. It would need to be a new case that's raised. You can do this by going to the user contributions page of the puppet, clicking on the link that says "ARV", select the option for the puppet and follow the instructions given. Alternatively, you can raise it via WP:SPI.--5 albert square (talk) 14:15, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! That was much easier than I thought. Ttwaring (talk) 15:36, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

No problem. As you didn't request CheckUser in your request I've dealt with the SPI. I'll also look at locking the page they're targeting. 5 albert square (talk) 16:56, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

@5 albert square: I don't know what SPI would do without helpful administrators like you. Thanks!--Bbb23 (talk) 17:07, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Ah thanks @Bbb23:, I like to lend a hand when I can. I was even in SPI last night with the mop and bucket dealing with all the non-CheckUser cases that I could!--5 albert square (talk) 19:50, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) 5 albert square, that's music to these poor ears GAB^gab 05:26, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Kenzie Ziegler

Hi! A complete wikipedia page was created for Mackenzie Ziegler under the name Kenzie Ziegler, as it seems you have locked a page under her full first name. Would you be able to unlock the name so that the Kenzie Ziegler page can be updated, or redirect the Mackenzie page to the Kenzie page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emmahalliwell (talk • contribs) 07:36, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

I have done some work on the article, including work on the references. Do you agree that it now passes WP:ENT clearly enough so that you can withdraw the AfD and move it to Mackenzie Ziegler? Also, the vandal you blocked yesterday seems to be back anonymously, so perhaps it could be semi-protected? All the best! -- Ssilvers (talk) 09:47, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Consult regarding CU.

I have a problem using the page for CU, care to see this edit, could be considered enought to start and investigation. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Turkish_military_intervention_in_Syria&diff=prev&oldid=751444102
Mr.User200 (talk) 16:53, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

@Mr.User200: It is an odd edit, and you'd think the two accounts would be related, but they're not. However, Hakan3400 (talk · contribs · count) and Misterinda (talk · contribs · count) are  Confirmed, blocked and tagged.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:03, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Dear @Bbb23:, care to check this 2 IPs edit history it seems Hakan3400 have returned.

1st possible SP
2nd possible SP Mr.User200 (talk) 21:32, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Care to check CU this new account of Hakan34000?
Click Here.

Mr.User200 (talk) 18:53, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Right again. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:21, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Again we have another reborn-Hakan3400

User:Kast-Meini, have the same behaviour see also here, [26] its editing the same articles, also noted by User:Harlowan, see Battle of Zeitun edtis and similarities with Hakan3400. [27]. Mr.User200 (talk) 12:24, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

The Return of the King?

Hi B.

I may have been hanging out at SPI for too long, seeing socks everywhere, but Whydoeswikipedianotletmechooseagoodusername looks eerily familiar. Apart from the fact that his attention has shifted from philosophy and Trump to mathematics, the style and excessive verbiage has Kingshowman stamped all over it. I'm non entirely sure what the rules are regarding the use of CU; should I open formal proceedings or can you check based on my opinionated observation? Regards, Favonian (talk) 15:26, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Your "opinionated observation" is worth quite a bit in my view. However, in this instance, as I'm sure you know, the user is indefinitely blocked (and taking it very well) and other CheckUsers are dealing with it to the extent it's material. How many CheckUsers does it take to screw in a lightbulb? None because they block the socket.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:33, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

I always yield in the face of great pun. :) My main concern is that he'll succeed in getting unblocked (a request is still active), if only by drowning some AGF'ing reviewer in words. Never mind, I shall return to my remaining Xmas break. Thanks for letting me take your time, and Happy New Year! Favonian (talk) 15:40, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

SPI

I have filed a SPI case regarding disruptive sock IPS belonging Lrednuas Senoroc. Last night you deleted my request from your talk page and thus i have merged it to proper page. Please check it. Filing a SPI case is time-consuming and harder when the sockpuppet is an ip-jumping editor. Anyway...will you check it now? 46.221.173.105 (talk) 01:21, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Sockpuppet

User:Cinephile1234 is a sock of User:TRUEV140. Same edit summary, same articles, same work.--LineTrajectory (talk) 09:41, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

This seems to be your only mission at Wikipedia. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:38, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Also suspecting User:Jaferyjaf [28]. Similar edits in 2 pages so far, same content. May be not TRUEV140 [29], but a sockpuppet for sure.--LineTrajectory (talk) 16:06, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @LineTrajectory: Out of curiosity, would you suspect an editor of two weeks' tenure and three public edits- none of them in articlespace- all of which demonstrate a cogent understanding of arcane areas of WP policy and complex wikimarkup? O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 16:54, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Question regarding blocked/banned user

Greetings. I just declined an draft at AfC, Draft:Mark Coopersmith, and as I was declining it gives me the wonderful little message that an article by this name had been recently deleted, and that it was deleted by a locked/banned user. The editor who created this draft is a new editor (began in September 2016). When I see stuff like that, should I alert someone? And if so, who? Thanks. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:44, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for the belated reply. I think coming here was fine given the circumstances. Unfortunately, your post opened up a can of worms and caused me a headache, but that is not your fault, of course. I've pretty much sorted it out, though.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:18, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

No worries. My intent wasn't to cause more work... exactly the opposite, in fact. Take care, and if there's anything I can do to help, let me know. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:36, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

{{Blocked impersonator}}

Sorry, I didn't know that it was an admin-only template. Linguist If you reply to me here, please add {{ping|Linguist111}} to the start of your message 21:25, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Some templates are obviously admin-only (as you put it), e.g., block notices, but others are nonetheless to be used only by administrators simply because it makes sense. An administrator blocked the account. If that administrator wants to slap a template on the userpage, that's up to them. The overall point is that you are taking on administrator tasks without being an administrator. I'm not going to say this for every instance of this happening with a different template. Just think first, and if you're unsure, don't do it or ask an administrator.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:30, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

FWIW it was left untagged because it's a throwaway account for vandalising the RfA, and tagging just rewards the vandal with recognition. The tag is only of value if it provides useful information to the community on the reason for the block; in this instance that information is already apparent in the account contributions. -- Euryalus (talk) 02:16, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Bbb23!

Happy New Year!

Bbb23,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. -- Dane ^talk 02:23, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

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

Happy New Year, Bbb23!

Happy New Year!

Bbb23,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Class455 (talk | stand clear of the doors!) 17:25, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

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

I'm confused

I am confused, I did everything like I was told and read and did nothing any different then the original SPI which is archived, so what did I do wrong as they are still block evading and jumping IPs. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 19:05, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

I explained the decline. I don't believe a CU has ever been requested before.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:20, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Ummm then why is there one archived for them here from 2015 when they were indefed? Also the CU template has been put on their page here as well. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 19:26, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't know what you're referring to in your first link. The second link shows I tagged the master. What does that have to do with publicly connecting IP(s) to named accounts?--Bbb23 (talk) 20:05, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

IP 101.182.161.253 was already connected by CU in November 2016 which can be seen in the archive here. So it was already publicly done. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 20:11, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Please learn to indent. The IP was blocked by a non-CheckUser. A CheckUser cannot confirm a relationship between an IP and a named account. If you want more information, read the various relevant policies and guidelines about SPI investigations. This discussion is over.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:17, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Truthalwaysrules

Special:Contributions/Mikeis1996 was created on March 2014 after previously users blocked on October 2013. Mikeis1996 is focus on rock/grunge music and similar style and pattern. 115.164.85.25 (talk) 03:11, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Bbb23!

Happy New Year!

Bbb23,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Donner60 (talk) 07:35, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

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

A Barnstar, as Promised...

	The Barnstar of CU-Scrutiny
	Thanks again for digging through these tangled webs of sockpuppetry at SPI - the community appreciates it! GABgab 16:01, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

SPI Baluperoth

Hello Bbb23, Can you please take a look at this ticket we received today from Baluperoth (talk · contribs) requesting unblock his account. Thank you – GSS (talk|c|em) 11:26, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't have access to OTRS.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:21, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

ACC

Hi Bbb23. Can you please look at ticket #189422 on ACC? Thanks. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:50, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't know how to do that.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:21, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks

User:Meeramac and User:Leo9004 both quacked loudly, thanks for doing the needful. Guy (Help!) 22:40, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kenzie Ziegler

I have closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kenzie Ziegler as keep. In the discussion, Corkythehornetfan had requested that it be moved to Mackenzie Ziegler, which you salted. Can you unprotect the title and then move the page? —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 21:59, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Never mind. Orangemike moved it. —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 23:35, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

UTRS appeal #17262

A user you have blocked has opened UTRS appeal #17262 on the Unblock Ticket Request System. The reviewing administrator, Just Chilling (talk · contribs), has requested your input:

JuliaCameron (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Time: Jan 04, 2017 03:30:30

Message: Hi, would you please take a look at this appeal and leave a comment on the UTRS page as to whether you buy the explanation?

Notes:

• If you do not have an account on UTRS, you may create one at the administrator registration interface.
• Alternatively, you can respond here and indicate whether you are supportive or opposed to an unblock for this user and your rationale, if applicable.

--UTRSBot (talk) 03:30, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

@Just Chilling: I have a UTRS account, but so far all I've ever done is look at the status of an appeal. I've never posted anything, and I'm afraid to do so because I'm not sure what buttons to press and that I'll screw something up. In any event, there's nothing private that was said by the user. Indeed, there is no reason to use UTRS. Bottom line. I don't buy the explanation. Her (if it is a her as she uses male account names as well) contention that it was done "without malice" is unsupported by the conduct of the five sock accounts I'm aware of. With the exception of the master account, this is not a case of creating an account, stop editing with that account, create a new one, etc. The last four accounts edited in tandem, supporting each other and editing the same articles. You don't have to know Wikipedia policy to know on a commonsense level that that's wrong. Also, it's clear from the overall conduct that they are promoting certain articles and pushing against others. The master created many AfDs, whereas the new accounts are creating articles, e.g., Okayafrica, and creating AfDs, e.g., Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manufacturing Innovation Hub for Apparel, Textiles and Wearable Tech. The best you could tell the user is that they can request an unblock again in six months (should be done from the master account) and that we would consider (no promises) their request at that time. They would have to acknowledge all the accounts. They would have to be sock free, and they would have to have a legitimate purpose for wanting to edit here. This strikes me more like undisclosed paid editing than anything else.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:22, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

This is extremely helpful, thank you. Just Chilling (talk) 15:01, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Baluperoth

Hi Bbb23, could you explain why you blocked Baluperoth with a "Likely" sock rational whereas that user's edit's here and in Commons are mainly related to biology. I'm contacting because I too from Malayalam Wikipedia and heard about this unfortunate incident now. Jee 03:56, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Please reply here or on his talk. The unblock request was rejected by a non CU without any further consultation. It is difficult for a somewhat inexperienced and non-native English speaking user to understand all formalities without your help. Jee 01:48, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Hey there, Bbb23, I am contacting you as an OTRS volunteer on this same matter. Baluperoth has sent a message to the Foundation asking for his account to be unblocked, and Maggie Dennis (Director, Support, Safety, and Programs, mdennis@wikimedia.org) forwarded his message (and her response) on to us. She explained to him that she could not unblock his account, and gave him instructions to contact you to discuss the matter (this is all under VRTS ticket # 2017010310002548). His story sounds compelling, and I am contacting you to ask you to reconsider the block that has been placed on him. I have not looked into the history in any detail, and apologize in advance if it turns out I am advocating for a nogoodnik, but I know that sometimes mistakes are made and it seems like it would be a shame to lose him as an editor if his story is legitimate. If you wish to contact me directly, feel free to do so, and if you would like to see the content of the correspondence between Maggie and him, I will be glad to show you. Anyhow, that is all! Thank you for considering the request. KDS4444 (talk) 14:04, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't have access to OTRS, and, in any event, the issue has been dealt with in another venue.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:55, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks KDS4444. Thanks Bbb23 for commenting here. I had wondered why you didn't make any response to my comments. Yesterday Baluperoth told me the functionaries rejected his appeal. And only now I noticed his comment here. It is self explaining how inexperienced he is in wiki editing and policies. So I request you to reconsider your decision. Pinging another CU Alison I somewhat know in Commons too. Jee 03:35, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Burj Khalifa

Hi, once again the protection of the Burj Khalifa article has expired and the IP hopping vandal is back. Can you take appropriate action again? Thanks. --Marbe166 (talk) 12:25, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Sock

Hi Bbb23. How did you know this guy was Harvey Carter? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:AndyTyner&action=history SW3 5DL (talk) 03:11, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

I wasn't sure before I checked, just a suspicion based on behavior.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:57, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

I'd never heard of him, but on the Donald Trump page, when Andy Tyner first commented, and then the IP showed up I was suspicious. But I was thinking London student, nothing better to do, trolling WP. I wasn't thinking any where near this guy. I was surprised, and very impressed, you found that. Thanks for answering. SW3 5DL (talk) 22:09, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

A Barnstar for you

		The Checkuser's Barnstar
		To Bbb23, Thank you for your work identifying the latest iteration of the infamous sockpuppet Harvey Carter. That was brilliant. Well done. SW3 5DL (talk) 22:39, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

LX

Bbb23, the chap's being a nuisance now and IP hopping merrily. Since you know this range well from blocking so many sockmasters, can you look at my blocking log (latest 6-7 entries and see if a rangeblock can be done for him with minimal collateral damage? cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 16:14, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

@SpacemanSpiff: Sorry for the late reply. There are many ways to configure /24 range blocks. It would be easier if you could provide the exact range. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:04, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

No worries, I'm technically handicapped and trying to figure out the range stuff, luckily Johnuniq showed me the light. It appears that this chap's disruption has come down after those 6/7 individual blocks, but I may be more capable of dealing with this myself going forward. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 03:07, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

UTRS appeal #17287

A user you have blocked has opened UTRS appeal #17287 on the Unblock Ticket Request System. The reviewing administrator, 5 albert square (talk · contribs), has requested your input:

Ayyappancs (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Time: Jan 07, 2017 19:03:39

Message: Could I please request your input regarding this user? I have also emailed you

Notes:

• If you do not have an account on UTRS, you may create one at the administrator registration interface.
• Alternatively, you can respond here and indicate whether you are supportive or opposed to an unblock for this user and your rationale, if applicable.

--UTRSBot (talk) 19:03, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

@5 albert square: I commented at UTRS. It's the FIRST time I've ever done so. Please tell me if I did it correctly. Don't be shy about nit-picking. Thanks!--Bbb23 (talk) 20:40, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

You did it PERFECTLY from what I could see! Believe it or not it was the FIRST time I'd requested it!--5 albert square (talk) 23:35, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Heh, congratulations to us!--Bbb23 (talk) 23:52, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Evlekis ...

... seems to have found a way around the range block:

1. 0 zero O naught (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
2. Electrically minded (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Check edits, edit summaries and general behaviour. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 21:49, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Discussion of possible unblock

You Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Kenosplit/Archive blocked user:Kenosplit

While I haven't fully researched it, I'll be happy to stipulate that it was a valid block.

However, while we continue to insist that individuals closely associated with an organization should not be directly editing an article, we need some provision so that they can recommend changes, or identify errors so that other editors can investigate and make changes if appropriate.

In my opinion, the ideal situation is to point out our guideline that they should edit the article talk page and use the edit request feature. However, they cannot do that if blocked.

I think it would be reasonable to unblock this user, coupled with the caveat that there edit should not directly be to the article but should only be to the article talk page and relevant dispute resolution pages.

We need to provide some mechanism so that individuals can provide such feedback to us, while they are currently reaching out to us through OTRS, you may be aware that OTRS is badly backlogged and is not the proper venue for back-and-forth discussions.

I will be happy to carry out the unblock and make sure the user understands the conditions that I wanted to reach out to you to see if you had any objections.

(As an aside, it occurs to me that we ought to consider creating functionality in which COI editors are physically unable to edit article pages but can edit other pages pages. There might be enough situations of this type to warrant such a special class of editors, although this is not the right time to have that larger discussion.)--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:16, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I object. The normal, non-socking scenario is one account that edits an article directly despite their obvious COI. We counsel that editor to use the Talk page rather than edit the article. Sometimes we're successful, often we're not, in which case the user may end up being blocked. Here we had three different accounts all going at it at the same time. Not only that, they claimed in their July unblock request that there were only two accounts, which means they weren't being honest. I have no use for this kind of editing, and Wikipedia's articles will survive without their "feedback".--Bbb23 (talk) 20:08, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't view our position as acceptable. If your position is consistent with policy, we need to revisit policy. I fully understand and support the view that we can prohibit COI editors from directly editing an article. I would also say that the mere fact that Wikipedia chooses to write an article about a subject does not give the subject any particular influence over the content of the article, but I think basic fairness requires that we provide a reasonable venue for the subject to share information which ought to be considered by editors of the article. While they technically have some venue — they can write an email to OTRSe — I trust you are aware that the system is badly backlogged. Not coincidentally, this request is one of dozens that slipped through the cracks and has been ignored for months. I'm trying to work on the backlog, but I can't in good conscience tell someone that they should write to us if they see a problem with an article and somebody might get back to them, and it might take a year or more. I am fully on board with the need to do a better job at OTRS, but the solution to OTRS problems isn't helped by dumping more things on OTRS.

With respect, the issue isn't whether Wikipedia wil survive, but whether the subjects of article without reasonable recourse for addressing problems will "survive".

If you had been the subject of an article in Wikipedia, and due to some misunderstandings of policy found yourself blocked, would you consider it acceptable that the only way to request fixes to the article is through a process that might literally take years? We need to do better. I hope you will reconsider.--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:32, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Deepwater Horizon page

I'm not sure if this is the appropriate venue to address this, but I think there's someone IP hopping on the Deepwater Horizon film page. Same MO to their edits, same wording, etc. Their only activity on that page is performing incorrect reversions (adding non-relevant performers without pages of their own and who did not appear in the end credits billing; randomly adding performers in the infobox who do not belong there; erasing actual performers with billing from the cast list, etc.) without providing any justification for it. Bice24 (talk) 22:00, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Repeated Vandalism at Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly election, 2017

Greetings User: Bbb23 ! I hope you are well. I saw that you are an admin on this wiki so I thought that it is better to inform you about a certain user who keeps on vandalising this wiki. A user by name Tender Nuke keeps on removing the sourced content in above article such as opinion polls and other relevant content. He removed the warnings on his talk page also atleast two times. He pretends to be a new user. Can you take any action? Thanks in advance. Terabar (talk) 14:45, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Email

Hi. Not a fan of the ygm template, so in prose: have sent an email seeking a second opinion, if you have a moment. -- Euryalus (talk) 08:07, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

@Euryalus: Depending on how you e-mail me, the system notifies me anyway, so you don't have to leave anything on my Talk page. I just woke up, so give me a bit of time to review the issue. Regards.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:56, 11 January 2017 (UTC)