Jump to content

User talk:Bbb23/Archive 33

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 30Archive 31Archive 32Archive 33Archive 34Archive 35→Archive 40

GLPeterson

Just an fyi that User:GLPeterson has picked up where he left off, editing and multiple reverting without giving a clear rational or participating in talk page discussion [1][2]. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 21:16, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Have I taken any action against GLPeterson since the block in December 2014? If not, I would be hard-pressed to act unilaterally.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:33, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Here are earlier edits by GLPeterson around January 2015 to the article Wireless power since his block, inserting unsourced material against a consensus of 4 editors: [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], indicating he continued with the same behavior he was blocked for. I took the issue to you in January [13], but you didn't have time and said we should submit an ANI. So we did [14]. For some strange reason no action was taken.
I don't understand. GLPeterson has had 2 thoroughly-documented ANIs [15], [16] with no one defending him; what does it take to get this guy blocked? Frankly, I'm tired of the huge amount of time I've spent dealing with this single obstructive editor over the years, and I'll bet Fountains of Bryn Mawr, Roches, MrX, and all the other editors who deal with him are too. His only activity for years on WP has been to tenaciously, repeatedly insert his unsourced, fringe, WP:OR ideas about Nikola Tesla into a variety of articles. No one supports his edits except him, he ignores requests to defend them on the Talk page, he's been reverted thousands of times by dozens of editors, but he keeps coming. He's clearly edit-warring, but apparently since he's cagey enough to stay under the 3RR, he gets away with it.
His latest is on World Wireless System. He has 4 times without discussion inserted the same unsourced fringe material [17], [18], [19], [20], which was reverted by three editors [21], [22], [23], [24], [25]. He has been asked on his Talk page [26] to discuss his edits, without result. He has 3 times [27], [28], [29] reverted the merger of Terrestrial stationary waves into World Wireless System which was merged on consensus of 3 editors because it consisted entirely of GLPeterson's fringe content. Please, could you take a look at this case? If something could be done about GLPeterson, it would save thousands of hours of good editors' time. --ChetvornoTALK 02:03, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
I appreciate your frustration, but there's little I can do on my own short of embroiling myself in the mess, which I don't wish to do. OTOH, I do have some suggestions. Request a topic ban at WP:AN (not ANI). Refer back to the two ANI threads. Keep your statement short. The ones at ANI may have been thorough, but they don't attract other editors. The other suggestion is to see what happens moving forward based on the discretionary sanctions alert. If you feel you have enough evidence post-alert, you can initiate a request for sanctions at WP:AE.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:33, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Okay. Sorry, I may have flown off the handle there; might have had too much coffee :) That's two possible routes to try. Thanks. --ChetvornoTALK 06:56, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Alex Jones Radio Host

Hello, I tried to edit the Alex Jones page to say that he is divorced, unfortunaley theres no mainstream media outlet that reported on that matter but you can see the proof of the divorce in the Hays and Travis Court district website you can see the documents there, the case number is 13-2647. What other proof do I need to get a successful edit?, I can give screenshots of the documents.


http://deed.co.travis.tx.us/ords/f?p=105:9:0::NO::P9_INSTRUMENT_NUMBER,P9_MULTI_SEQ,P9_NO_PAGES:2015043396,0,6

http://public.co.hays.tx.us/Search.aspx?ID=200&NodeID=100,101,102,103,200,201,202,203,204,400,401,402,403,404,405,406,407&NodeDesc=All%20Courts case number 13-2647 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gillpill (talk • contribs) 08:07, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

You've already been told you cannot use primary sources in a WP:BLP. If there is no reliable secondary source to support the material, then you can't add it - simple as that.--Bbb23 (talk) 08:13, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Tommy Morrison

  • There is something wrong with your information. I didn't look at the source because it is unimportant if the material is inappropriate. There's no reason to include what happened to Morrison's ashes. It has no encyclopedic value whatsoever.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:44, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
So answer to me: this stuff about "not including what happened to his ashes", is it because he was not a very famous person? Has it something to do with someone's fame?Brazilian Man (talk) 14:10, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Not really, For most biography subjects this kind of material would not be noteworthy. I suppose there are exceptions when the context of the disposal of a person's ashes becomes encyclopedically relevant. For example, when the person dies, there's a legal dispute among his heirs about the distribution of his property and the disposal of his ashes. Another example is when the person's funeral itself is noteworthy, and the method of interment might be included in the context of describing the funeral. It's hard to come up with examples in the abstract, but this isn't one of those exceptional cases.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:17, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Tobias

Is a short term range block an option? I just blocked another IP of his. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 17:10, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Can you help me out by listing the known IPs?
91.9.102.62, 91.9.115.31, 91.9.112.110 are three that are from the past ten days that I'm aware of. There are others from this range in July that I know of (91.9.122.67, 91.9.109.131) and an oddball 80.134.88.44 from August that was also blocked.—SpacemanSpiff 17:21, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
And an account User:Alejandro M. Rodríguez that I duckblocked a few hours back. —SpacemanSpiff 17:32, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
I confirmed your duck and blocked some others I found. I issued a hard range block. Let's see if that helps.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:25, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
I hadn't come across the other account, sigh. Let's hope the range block is of good use. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 03:49, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Polemic laundry list?

Isn't this the definition of a polemic laundry list? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:39, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Unblock request on hold

You blocked the accounts Wikipedia Is The Coolest Thing Ever and I Love The English Wikipedia (both the same person) as "Clearly not here to contribute to the encyclopedia". There is now an unblock request at User talk:I Love The English Wikipedia, which I have put on hold pending comment from you. I certainly agree with you that most of her editing has been unconstructive, but she has made one good-faith attempt to create an article, so that she does appear to be willing to contribute to the encyclopedia. I think that if she will indicate that she will in future stick to contributing to articles, rather than the kind of thing which led to her block, it will be reasonable to give her another chance, with an explicit statement to her that she can be blocked again if necessary. I do, however, note that in the block log reason for "Wikipedia Is The Coolest Thing Ever", as well as "Clearly not here to contribute to the encyclopedia: troll", you also said "probable sock". Does this mean that you have reason to believe these two accounts may be sockpuppets of some other account(s)? If so, what other account(s)? Clearly that would make a difference to any consideration of a possible unblock. I will be grateful for any comments you would like to make on any aspect of this. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:28, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

@JamesBWatson: Shortly after I blocked the two accounts, I ran a CU. The details of that CU would be more than sufficient to deny the unblock request. After I read this message, I ran another CU, I saw that the individual created another account right after the blocks, Reviewer Number 45 (talk · contribs · count). I've CU-blocked this account and tagged the other two accounts as the Coolest account is the master. The edits of the new account are curious, but make sure you look at what he did on his userpage before it was speedy deleted. That dovetails nicely with my opinion of what this person (almost undoubtedly a teenager himself) is about. Obviously, I oppose any unblock. As for what I discovered in the first CU, some of it I can share with you, but even that much I'd rather do off-wiki, so I'll e-mail you, hopefully sometime later this morning. I need to go eat breakfast. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 13:32, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
@JamesBWatson: As an FYI I declined an unblock request by Wikipedia Is The Coolest Thing Ever made via UTRS as a review of their edits (as well as those of the associated accounts) led me to believe that they were trolling. I still 100% believe that to be the case.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 18:17, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

I also think the person is trolling. This is feigned incompetence. HighInBC 18:19, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Your Recent Reverts To CSD Tags

Can you elaborate on your rationales? Ping upon reply. --JustBerry (talk) 04:43, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

You shouldn't be tagging pages if you don't understand the criteria. The G1s were just plain wrong. Just because you don't like a page and because you think it serves no valid purpose doesn't mean you can slap a false tag on it. The most ridiculous one was the the insurance company that you moved to draft and then tagged. if you had simply left it in mainspace and tagged it as an A7 and a G11, it would have probably been deleted, but by moving it to draft space you made it much more difficult to delete. And stop asking everyone to ping you. It's annoying.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:49, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Acknowledged. --JustBerry (talk) 05:05, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
@JustBerry: I apologize for the heat of my response yesterday. Some speedy delete criteria are much more restrictive than others. WP:CSD#G1 is one of those and should only be used in very narrow circumstances. For example, an article that has nothing in it but random characters would be considered a G1. An article that has the same or a few words repeated over and over would be a G1. Anything that has a reasonably coherent (doesn't have to be good English) sentence in it, absent some other feature, would not be a G1. You have to be extra careful when you review an article in a foreign language unless you know the language sufficiently to judge whether it's nonsense in the language. As the criterion says, just because an article is in a foreign language doesn't mean it's nonsense. So you'd have to get a machine translation, which is often inaccurate, at least in some respects. Thus, for the article that you tagged with a G1 that was written in another language and had that video link in i, the machine translation wasn't very helpful, although it tended to support a G1. Nonetheless, I was reluctant to delete it, so I looked at the video link at the bottom of the article, and it appeared to me that many of the words in the article were ones that flashed across the screen in the video. I inferred that the person in the video was saying those things and the video was about that person. Thus, I deleted it per A7. I hope this longer response helps.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:56, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Ah, all right. In another words, was the article only talking about was the article for the most part? --JustBerry (talk) 14:03, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 Question: Since we're already talking about CSD tags, how might you deal with an article in this state? --JustBerry (talk) 14:06, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
I have no clue what you mean by your statement above the question. The article you refer to has already been deleted, and i have zero desire to read such a long article to answer a hypothetical. Sorry.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:21, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Nevermind then, thanks anyway. --JustBerry (talk) 15:47, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Barnstar of Good Humor
"Aren't you supposed to become an admin first before losing it completely? " Supdiop (T🔹C) 12:03, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Supdiop, I'm glad you enjoyed it and I hope you're feeling better now. One question, though. Do you really want to keep this page around? In my opinion, it's not a good idea. It shouldn't have been created, let alone added to. I know I don't need your permission, but would it be okay if I deleted it? Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:45, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
I have no problem with deleting it. I just wanted to answer those simple questions. Thanks Supdiop (T🔹C) 13:00, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Done and thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:13, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Can you take a look please?

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Rajib56789.27s_AfDs. This appeared a bit fishy and I noticed that an account that I had sort of linked to this reverted you a few times and I figured it must be SPI related. I can't seem to find one on this, but maybe I didn't look properly. —SpacemanSpiff 08:09, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

@SpacemanSpiff: Such a smart fellow. It has an interesting past. I played a very early role in it, but new data emerges and there you are. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:09, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
This is weird, I could swear that I searched for an SPI under Arifwadder, but I seemed to have missed it. Perhaps it's time to get new glasses. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 14:14, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
@SpacemanSpiff: I'm sure you did and it's not surprising you didn't find it as the username is Arifjwadder with a j. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 14:16, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Ah, the elusive j.—SpacemanSpiff 14:45, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Review request

Thanks for the CU work on Shruti Reddy. I left the following note at user talk:Hasteur after he declined the WP:REFUND request for it (the one that was linked at SPI), but he had to say no because (to my surprise) he's not an admin. Would you mind helping?

Just curious, did you look at the deleted content? Instead of just declining the request because we don't normally refund A7s, I'd appreciate it if you treated this as an appeal. Please tell the guy "Nyttend made the right choice; speedy deletion was the right choice", or please decide that I went too far and immediately undelete it. Background information (all pro-deletion) appears in the "Removal of Speedy Deletion request" section of my talk page and the "Shruti Reddy" section of User talk:Josu4u (basically, it looks like someone's trying to promote a minor actress), while since I've not heard any anti-deletion arguments, I unfortunately can't present any of them to you.

Thanks! Nyttend (talk) 20:30, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

@Nyttend: I'd rather not get involved, but I do have a suggestion. Why don't you advise the author of the article that she can take it to WP:DRV? That would be the usual thing to do if she thinks your decision was incorrect. Obviously, from the history, different administrators had different takes on whether the article should be deleted per A7. For example, I didn't see much improvement to the article (if anything, it was worse) after Shirt58 deleted it, but then CambridgeBayWeather declined to do so. This is not uncommon with borderline A7s. I don't see how why it matters what I personally would have done. I'm just another administrator with my own take on these sorts of issues. BTW, if you want to avoid DRV for whatever reason, then restore the article and nominate it for deletion. Even if A7 doesn't apply, my guess is the community consensus would be to delete it, although I'm not always a good predictor of such things.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:42, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry ...

... I know it wasn't helpful, but I'm about to lose my patience since he obviously can't understand even simple things, and gets in over his head all over the place (see this for an attempt to explain things). Sher Afzal Karim (talk · contribs · count) is clearly not Najaf ali bhayo since Najaf has never made edits like these #1, #2, #3, #4, instead listing Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa as a Pakistani province when creating/re-creating articles, but that exact type of edits have been made by an IP hopper for a while, using multiple IPs geolocating to Pakistan, mostly Lahore (sample edits by three different but obviously related IPs: #1, #2, #3). So instead of having Sher Afzal Karim listed as a Najaf sock I want him as a master to pin future socks on, both IPs and named accounts. Thomas.W talk 08:32, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Just present your evidence as to why the account is not a sock of that master and why the account is a master in its own right. You don't need to make personal comments to achieve that. If the evidence persuades a clerk, then the appropriate actions will be taken. By the same token, a clerk may decline the case as it stands if there's insufficient evidence presented by JustBerry. I'd like to give you a little time to present your evidence before acting, although I may not be the one who acts depending on how this evolves.--Bbb23 (talk) 08:40, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Re:Additional CU findings (Dabangg Returns)

In light of your comment I added another sock tag to the main page, since either could be the sock at this point, which brings me to my next question: given that this is now effectively a checkuser block, and that the account is active insofar as talk page posts are concerned, should we revoke the talk page access for Dabangg Returns or adopt a watchful waiting strategy? TomStar81 (Talk) 22:33, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

@TomStar81: It wouldn't be a big deal to revoke talk page access, but at the same time I see no problem waiting to see if the account is disruptive. As an aside, based on the new data I reviewed, I think it unlikely the account is a sock of Padmalakshmisx.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:03, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Alannah Young

Hi you deleted the page on Alannah Young due to lack of asserted importance. Can you let me know how do i make it better if i want to recreate the page again so that it will not be get deleted? I had the credible sources and such though. Shazrinarmk2015 (talk) 05:38, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

You said what she does. You said what she used to do. You had a little about her educational background. That was it. There was no material in the article that satisfied a claim of encyclopedic significance. I would advise you not to recreate the article in main space (that's where all "public" articles ago). Instead, if you wish, I can recreate it as it was and put into your user space as a draft. Then, assuming there are reliable sources satisfying her notability and you add material to that effect, you can submit the proposed article to WP:AFC for other editors to review and give you feedback. Let me know if you want me to do that.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:12, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
I think i would take your advice and please help me to recreate it and place in my user draft or can i just recreate myself?Shazrinarmk2015 (talk) 08:12, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
@Shazrinarmk2015: The article is now here: User:Shazrinarmk2015/Alannah Young.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:36, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

I am curious...

This thread has outlived its usefulness. As a broad concept, Liz is correct that Checkusers are forbidden from sharing certain information with non-CheckUsers. However, there's information and there's information. Some cannot be shared, but other information can. Every time a CheckUser runs a check at SPI and posts findings, not to mention comments, they are sharing information. Of that information that can be shared, some of it is best shared privately, usually with a member of the SPI team, and some of it can be shared publicly. Other than pushing a bit too hard, Dalton did nothing wrong by asking for the information. It's my obligation to determine what I can and can't do per policy. Hopefully, that adds a little nuance to the picture, and we can all now move on to other things.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:08, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

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.

What you were reluctant to say at the SPI. I am interested because I am still curious about long term abuse and sock-puppetry being done by the original user. DaltonCastle (talk) 19:53, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

@DaltonCastle: If I was reluctant to say anything at the SPI, it meant in any public forum, and my Talk page is visible to everyone. I'm sorry not to accommodate your request. I appreciate all the work you do at SPI, so if I felt I could, I would.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:01, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Any way we can keep it off Wikipedia then? Burner emails are not hard DaltonCastle (talk) 21:02, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Burner e-mails? Much too cloak and dagger for me. I've heard of burner cell phones, but only on TV police shows. In any event, it's really not worth it. The statements by the user at the SPI are more revealing than anything else.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:56, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Ha! Well, I just meant you and I both can create new email accounts to show each other here so we can talk in private without having personal details made public. If you still have any interest let me know. Im just curious if there is anything more to the story. DaltonCastle (talk) 23:56, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

DaltonCastle, I find it somewhat disturbing that you're for some reason trying to find out private information about me and it's somewhat abusive. Whatever that information which Bbb23 is referring to is, it's not yours to have and if it's now in Wikipedia's business to dish out information to sad creepy guys to satisfy a curiosity then I shall cease editing immediately since I want no part of that. I have been more than open, have nothing to hide and if you wish to pursue this paranoid and perverse line of thought any further then I shall see to it that the long list of temporary bans you have had becomes far more permanent as this is becoming increasingly disgusting - more so by the fact that you continue doing this sneakily and behind my back rather than in the relevant discussion page or on my talk page. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 03:52, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

@SegataSanshiro1: Calm down dude. And stop WP:HOUNDING me. This had nothing to do with you, per se. The admin said he had found something interesting on his checkuser query. He did not say if that had anything to do with you. In the history of the long term abuse across several pages there have been several sock puppets found through checkuser. This is not singling you out. The admin could have found relevant info on an infinite number of possibilities. I suggest you let this go, as it is no longer about you. DaltonCastle (talk) 05:24, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Checkusers who have shared information they found via checks to editors who are not checkusers or outside parties have been desysoped in the not so distant past so I think you should cease prodding Bbb23 to share this data. Liz Read! Talk! 13:56, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm the one hounding you??? Don't act dumb, you know very well he was referring to my IP addresses which would tell you where I live, etc. I suggest you let it go - as you say, it has nothing to do with me so there is no need for you to know anything else about me now. Your obsession with "catching" this one editor seems to have gotten to the point where you have no respect for the privacy of others. Again, if you continue to actively pursue infringing on my privacy then I will report you. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 14:01, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Whom or who?

Pretty certain my correction of the Alex Jones article to read whom and not who in this sentence is correct - "He is also very critical of Pope Francis, whom he considers to be a socialist advocate of a global government, and a global religion, while ignoring traditional Catholic issues such as abortion." Is who grammatically correct in that case? TexianPolitico (talk) 14:09, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I didn't notice it. I only saw the other change you made. I've restored whom.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:16, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/KingMandhata74‎

Hey, this one is proving to be a challenge for me and I can't understand what the hell is going on here. I just came across Boltroxbolt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Healthclubji (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) which are the same as this group and Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Premkoli99. All are single article accounts, and I can't for the love of any divine being of anyone's choice figure out what to do; is a sweep at all possible or will we get only partial results there? I'll file this under the SPI next time I come across some new accounts, since these are older ones there's obviously no hurry to it.—SpacemanSpiff 03:42, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

@SpacemanSpiff: It's only a challenge because I haven't been following through on the Premkoli99 angle. But I have now. Good thing you keep beating me over the head with it. It took me a bit of time to connect the technical dots, but I have conclusively confirmed that Premikoli99 is the master. So, I now have to merge the KingMandhata74 SPI with the Premikoli99 SPI. Then, a fair amount of retagging will need to be done. Not tonight, though. I'm tuckered out. I should be able to get to it tomorrow morning my time. Thanks for your persistence.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:50, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, I wasn't aware that an SPI on Premkoli99 was started. I had duckblocked most of the socks, but stopped after the block of the Mandhata socks, didn't want to continue ducks with two masters. Don't think there's a hurry on this, we're blocking the socks as they come, so it shouldn't matter if these past few days worth are tagged incorrectly for a few days. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 05:23, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Well, I couldn't sleep, sigh, so I took care of the merge, etc., and asked the clerk to retag.--Bbb23 (talk) 07:41, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
SPIs are not a good cure for insomnia, one thing leads to another! Thanks, I'll take care of the non-SPI side of things with these socks. —SpacemanSpiff 08:06, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Soap photos

You've become sorta the defacto go-to guy when I don't know how to do something/wonder about what a policy may or may not be (if you don't want to be, that's fine, just let me know and I'll go elsewhere, no hard feelings)...

Anyhow: User:I am not sure how has been deleting photos and adding new ones in their place to many soap articles. Is that right? Can the old photos just be replaced by new ones like that? Even if that is something he's allowed to do, his are terrible photos (he took them on his phone so the pages are being left with those black bars at the top and bottom which looks just awful). I have already taken this to another user but, realised after the fact that I should check with an admin. If this is all something he's allowed to do then... so be it, I guess (but, they do look just awful). Thanks in advance.Cebr1979 (talk) 00:56, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Unless there's some other policy issue involved, e.g., copyright, if someone objects to a new photo, it would normally be decided by WP:CONSENSUS.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:19, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
It's not so much the fact that he's adding a new photo to a page that bothers me (although, like I said: his are terrible), it's the fact that he's literally replacing the old photos with his new ones rather than just adding the new ones with a different name (ie: like this). I'm off for the evening now so, if he's right and that is something he is allowed to do, would you mind correcting me here please? I thank you in advance.Cebr1979 (talk) 01:29, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Nothing to correct.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:31, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
If you look at these edits: 1 and 2, this guy is the same as all of these IPs and his love for the words "fixed" and "typo" show him to be the same person as this account. *sigh*Cebr1979 (talk) 22:56, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Oh, I forgot to mention: I also think that because thoses nonsense edits have been getting done for days now and when he started those those awful photos, he had to log in. IPs can't add photos.Cebr1979 (talk) 00:19, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Your Comment at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Najaf_ali_bhayo

I did not appreciate the way you referred to the conversation as bickering here, implying that the comments were trivial and wasteful. I understand your aim to keep SPI cases neat and tidy, but I do not appreciate your disparaging comments towards my edits, regardless of your privileges on the English Wikipedia. If you look at this and this, you can see similar edits to the master sock. It is also quite obvious, if you look at any of the other socks or the master sock, that the connection here is the relation to "Kho people" and adding the category Kho people to articles. Also, to clarify, I never contested the removal of the SPI tag on the suspected sock's user page. Furthermore, my reason to comment was not to bicker. Thomas.W had mentioned had mentioned "I have a good idea about who to pair Sher Afzal Karim with, and will do so in due course, but am in no real hurry to do so since he's blocked," which seemed ambiguous, as it appears that they were trying to move the suspected sock to another SPI case. Clearly, the conversation is not bickering and is certainly on-topic. Additional Note: User:119.160.66.159 was added more recently because an admin had suspected that the IP is a sock - see the diff in the case. --JustBerry (talk) 00:16, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

You can draw whatever inferences you like, but you have to do what I request at the SPI or I may simply decline it for lack of evidence. And it was classic bickering. No more posts here, please, on this issue.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:38, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Acknowledged. As a side note, please don't misunderstand my comment here; I appreciate all your work on Wikipedia. Also, from your previous message, it seems like the diffs I provided in my original message in this conversation are not substantial enough evidence-wise to continue investigation, hence should be abandoned. Is this correct? --JustBerry (talk) 02:32, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Any evidence should be presented at the SPI, not here.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:50, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
I've added the evidence. It also seems rather disturbing that you mention "Don't assume anyone knows the history of this case" when Thomas.W's point seemed fairly ambiguous, as the reviewer of the case doesn't know who the other socks they suspect are, i.e. the ones they presented to you on your page. Even though I'm involved in the 'dispute,' it seems more obvious that the adding of the Kho category to article(s) is fairly comparable with the master sock than Thomas.W's mention of 'another SPI case.' Excuses, such as "I don't have time" or "stop your bickering," hint me towards WP:INVOLVED, quite honestly. --JustBerry (talk) 12:01, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
I noticed your comment in the SPI case. However, I believe I had provided adequate diffs (2) to support the adding of Kho people categories, as the master sock had clearly done previously in multiple archived cases. Not to pile on here, but it seems unclear how that qualifies as lack of evidence. --JustBerry (talk) 16:45, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Sock template

Thanks for pointing out that I used the wrong template to mark the HarryPotterFan4747 sock. :) Sloppy! Gotta remember, gotta remember. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 11:22, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

If that's the worst thing you fail to remember, you're in very good shape. It's hard to remember all the wrinkles of every part of the project, and the sock templates are confusing anyway. Sometimes I write things down so I don't have to rely on my memory. Of course, then I sometimes forget to look at what I wrote down. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 11:29, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
I also misspelled "sock template" in this discussion's heading. Fixed. :) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:42, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

reason for speedy deletion

Hello Bbb23, You recently removed the speedy deletion tag from Pandiyum Sahakkalum. The article doesn't even have any valid references and also the name that mentioned as director on that article Appu k.Sami is just now deleted on Wikipedia. Also i cannot even find any context of it should be there on Wikipedia. Hope you will delete that article from Wikipedia. Josu4u (talk) 21:40, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

I deleted the director per A7. A1 is a narrow category. All you have to be able to do is identify what the article is about, and it has context. Here it was easy. It's a film. You can prod it, and if that doesn't work, take it to AfD for lack of notability.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:45, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Jemma Churchill

Dear User:Bbb23, my apologies for the mistake on the Jemma Churchill article. Best of luck to you! With regards, AnupamTalk 23:38, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

@Anupam: You also misapplied A1 at Mercedes AMG vision gran turismo. I probably shouldn't have reverted (instead of undoing with an edit summary), but it was the second misapplication of A1, and it irritated me. Declining the tag was correct, but I apologize for the revert.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:41, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your prompt reply User:Bbb23. Is there another way you would have flagged those two articles? I don't mind the revert since I was in the wrong. I appreciate your understanding and I'm sorry to have irritated you. With regards, AnupamTalk 23:43, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
The Churchill article could be tagged with an A7. She wouldn't inherit notability from her parents. However, it depends on what work she does as an actress. The article says she was on Upstairs Downstairs. Not sure what part she played, though. The car article, as bad as it is, can't really be tagged with anything except perhaps A10 if the car is covered somewhere else.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:50, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps you could assist..

I looks like you indef-blocked Rortosthanos on October 11, but I have been unable to find the discussion showing the check user verification of the account as a puppet. Help. Best, Schmidt, Michael Q. 23:48, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

There was no "discussion".--Bbb23 (talk) 23:52, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Soap and water barnstar

Re: what comes out in the wash: If there was a "New & Improved Soap-and-Water Barnstar - Now Removes Orange Stains!" Barnstar, I would give it to all recently-active checkusers for doing the down-and-dirty not-fun work that your role requires. Sigh.

Oh, and thanks for the laugh. "comes out in the wash" *chuckle* davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 00:07, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I can only second that - the constant efforts and free time spent on those cases are greatly appreciated. GermanJoe (talk) 00:41, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Hey, thanks for the kind words, and I'm glad I made you laugh. We need more of that around here. Alhough in this particular instance what comes out in the wash is not very clean.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:44, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Sirisiya

Hi, Bbb23,
I'm glad you found validation for this article. I did a search for every term in the description on Wikipedia and couldn't find any references. Liz Read! Talk! 03:30, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

You should thank Salvidrim!. He did the hard work making it look like a real article with references, etc. I just found enough on the web to prevent deletion. There are so many villages in India. Although I do see a fair number of hoax articles when patrolling CSD, it's been my experience that Indian village articles are usually real, although often very poorly drafted.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:50, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
But then again, whatever few bits I've found is really minimal... I guess that apparently policy says villages are inhrently notable, you just need to prove existence. :/ ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 03:53, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
My recollection is that policy doesn't say that (they can't be deleted per A7, though). But you try to get rid of any kind of "place" deleted at AfD. I once tried to get an intersection deleted. Never again. We have articles about villages, neighborhoods, streets, and god knows what else (not that some of them aren't actually notable). This way if I live in a village of three people I can come and find my village on Wikipedia. Yay, place inclusionists rule!--Bbb23 (talk) 04:09, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
I had to make a correction to Salvidrim!'s changes as the creator intended for this to be about a village in Siwan district (the key was the Chaudhry Tola school and Sona river which is a very small river, not comparable to the Son). That said, village names in Bihar are especially difficult as this discussion would show. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 04:27, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Problematic

[30] Two WP administrators have just reverted an article addition sourced to a doctoral thesis written by a woman. With all the fire that WP has been getting for excluding the contributions of women, this is troubling to still see this kind of thing still going on. Cla68 (talk) 00:35, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Love your sense of humor, Cla68. First of all for calling good old Ent an admin, and second--well, you'll have prove that Ent and Bbb reverted for reasons of them not liking women scholars, not because of WP:RS and the fact that this was a thesis, not a published book. Drmies (talk) 01:50, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Ok what's the best way to challenge this?

I'm shocked at a warning when multiple editors have reverted this new guy. I had actually held back on reporting him. Who's attention do I bring this to, to contest this warning you gave me? It's ridiculous in my mind when it's being openly discussed and I simply move it back (as have others). My goodness it was actually disruptive editing. I'm very unhappy with this situation. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:38, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

WP:ANI.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:09, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. And you'll notice he's still going at it at another article. I've been treating this as a disruptive editor, but giving him as long a leash as possible (because he's new). But he didn't really make me mad. Only your warning did that. Sorry but that's how I feel. Fyunck(click) (talk) 17:36, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
I'll keep letting you and @Drmies: know when he changes the gal's names. Here's the next domino at Dorothea Douglass Lambert Chambers where he slips in more changes to Ethel Thomson Larcombe and Winifred Slocock McNair, and he is overlinking players who have already been linked.... just as he overlinked before. But no one to stop him now. Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:25, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Woohoo!

San Diego is playing! That is SO exciting! Against Michael Vick! You must be PSYCHED. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.168.253.87 (talk) 00:31, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

The least you could do is sign your posts. Doesn't it bother you that Sinebot has to work?--Bbb23 (talk) 00:39, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Sinebot can kiss my a**. Doh! Are you watching Bell run all over San Diego, laughing all the way? And don't you know The Bushranger is a huge Steelers fan and will block you at the drop of a hat if you keep dissing me? Yowzah! 66.168.253.87 (talk) 01:47, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
This IP is no fool, Bbb. But I think we're watching Michael Vick's last season, if not his last game. Drmies (talk) 02:29, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

this mobile stuff is for the birds. autocorrect doesnt work, ihave to capitslize by hand, im seeing an older version of your talkpage but am editing the current one--the sections dont jive. and i just discovered that in the wikipedia app Alpaida has a subtitle: "human". yhats dumb. i give up. sweet dreams.

MoreMenu

Hey Bbb23! Hope are doing well. I just pushed an update to MoreMenu (the Page and User dropdowns) that hopefully fixes the links for all weird page names, once and for all. Since you seem to be the best at finding pages for which the script breaks, I thought I'd let you know ahead of time. If something does break... well, I'll be very surprised, but I will still fix it. I went through my test pages and it seemed to work, so I'm confident this time. To be clear, the normal links you use such as Delete should have already been fixed, this update just reworks the code a bit, and also fixes all the external links. Many thanks for all of your assistance and getting this script bug-free. Cheers — MusikAnimal talk 03:21, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Kul/kool

Hi, you've removed my deletion tag for the article, but I think it clearly fails Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary and it does lack a context for an article. Regards Arthistorian1977 (talk) 05:11, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

The argument that an article fails because it is the definition of a word belongs at AfD. There is no such argument at CSD. Read this section of my Talk page above for my response to another editor who tagged an article as A1 and shouldn't have. You know what the article is about, don't you? A1 doesn't apply. My guess is it would be deleted at AfD (you could try prodding it first), but unless the word doesn't exist or it's obvious vandalism or the author coined the word, there's no speedy deletion criterion that applies.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:09, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

More trouble

Bbb23, as you know I like to neatly arrange socks of a color together, so here's a bit of trouble for you. Do you think there's a connection between Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wikikings and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wiki-senetor. I came through to the latter via an article and then looking at the contribution history there seems a fair bit of similarity in language and topics. The second SPI will go stale in a couple of days, so figured I'd check with you now. Both are paid editing groups with similar clients, though the Wikikings one seems to have a slightly larger base geographically. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 05:32, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

@SpacemanSpiff: AFAIK, there are only two non-stale accounts. Other than editing from your favorite country, they are Red X Unrelated.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:30, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Ah ok, thanks. Seemed to be a tie-in with respect to a bit of the film stuff that the two groups had, but the kings one is more diversified. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 13:39, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

James Christian's state

Okay, that's fair enough. All I did was change it from Connecticut to Florida. 24.78.230.155 (talk) 16:10, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Current Orangemoody SPI

Hello BBB23, I have copied groups 1,3 and 4 to the OM accounts list (and left 2 and 5 out for now, as they show weaker or no evidence for a direct OM connection). There is probably not much more to find in that case. Best regards. GermanJoe (talk) 23:22, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

@GermanJoe: Thanks and thanks for your input. I'm procrastinating about the other groups, partly because I'm waiting to see if anyone else has anything to say and partly because I'm not sure what actions I'm going to take.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:39, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

What do you do about Moonsell?

Moonsell doesn't understand anything about Tibetan Buddhism at all, yet has been OWNing the Tibetan Buddhism page for 7 years as an SPA. It is the most strange situation I have ever seen on Wikipedia. I am not exaggerating. He seems to get his info from nonsense websites.VictoriaGraysonTalk 18:15, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

To any other Admins who stalk this page, please look into this.VictoriaGraysonTalk 19:02, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
I don't know what you want me to do, and I don't see anything obvious that there is for me to do.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:29, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
@Montanabw: is familiar with the situation. Maybe they have an idea.VictoriaGraysonTalk 20:41, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

You rang? Bbb23, see this history, where you once blocked Moonsellf or 3RR. What we have here is a situation where I think there is a group of people who may be affiliated with a spinoff cult (this bunch) that appears to be tendentiously editing assorted Tibetan Buddism articles with assorted subtle but POV-pushing content, often inserting material from no-RS sources, while Victoria and some other editors are trying to keep the articles neutral and properly sourced. I am not sure Moonsell is actually a part of this bunch or just a drive-by, but there seems to be an issue of edit-warring and not engaging, plus Moonsell does seem to have a lot of problems with editing in general. ( in the interest of full disclosure, do note they aren't happy with me, by the way) Most of the rest of us (non-Buddhists) don't really have the background to assess the situation very well, so the edit wars go on without clear resolution because we don't have a lot of expertise to assess the issue. Victoria gets a little intense sometimes, but it's entirely understandable because she's being dogpiled by these folks. My take is that people who engage with Victoria can often work out their differences. The problem arises when there is simple edit-warring and tendentious debate of the same problems over and over. Not sure there is a solution at this point, but maybe it would be helpful to have some admin eyes on at least the main Tibetan Buddhism article and if it flares up to stop by and make suggestions that remind folks that there is an aide on the playground, so to speak. Montanabw(talk) 23:32, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't know if Moonsell is a member of the cult, but I do know he has cited the cult's nonsense websites before.VictoriaGraysonTalk 23:43, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @Montanabw: Yes, I know I blocked the user, but that was a while ago. Plus, the article itself hasn't seen any activity in a while. Given my lack of interest (sorry), the best thing would be for either you or VictoriaGrayson alerts me to a recent problem, or of course there are always the administrative noticeboards if that's appropriate.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:44, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
See talk page of article. I have to deal with Moonsell every couple of days, including today.VictoriaGraysonTalk 23:47, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Abuse of administrative powers

I was user 81.135.76.255. I've registered an account today because of your misconduct. Earlier today I changed an article on Melanie Philips. It was a reasonable change based on undisputed consensus. My change was reverted and the article locked. Your justification for this was an accusation of 'socking'. This is a false accusation. You've failed to assume good faith. I'm giving you this opportunity to explain your actions before I take this further. Thank youRob789 (talk) 00:04, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Why?

Why did you revert my closure? Supdiop (T🔹C) 17:31, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

At this point only a bureaucrat can close the discussion.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:43, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
It was a partial closure, general discussion was not closed. I closed it and said it was awaiting bureaucrat closure, so that, people don't vote after time for voting is over. Supdiop (T🔹C) 17:48, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Editors may continue to vote until the RfA is closed by a bureaucrat.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:50, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Ok, what happened to this page? Can you see anything on this page? It just weirdly blanked without anyone blanking it. Supdiop (T🔹C) 18:07, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
What page?--Bbb23 (talk) 18:09, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Many pages were temporarily blanked because of database lag. Thomas.W talk 18:10, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
That's what happened. I had just posted to a USER talk page and after the edit was complete the page was blank. When I went to my contributions page there was the statement about the database lag....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:53, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict)This page. Now it came back to normal state but for almost 5 minutes, it was just blank. So, database lag is the culprit. Supdiop (T🔹C) 18:15, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Contributor suspected to be invovled in reputation management

Hello. As Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Scholarscentral/Archive details OMICS Publishing Group have been editing WP for their own advantage for at least three years. Things have been rather quiet recently, but a user proposed changes as they claim the article is outdated and that it is unfair to label them as a predatory publisher, despite no RS saying otherwise. They made several edits yesterday such as removing 'predatory' from the lead and adding false balance by attempting to dispute the predatory label without producing any sources which actually discuss the company. That in itself isn't so suspicious and could easily be in good faith, but looking through their other contribs I noticed that their previous edits wreak of undisclosed paid editing, most damningly this photograph of Hannes Þór Smárason which they claimed as their own work but is clearly a PR shot as evidenced by the EXIF data. The subject was involved in allegations of embezzlement at the time and I strongly suspect that the article was written as reputation management. Combined, I wonder if this is sufficient justification for a CU? There's no non-stale accounts at Scholarscentral to check against and they are clearly a different entity anyway but it seems fairly likely to me that they will have been editing other articles with other accounts. Thanks for reading and for all the other checks you've recently done on my behalf as well! SmartSE (talk) 20:25, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

@SmartSE: Unlikely. No other accounts, and CheckUser logs from 2012-14 do not match this user's location, not even close.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:54, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Ok. Thanks for taking a look. SmartSE (talk) 20:15, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Fleetwood Joiner (request for copy of speedied article)

Hello Bbb23, I've been asked to take a look at an article that was recently speedied with you listed as the closing editor on the PROD Fleetwood Joiner an architect. Would you be so kind as to provide me with a copy? Thanks in advance, -- 009o9 (talk) 21:56, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Who is Elaine Newcomer?--Bbb23 (talk) 22:15, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Elaine Newcomer is the moniker for the woman I met today, she is a professional who has taken some workshops at the Getty for Wikipedia editing, expressly for this article. The subject, Fleetwood Joiner, is an award winning architect for extremely high end homes, but also developed sustainable home-building methods while in the Peace Corps. (This is a tough subject for notability issues because of (billionaire) client confidentiality issues) She (Elaine) is very devoted to the subject and his wife, Joiner is in failing health. Elaine has done deep research, but she has concluded that she is too close to the subject to do the article.
I personally, don't want to see her research yet, I want to give her an evaluation on what she did write and the references that are readily available before I evaluate her research. I will be a paid writer on this subject, there is no expectation that my work will be published in the Wikipedia, much like a paralegal, I am only paid to create the document in a format that complies with the policies and guidelines. Thanks for your quick response. 009o9 (talk) 23:01, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) My recommendation would be to restore to draftspace, tag the talk page with {{connected contributor}} for Elaine and {{Connected contributor (paid)}} for 009o9 (along with relevant WikiProject banners), and let them work on it and submit to AfC whenever ready. Paid work (as long as it is diclosed) such as this is IMO desirable and often produces quality articles we might not get otherwise. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 23:11, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 Done.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:20, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Thank you! !!!!! 009o9 (talk) 23:44, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Question(s) I've copied the declarations to the talk page, do they need to remain in the article header? Also, I generally like to use the noindex template for articles in progress, would this be problematic in the Draft-space? (I've only worked in User-space until now.) Thanks! -- 009o9 (talk) 23:44, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
I've removed the templates from the draft themselves and touched up on the ones on the talk page. I also added an "unsubmitted draft" template to the draft itself. I'm fairly confident draft-space is noindex'ed as a whole, but there's likely no harm in adding the noindex magic word to it. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 00:05, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks!, I read somewhere that the User-space is no-indexed, but I have seen my work mirrored while in progress. I was actually accused of plagiarism at one point, when an editor found my writing mirrored elsewhere and did not bother to further check what kind of content the website offered. 009o9 (talk) 00:35, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

HarveyCarter SPI

Good to see I'm not the only one have finger trouble today ;-) Nthep (talk) 18:07, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

@Nthep: Yeah, all to get your *@#$ signature restored properly. BTW, in the future if you make a mistake in the spelling of the master, don't correct it in the SPI. Contact a clerk and let them know. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:12, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Article title of Bad (tour)

About two years ago, you blocked EscapeX (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) related to edit warring, particularly around the title of the tour related to Michael Jackson's Bad album, whose article is currently at Bad (tour).

Dash9Z (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has taken an interest in making the same change. I don't think there's an overlap, but...something feels wrong. Could you take a look at the situation and see if it's just coincidental interests? Thank you. —C.Fred (talk) 20:31, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

@C.Fred: Not much I can do in my capacity as CheckUser. If you believe the behavioral evidence is there, you can block as a suspected puppet, or if for some reason you believe you can't take action, you can open an SPI and present evidence there.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:21, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
I wasn't asking for a CU on him; I was more looking if a second set of eyes saw the behaviour. I'm not convinced, so I'll see what happens over time. —C.Fred (talk) 00:35, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
@C.Fred: I actually didn't think you were. I was trying to find a softer way of saying I didn't want to do it. :-) As it turns out, though, I did end up looking at it. I'm not convinced, either. EscapeX was a SPA, whereas Dash9Z has much broader interests. In particular, he seems to be interested in superhero-related articles (and so many drafts). That piqued my interest a bit because there are, unfortunately, a bunch of superhero sockmasters out there. I started looking at one in particular, but I got bleary-eyed and stopped. If I find anything out, though, I'll let you know. Silence means a dead end, at least for me.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:54, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
And that's part of what I was thinking: there are a lot of sockmasters and long-term abusers out there. Just because it wasn't one I recognized, I wanted to make sure his actions weren't a tell to somebody else. No worries. —C.Fred (talk) 01:13, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Reminder: Please sign new Wikimedia confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information by 15 December

This is a message from the Wikimedia Foundation. Translations are available.

I wanted to follow-up on an message I sent you in September regarding the need for you to sign a confidentiality agreement by 15 December 2015 (OTRS users have until 31 December 2015) in order to maintain your access from Wikimedia to nonpublic information.

As you may know, the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees approved a new "Access to nonpublic information policy" on 25 April 2014 after a community consultation. The former policy has remained in place until the new policy could be implemented. That implementation work is now being done, and we are transitioning to the new policy.

An important part of that transition is helping volunteers like you sign the required confidentiality agreement. All Wikimedia volunteers with access to nonpublic information are required to sign this new agreement, and we have prepared some documentation to help you do so.

The Wikimedia Foundation is requiring that anyone with access to nonpublic information sign the new confidentiality agreement by 15 December 2015 (OTRS users have until 31 December 2015) to retain their access. You are receiving this message because you have access to nonpublic information and are required to sign the confidentiality agreement under the new policy. If you do not sign the new confidentiality agreement by 15 December 2015, you will lose your access to nonpublic information.

Signing the confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information is conducted and tracked using Legalpad on Phabricator. We have prepared a guide on Meta-Wiki to help you create your Phabricator account and sign the new agreement: Confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information/How to sign

If you have any questions or experience any problems while signing the new agreement, please visit this talk page or email me (gvarnum@wikimedia.org). Again, please sign this confidentiality agreement by 15 December 2015 (OTRS users have until 31 December 2015) to retain your access to nonpublic information. If you do not wish to retain this access, please let me know and we will forward your request to the appropriate individuals.

Thank you,
Gregory Varnum (User:GVarnum-WMF), Wikimedia Foundation

Posted by the MediaWiki message delivery 08:11, 16 October 2015 (UTC) • Translate • Get help

CU question

Hello Bbb23, question about CU, if an account last edited on December 5, 2014... is it too old for CU? The reason I ask is I listed VictorSport (talk · contribs) in a SPI that I re-opened Newestcastleman SPI, which I think is linked to the current FCFanclub1 (talk · contribs) sock (and 121.6.121.204 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). I see in the past they had sleeper accounts discovered by CU, so I think there is a strong possibility of other sleepers. Is this enoiugh for a CU check? Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 11:52, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Yes, December 2014 is too old for CU, but if there are logs of CU on that account, we can get some information. Supdiop (T🔹C) 11:59, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Just curious

Why did you delete the talk page for Wikipedia:2015 administrator election reform/Phase I/RfC (on 15 Oct., 14:09)? Was there anything of significance on the page? --Biblioworm 05:44, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

No.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:50, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for the pointers, I'll go educate myself.  :) valereee (talk) 11:48, 17 October 2015 (UTC) Edit to add: found exactly what I was looking for here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/SPI/Guide_to_filing_cases#What_happens_in_the_case Thanks again! valereee (talk) 12:01, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

@Valereee: Great. Believe it or not, I'd never read that guide. Most of what I do is almost second-nature, so I never hunted it down, but it's a wonderful guide (I just finished reading the whole thing, not just the one section), and it'll be a handy link if someone like you asks a similar question in the future. So we both learned something. :-)--Bbb23 (talk) 13:24, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
This makes me so happy!  :) I'm always amazed at how much more I can still learn about WP after nearly ten years' editing.  :) valereee (talk) 13:29, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Return of the reference-converting sockpuppeter

Hello Bbb23. You may remember me; I basically needed your help well over a year ago with a troublesome user who was using multiple IPs and his own named account (see User talk:Lgfcd) to repeatedly force through changes; ultimately you temporarily and then permanently banned him when he continued using IPs to circumvent the ban and be disruptive. I just noticed a new named user account ([|User talk:Dutral|User:Dutral]])whom I highly suspect is yet another sockpuppet of his, apparently even after a year and half he's still at this. Would you have the time to look into this matter? Kyteto (talk) 14:25, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you

You sorted out my somewhat inept posting that became Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rajesh-barclays, made sense of it and took entirely appropriate action. Fiddle Faddle 15:46, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I wonder if something more is going in here than sock puppetry. I am starting to smell the "Paid editing scam" here, with no evidence except my nose hairs twitching. A new editor popped up almost at once and started again with the Jains. Then the editor saying she is Abigail Jan has left an impassioned plea on her talk page (I suspect this may be genuine, but again that is nose hairs).
The scam I am thinking of is the old "We will get your poor article accepted if you pay us money" scam. It smells like preparatory work, but I do not have sufficient experience in this area to look at this more deeply.
You are someone I trust to make a reasoned assessment and to take further whatever needs to be taken further. Fiddle Faddle 16:44, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
I think I've seen these accounts before or variants of them, there were three accounts, one of which said that they were editing together at an airport and they work at Barclays. I can't seem to place my finger on where that sighting was, perhaps on an unblock request or something, but it's something over the last couple of weeks and I was thinking Paid COI too. —SpacemanSpiff 16:53, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for staying on top of the Jain Sock Farm proactively. Do you have an opinion on Abigail Jain as an article, and sorting out the reality from the manure? Fiddle Faddle 15:18, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Not really. Too much work, not to mention that the only thing you could do would be to send it to AfD (a second time), and one major area of the encyclopedia I dislike is AfD and it's almost invariably contentious discussions.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:45, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
I took the view that a radical revert was a decent step. I've left a note on the talk page about it. I don't feel desperately strongly either way, just feel in my water that something there is wrong. I suspect it will attract a whole drawer more of socks. Understand your feelings about AfD. I see it as the other side of the AfC pancake and a necessary evil, often populated by forces from that realm. Fiddle Faddle 20:24, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Sleeping socks?

Per this exchange, Murrayturtle who has just been blocked by NeilN is almost certainly a sock from this farm, do you think it's worth doing a checkuser to look for sleepers? Voceditenore (talk) 14:47, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

@Voceditenore: Don't know. I'm not familiar with that case. You or NeilN can always reopen the case if you want a sleeper check. You'd have to explain why, though.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:36, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi Bbb23. I asked because you blocked Rortosthanos 5 days ago and in the exchange I linked above Murrayturtle admitted to being a sock of Rortosthanos and several others in the same farm. Is it OK for me to re-open Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Yashas T to ask for a sleeper check and to link other recently blocked users to the farm, i.e. Murrayturtle and Magicsan who have exactly the same MO? Or do they only want "new" suspects? Voceditenore (talk) 14:37, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying. I am obviously familiar with the case. I'm not fully awake. It seems like the first thing I do when I go en-wiki is get sucked into socks, CUs, etc. Not blaming you, of course, just part of the job. Give me a bit to think what's best. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:43, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
@Voceditenore: I'll run a check on my own later. No need to reopen the SPI. Thanks for your patience.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:47, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Murrayturtle is  Confirmed.  No sleepers immediately visible.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:08, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! I doubt it's the last we'll see of this particular pest, but their MO is so obvious that any new incarnations will be easily spotted. If you ever get tired of CUs and socks, I have dozens of articles on opera singers that could use some serious depufferization. I do quite a bit of it, but it's a lonely job . Best, Voceditenore (talk) 07:50, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Re: Karaka Bays

Hi Bbb23 - just a slight comment on this... just because an article is originally created by a banned user doesn't automatically make it a bad article - especially if experienced editors like myself and Gadfium have later edited it into something more encyclopaedic. Policy does allow the deletion of articles created by banned users in violation of their ban, but it does not require it - and actually advises against it if other editors have added to the articles. Karaka Bays does exist as a suburb (and now again has a stub article). Grutness...wha? 10:50, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Reporting Aubmn's new sock... multiplying

Hello Bbb23 - As you requested at the Alwaysgreen's case, [31], I am reporting directly to you a new Aubmn's sock, who signed in as Nbnnbnl[32] at the Marie Antoinette article, the very article that caused Aubmn to be banned.

I just undid his edits & am requesting article to be protected.

Best regards, --Blue Indigo (talk) 18:28, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

This time at my talk page [33] under name Justicebm
--Blue Indigo (talk) 19:15, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you

I appreciate the block evasion reversion. I think the original comment of thanks could have been left though. I certainly agree evasion shouldn't be abetted as I have strong feelings that way but I also see no reason to be completely rude by not acknowledging thanks. Not a biggie though, those articles you declined by the way are completely unsourced and are well worth CSD albeit with a shake or two of IAR. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 14:58, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't use IAR at CSD. There are other deletion processes.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:01, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
On another note that I hadn't noticed until just now [[34]] is a fairly caustic and bad faith assumption. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 02:33, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Prior CU at Commons

Should I file a new SPI casepage, with Iggy488 (talk · contribs) as the sockmaster, and above evidence?— Cirt (talk) 16:05, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
It appears admins above have labeled Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of DoDung2001 as the sockmaster for that set, should I file an SPI with that one as the sockmaster? — Cirt (talk) 16:07, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
What you're saying is not quite accurate, but it's not material. Yes, you can file a new case with DoDung2001 as the master. Please don't use CheckUser signals, e.g., confirmed. They are reserved for CheckUsers. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:49, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Okay, no worries, will do. — Cirt (talk) 19:22, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Now at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DoDung2001. — Cirt (talk) 19:32, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

thanks :)

thank you for dealing with those sock puppets (peacebigline etc) so quickly. I get the feeling they will create more socks, but for today it might be a little more peaceful. thanks again Spacecowboy420 (talk) 14:58, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry

Hello, could u please check why my ARV about User:Black Kite, which I am more than sure is sockpuppeter behind User:Zebras234 is mysteriously disseapared?--Azerifactory (talk) 15:11, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

You're very close to being blocked for disruption. I deleted two of your SPIs. The one against Black Kite canot be filed that way because it's against an administrator. You must contact the Arbitration Committee by e-mailing arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org. I seriously doubt that the SPI has any merit. It sounds like you don't like some of Black Kite's actions. That SPI listed Zebras234 as the alleged puppet.
You filed a separate SPI against Zebras234, which makes no sense, where that account was listed as the master. There were no puppets listed and the evidence was again, "I don't like him". You have some serious judgment issues at best.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:19, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Declined CheckUser

Hi, you declined my CheckUser request on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/I B Wright due to insufficient evidence. I don't mean to to argue with you, but could you please clarify what would constitute sufficient evidence? I read the help pages and thought I'd checked all the boxes, in fact personally I would have thought the User Compare Report alone would be enough to justify suspicions, so if that's wrong, what should I have been looking for? Thanks. Uk55 (talk) 17:03, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Something more than just evidence of a recent content dispute. Being UK-based doesn't say much (do you know how many editors are based in the UK?). Your examples of tag-teaming reverts looks more like they were right to revert, and at least in one other editors agreed with them and also reverted. Also, only in one of the sequences did all three users revert. Maybe a better characterization of the the SPI is that the evidence is very weak, rather than "insufficient" because you did, as you say, present evidence.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:40, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for replying, I understand what you mean, but when you say 'something more', what specifically? Maybe you could point me to an example of a similar case that was strong enough? Sorry to keep bugging you, I'm just struggling to make sense of it all. Uk55 (talk) 18:10, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Hopefully my explanation at the SPI has cleared up my thinking for you. I'm sorry I suspected your motives, but given the background, it was understandable. Take care.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:25, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for doing this, I agree it was perfectly understandable, I'm just glad to have this sewn up. Uk55 (talk) 18:34, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Bbb23, and well done for toughing this one out, Uk55. It hasn't been the easiest introduction to Wikipedia for you. I can assure you that editing here isn't always this challenging! Cordless Larry (talk) 18:49, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
There's not much that surprises me these days, but the Tally-ho connection at this SPI definitely gave me pause.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:38, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Overwhelmingly tallyho - if there is such a thing.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:41, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
That's either incredibly ballsy or incredibly stupid.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:31, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Could be both.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:55, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

"Blocked and tagged"

If you want to avoid typing it out, {{bnt}} produced  Blocked and tagged, which I use frequently. :D ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 20:29, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Huh. But wouldn't it look funny (colorful but funny):  Confirmed,  Blocked and tagged, closing. Maybe we could have yet another colored template for "closing".--Bbb23 (talk) 20:33, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
I wish there was an icon for INNOCENT. It's not good news when an editor is blocked. Liz Read! Talk! 22:02, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Only babies are innocent for about the first few days of their lives. You wouldn't like being a CheckUser, or even an SPI clerk.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:05, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Not to mention that Checkuser cannot prove innocence, there's just too many ways to circumvent the underwhelming tools we have at our disposal. The closest is Red X Unrelated, but even that can be trumped by strong behavioural evidence.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 22:10, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
No, I would not be a good checkuser. I assume good faith and I know there are editors who once vandalized who turned into decent editors. I think we should celebrate when a SPI shows that accounts are unrelated (no sockpuppeting!), and not when we nab one of those bastards! Editors who are obsessed with sock hunting just baffle and bewilder me completely. Liz Read! Talk! 22:22, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
I should add that my background is in teaching where you never give up hope that a disinterested student can turn around. Anyone can change. Liz Read! Talk! 22:24, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Many former socks probably have changed, we just never know because the successful ones go undetected. It's those that can't help lingering around the same articles and topics and causing the same disruption that led to the block who end up at SPI.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 22:33, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) People say this, but I've never seen stats on how many vandals, when given a second chance, turn themselves around, and I'm not talking about disruptive users, but vandals. Also, although anyone can theoretically change, most people don't, although the younger they are the more likely they can change. Finally, even when a vandal is unblocked and doesn't vandalize again - do they turn out to be good editor? These issues are complex, and I doubt that you and I will ever agree on the approach that should be taken. I don't personally have a one-size-fits-all approach. My approach varies depending on the case, but I think it's safe to say that I reject the idea of change more often than you do. There's a bright side, though. Administrators shouldn't be fungible, so having administrators with different approaches is healthy.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:36, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm a big proponent of rehabilism, and more than once have I worked in tandem with editors to get them back to editing after they were "caught" at SPI with a new account evading a years old block. Most of the SPI cases that get thrown our way are not about such editors though, but about people who've been creating sock-after-sock-after-sock for longer than I care to think about. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 23:20, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Well, Bbb23, notice that I didn't say how frequently people changed. That's where you and I differ, you probably believe a low percentage of disruptive editors change while my guess is that it is higher. I'm also influenced by knowing several adults (some in my family) who were absolute terrors when they were teenagers (drugs, illegal behavior, belligerent) who went through changes and are now quite caring, supportive, positive and generous adults. It's really hard to believe they are the same person.
And I think you're right, Ponyo, no doubt that a fair number of editors who socked or vandalized, maybe as IP editors, return a few years later to Wikipedia, create an account and behave so differently that no connection is made between the former accounts and the current account. This is especially likely if the editor has, in the meantime, relocated to a different area of the state or country. How often this happens though is a question can never be answered given the nature of anonymous editing. Liz Read! Talk! 08:52, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Someone is impersonating you

Hello again, someone (I wonder who) has appeared on my talk page today using your signature. The actual edit was made by a mobile IP address. Any ideas how we should deal with this? Uk55 (talk) 12:03, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I blocked the IP for one month. They've been blocked before in August. FWIW, it's fairly clear that it's not I B Wright.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:07, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, but what makes you say that? Uk55 (talk) 12:13, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Not editing from the same part of the world.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:18, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Strange... so I B Wright wasn't from Britain after all? Uk55 (talk) 12:27, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
I've struck my comment above. However, I'd prefer not to explain why. Thanks for your understanding.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:32, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Alright, think I understand. Uk55 (talk) 12:41, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

We Check Users don't connect IP with an User

Then why did you block this IP as Bazaan sock?

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3A114.134.89.21

--1.39.36.156 (talk) 14:06, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

If you're referring to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NA122, I didn't give any reason for the decline. Regardless, your Bazaan example is inapt.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:26, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

CU for IPs

Hi B, I could use your input! A user was indeffed, then returned as an IP and acknowledged that he was the account holder editing while logged out, essentially outing his location, IP, ISP, and such. He also threatened to resort to sockpuppetry if he did not get his way. A new IP has sprung up at an article within his field of interest. It geolocates the same and it is the same ISP as this guy. How would a CU work here? Would I be able to request a CU to link the two IPs? I know we don't typically link IPs to named accounts. What would you recommend? Thanks! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:13, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Block the IPs.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:30, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Well, I was hoping to get some confirmation via a technical check to reduce the possibility of a flawed block on my part. Is that something I could request via SPI, or would you advise against that? My approach might be to open an SPI report on the IPs, not the logged-in user, but I don't know if that's a material improvement. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:05, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Frankly, it sounds like a waste of time. If you're persuaded that the IPs are evading a block, then you should block them on your own. You don't have to be 100% sure, just that it's probable, which is the same standard at SPI for behavior, just someone else who analyzes it.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:08, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Okay. Thanks. I appreciate your candor. :) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:41, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

SP advice

A little flock of new editors have just created sandboxes within the same 1 minute window and all but one had made their first edit on 14th October. It looks very much like a little raft of sleeper SPs being established. The relevant user names are User:Kjlytle, User:Malou28, User:Bham 1993, User:Fivestardancer10, User:Rasma.15, User:AKro123. There may be some perfectly rational procedural reason why these have all appeared together, but would welcome your advice on how (or if) they might be dealt with. Regards  Velella  Velella Talk   20:45, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

@Velella: The sandbox thing is of interest behaviorally but not otherwise. It's the other edits they're making that are concerning. Pick the oldest account (by creation date) and start an SPI. Provide some evidence and, if you wish, let me know when it's done. If you need help, holler.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:15, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. They are all lying very low. No new edits at all. It is just possible that it is a College class all doing the same thing at the same time - first on 14th October and now on 21st so I may be jumping to absolutely the wrong conclusion. I am off for the next 10 days but I will revisit this on my return. Regards  Velella  Velella Talk   21:44, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict)(talk page stalker) Not that it's any of my business, but based on when the accounts where created and have been used (last Wednesday and today, at the same time of day, consistent with a class once a week) and what articles they have edited (including highschool sports in Minnesota) my quick amateur analysis is that it's a highschool class somewhere in Minnesota, and that the first account listed (which was created a couple of minutes before the others, consistent with showing how it's done, and has made more "professional looking" edits) is the teacher and the rest of them students (and more of them can probably be found in the logs at 19:53-20:00UTC on 14 October...). Thomas.W talk 22:16, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

SPI Investigation

Sorry about not opening a new investigation. First time for me so I'm learning the ropes. Thanks for being attentive of your watchlist.Mattnad (talk) 00:51, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

@Mattnad: It wasn't meant as criticism, just friendly advice for the future. SPI is a special place unless you're used to working there.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:53, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
No criticism taken. Appreciate helping advice.Mattnad (talk) 00:55, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

With this ever dramatic world and winter coming, here's a cup of tea to alleviate your day! This e-tea's remains have been e-composted SwisterTwister talk 04:59, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

some advice please

You were the admin who dealt with a sockpuppet report of mine and blocked the offending accounts, unfortunately the same two articles that those socks were working on are being reverted by anon IP edits now, performing exactly the same reverts as the blocked sockpuppets.

I know that I should assume good faith and assume that it's a coincidence however I doubt it. Is there any point in making more sock puppet reports in a situation like this? The IPs look as if it is someone with access to a proxy service? Or do you have any other suggestions about how I could deal with these IPs?

It's not the end of the world for me, it's an article that I stumbled up, so unless there is a viable solution for dealing with it, I will just stumble upon another article to edit, I can see myself getting dragged into some tit for tat edit war otherwise. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 13:53, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I blocked the two IPs and semi-protected Shincheonji Church of Jesus the Temple of the Tabernacle of the Testimony and Lee Man-hee for two weeks each. Please let me know if there's further disruption. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:35, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Thank you very much. My first thought was that I'm gonna go back there and revert the article. But I guess that would make me (almost) as bad as the sock/IP accounts. Maybe two weeks of semi-protection could prompt whoever is so determined to revert the article into some form of discussion and a stable article? It's certainly worth trying. Thanks again Spacecowboy420 (talk) 14:39, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

SPI question

If I open a SPI on this user and ask for CU, is it possible to block the underlying IP range if narrow enough? --NeilN talk to me 05:08, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

@NeilN: If there's evidence of sufficient abuse in a particular range, I would look at the repercussions of blocking the range. If you open the SPI, you should ask the CheckUser to look into it and explain why you think it's necessary. You can let me know when you've opened the SPI if you wish.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:05, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Humanidk --NeilN talk to me 14:50, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for looking into this. --NeilN talk to me 21:51, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Re your edit summary at WP:AN3

This one. I too had noticed recent reports are missing the result part. Seems it has been removed from the template that comes up when you click "Click here to create a new report". I don't know why, and I find it annoying — I thought of reverting it, but I can't figure out where the template is, or how to edit it. Maybe you can. Bishonen | talk 15:37, 23 October 2015 (UTC).

@Bishonen: With some degree of difficulty I did, and that led me to this discussion, which I had failed to notice. I've commented there now. Feel free to chime in if you wish.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:41, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. I have. Looks like they're in the process of taking care of whatever the problem was (no, no, please don't explain what it was), right..? But rather slowly. I felt myself go a little red in the face when I saw MusikAnimal say "many people do not understand templating syntax". Indeed we don't! (MusikAnimal is a lovely sympathetic person, who has patiently answered many stupid questions from me about templates and Twinkle.) Bishonen | talk 16:01, 23 October 2015 (UTC).
Heh, don't worry, I won't explain it to you. You saw my comment there, so you know how I feel. They're upsetting my routine!--Bbb23 (talk) 16:10, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Yeah they're experimenting with a new format, see here. Your input is welcomed — MusikAnimal talk 16:25, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Will the "result" that is in the box to the right show up in the TOC?--Bbb23 (talk) 16:47, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
No, one of the goals of the reformers was to have links to 3RR reports not change when the report was closed. I.e. the result can't go in the header. I'm not yet persuaded it's worth the change. EdJohnston (talk) 17:00, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Ahh, a light bulb goes on about the broken links issue (I'm too lazy to read it carefully, I'm afraid, and I keep commenting here while in the middle of running a CU - I'm not the best juggler). Now I understand. Thanks. I'm not convinced, either, btw.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:06, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

THANKS!

Hello First of all Bbb3, Thank you for clearing that up. (sockpuppetry) I was never in doubt that I was going to be cleared as there was no base for the accusation, but I do have a suggestion to make.

In two different ocassions when arguing about some revertions that I percieve as unwarranted deletions, some users have take ocassion to point as if it were relevant: This User (Rudy235" is underinvestigation for sockpuppetry. I wan't to say that now that this accusations have been cleared I wish they would now have the decency of going back where they said that and not only delete that mention, but also for them to be admonished that just because someone is being "under investigation" does not mean he or she is less of a user and that this qualifier "under investigation" is totally superfluous. Anyone can be "under investigation" You do not need to do anything wrong for someone else to promote an "investigation" and I believe that is only put there to make it more credible that he is in fault in this totally unrelated matter. Anyway, thanks for clearing that up. I am sorry user Hurishito has been blocked. I rather simpathized with him.Rudy235 (talk) 17:47, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

It's rare we go back in the past to these sorts of allegations and try to correct them. However, if anyone accuses you of sock puppetry in the future, that's a different issue and, depending on the accusation, could be considered a personal attack. If you can't resolve the issue with the other editor (best), you can come here and ask for my opinion. If you do that, please be sure to provide diffs reminding me of the background because otherwise I may not readily remember (I do a lot of CUs). Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:52, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
I think it is a waste of time to argue with people that seem to have power and are not afraid to wield it. If I had done that, I would personally go back and remove those notations if in the beginning I have had the audacity of using then in an totally unrelated matter. As to why I was accussed of Sockpuppetry 1) because I was new 2) because I knew how to edit and Im not supposed to know if i'm new. 3) because.. I edited something other suspected people had editing. Hardly any evidence. Seems that here new users are like children in the 19th century supposed to be "seen and not heard". And this i what I was refering to earlier : Comments: User user:Rudy235 and user:Huritisho, who are who is under a sock puppet investigation ([101]) keep adding numerical values that are not supported by the cited reference. Specifically, their source states: "measurements of Styx and Kerberos have not yet been downlinked." But that does not stop them from falsifying the data and edit-warring. Thanks.Rudy235 (talk) 18:16, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ Kautilya3/Archive

Hello again. I had noted in this SPI just prior to your archiving it that there was an extraneous space in the title prior to the username. Wouldn't it be desirable to move this page so that that space is removed, if only to not have a split history in case Kautilya3 gets brought up again (even if it's another WP:POINTy report like the one just concluded)? Technically I could do it myself, I suppose, but I figure anything like this in SPI-land should be left to the admins who normally toil there. Thanks as always. --Finngall talk 21:24, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Good eye. I don't think it's worth fixing. It doesn't affect anything.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:29, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/23prootie

Hey Bbb23, do you mind if I reopen the case? Elockid(BOO!) 22:13, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

@Elockid: Not a bit.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:17, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
23prootie is still around? Holy toledo!--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 22:25, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
No need to use profanity.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:49, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Jiminy Cricket!--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 15:35, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) The blessings of Jiminy be upon you. He forgiveth all, even CheckUsers.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:42, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Wow, that's almost as strong as golly gee willikers! --NeilN talk to me 15:40, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
You're all on the verge of being indeffed, you sons of parents! (And daughters of.)Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:10, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Bbb23. I think I need a sanity check with this case though.
@Ponyo: Yup, 23prootie is still here. I guess even after 30+ declined unblocked requests, some people just can't accept a no. Elockid(BOO!) 21:53, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
@Elockid: I'm not sure how I can help. Unlike apparently Ponyo, I'm not even a little familiar with 23prootie's behavior. I read your comments at the SPI. Generally speaking in this kind of a case (stale, checkuser log, behavior), a likely finding should result in an indefinite block, but that's me speaking in the abstract. Despite your finding, it sounds like you're torn.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:25, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm definitely torn. I think I'll just leave it open for now, maybe get a 2O from someone whose familiar. Elockid(BOO!) 23:40, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I knew there was one somewhere but couldn't for the life of me find it. Will have to get more coffee. Amortias (T)(C) 04:07, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Heh, sometimes Wikipedia does a wonderful job of hiding things. Happens to me too. Very frustrating.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:12, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

1884

It's OK. 1884 is the correct date and is supported by references. I don't think there is any disagreement about this now. I am explaining how the falsified 1876 date came about on the talk page.

The problem is with the other editor who obviously does not know anything about the subject matter. --79.64.208.41 (talk) 21:46, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

It's not okay, and you're going to get yourself in trouble.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:55, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

TY for the reminder

"Jeh, please use the checkIP template for IPs." My apologies, I usually do. No reply required. Jeh (talk) 04:52, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

About Matt LeBlanc's Twitter

It was promoted by Taylor Swift. She called him by that twitter name. Here's the proof! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pavel Sachkovsky (talk • contribs) 17:55, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) But it's not verified by Twitter. That's the important thing here. clpo13(talk) 17:59, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Mydiveo

I created the mydiveo page but I don't understand why it was deleted. I know that it was deleted because the page does not show any credible importance or significance of the company, but I don't know how I can change it so that the page can stay up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdivsm1 (talk • contribs) 18:54, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

The article was deleted twice, one by another administrator per WP:CSD#A7 and WP:CSD#G11, and a few days later by me per A7. Frankly, I don't think there's much you can do. It's a very new company. You have two sources, one a press release, and one posted by a "contributor" at Forbes. A contributor is more like a blogger; it is not a Forbes journalist. There is a clear disclaimer on the Forbes post to that effect.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:15, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Alvandria

Your CU comment doesn't make clear whether the four indistinguishable accounts are related to Alvandria? JohnCD (talk) 21:38, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

When a CheckUser makes a finding, that finding is about the accounts' relationship with the master unless expressly stated otherwise, e.g., "the following accounts are confirmed to each other and possible to the master". Sometimes, CheckUsers will include that master in the list, but it's not necessary. An easy example: you have a master and one alleged puppet. The CheckUser may briefly say: "confirmed, blocked, tagged, etc." One doesn't have to say confirmed to the master. That's understood, although I guess not by you..--Bbb23 (talk) 21:42, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
OK, thanks. JohnCD (talk) 21:48, 26 October 2015 (UTC)


If you get a chance, could you take look at my unblock request

now that it's all dead(ish) and buried(ish); I have some questions about the role of unfounded ANI accusations in this stuff. Anmccaff (talk) 19:29, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I assume you mean AN3, and I have nothing new to add that I didn't already say at that noticeboard. From the discussion on your Talk page, it sounds like you're letting this fester. Even if you think I'm wrong, it's not a good idea to do that, for you if for no one else.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:04, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
No, as I said, My question is fairly specific; the filer listed a bunch of unfounded ANI...3, AN3...filings as part of his argument, which were allowed to sit there unanswered, except slightly by me; I also had some specific questions about the timing, in the past, some of these have sat for a couple of days, during which normal editing could easily get into something construable as 3RR, when exactly does the clock start, and how soon past the 24 hour limit is it safe to assume it's declined?
Festering, nahhh. You seem as OK as the job'll letcha be, and doubtless I got lazy after so many bad filings, but that isn't to say I like seeing what I see as vandal-by-incompetence bulling his way through the chinashop, and me getting the blame. Anmccaff (talk) 20:20, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
@Anmccaff: I would say that you shouldn't revert on the article until at least there's been a ruling or the report has been archived without a ruling (should be 48 hours from the last post). Even then, I'd be careful. For example, Editor A accuses Editor B of breaching 3RR. Editor B has in fact breached 3RR. Editor A, though, has reverted 3x. Editor B is blocked for breaching 3RR and no action is taken against Editor A (for whatever reason because an admin could block them too for edit-warring). Editor A, after the block, reverts. Really not a good idea. The administrator hasn't found that Editor A was "right", only that Editor A's conduct didn't merit a block. Every case is different. That's just an illustration.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:53, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
While not a 3RR violation, it seems I'm not the only one running into problems with this editor. FWIW, your comments at An3 about my conduct have been taken to heart. The Dissident Aggressor 20:29, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Checkuser blocks: Dfunk006‎‎

That's new to me. The policy at Wikipedia:CheckUser#CheckUser_blocks notes that a checkuser block should be specifically noted and place by a checkuser; not with a link to a "likely" finding at a SPI placed by another administrator. The situation here is pretty obvious with a little bit of googling. Please clarify the policy; I'd rather not waste any more time at RFU if there's unwritten rules on discretion. Kuru (talk) 22:51, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Eh, that sounds pissy after reading that - please add "You're awesome and I have nothing but respect for your record and previous actions, but I'd rather not waste precious time arguing with spammers when I could have just blown the whole thing off and left it to you... :)"... Kuru (talk) 22:53, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
@Kuru: It's not uncommon for a CheckUser to make a finding after running a CU and not block the account. Sometimes the account could be blocked by an SPI administrator, a non-SPI administrator, or even another CheckUser. If I had personally blocked the account, I would have used {{checkuserblock-account}}. I hope that helps.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:07, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm sorry, it doesn't. In this case, you're extending the irreversible status of a checkuser block to any block made at SPI based on behavioral evidence in combination with something less than a confirmed finding. That seems to be a bit of reach, and not aligned with the way the policy is written. I'd rather not work the unblock queue if it's not predictable when discretion is available. Kuru (talk) 23:26, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Let's play devil's advocate. What if, as often happens, an account is blocked by an admin (not a CheckUser) and then taken to SPI with a CU request. I run the CU and find the account is confirmed. Let's say I, not a clerk, tag it as confirmed. The block log does not indicate it's a checkuser block. Does that mean it's not? Would you have me reblock the account using the template? Meh. Here's an example of that. Dennis blocked first, and DoRD confirmed later. As it happens, DoRD tagged the userpage with a confirmed template, but he didn't reblock.
Let's take another example. DQ made a finding that an account was "likely" on August 30, 2013 here. DQ's block doesn't use the "magic" template. However, DQ tagged the account as CU-confirmed. This shows that a confirmed finding isn't required to add a confirmed template. That lies within the discretion of the CheckUser. I could dredge up more examples, but it means poring through all SPIs, and it's not worth doing any more than I've already done.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:56, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm well aware that time is precious, and it is painful to waste the very limited time we have to contribute here. I won't continue the debate and force you to spend time iterating; especially not when we're debating the unblock of someone that I'm fairly sure is here for the wrong reasons. I'll avoid the unblock queue in the future as the policy is unclear. Kuru (talk) 00:24, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm sincerely sorry you feel that way. Even when it's clear to you that the block is a checkuser block, I value your input in responding to unblock requests. Regards.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:32, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
As an SPI admin clerk myself, I was also under the impression CU-blocks (blocks made by a CU with the {{checkuserblock-account}} template or an otherwise explicit mention of it being a CU block) were distinct from blocks made by admins (based on a CU finding or not, an SPI or not, and made by an SPI clerk or not). ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 23:28, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Motives

On ani, you questioned my motives, so I thought I'd reply to you directly. I felt like I encountered a page WP:OWNer on disappearing gun. You're right - I edit warred and stopped. I still felt bullied. I engaged on the talk page all the way through, cited policy and was unilaterally overruled. Then I see the same editor doing the same thing on another page after seeing the discussion on his/her talk page and I think it's the administrators' job to stop bullies like him/her. I think you are falling down on that job so I took it to a broader audience because I think that behavior will continue. They you defensively shut the discussion down on ANI. In all good faith, I think that was bad form for you to do that. I think it belongs there.

I have not re-engaged on the edit dispute on disappearing gun and I hope others will chime in on the discussion. There you have it. The Dissident Aggressor 15:14, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

I did not "shut ... down" the discussion at ANI. I commented, forcefully, but commented. Frankly, I didn't like your coming here, when Anmccaff opened up a thread asking me some questions about my actions, and throwing in your comments on the Scarsdale diet issues. The topic at ANI seemed more of the same.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:20, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply. My understanding is that talk pages are open discussions, on the record and open to everyone, especially if they're involved. The Dissident Aggressor 15:29, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Sure, but that doesn't mean I "approve" of all the comments.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:32, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Fair enough. The Dissident Aggressor 16:10, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Sermo now at SERMO

Hi Bbb23.
I had a look at this 'new' page and I was wondering why it had 'Advert' and 'COI contributor' tags dated August 2015. A little digging revealed it was a cut-and-paste of Sermo [43]. I see you have been involved at the original page, over several years. Just FYI, regards. 220 of Borg 04:39, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I have restored the content at Sermo and re directed the 'new' SERMO page back there. Advised editor Vanderdoc (talk · contribs) of that on their talkpage, and previously about proper page moving with a cut&paste warning template. 220 of Borg 04:58, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
I can see I edited (reverted?) the article a fair amount, the last time being in August of this year, but I can't for the life of me remember why it was on my watchlist (it's not now). That happens a lot. Usually it means there was a conduct issue that triggered my "interest". It looks like it had to do with conduct by 092876az in February 2013 who attacked the entity, but that still doesn't explain how I got there in the first instance. Anyway, I have no particular interest in the article now, although Vanderdoc's conduct appears to be problematic.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:32, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
No problem. I often wonder how I came to a particular page! We'll see if Vanderdoc edits again. 220 of Borg 18:46, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Toe stepping

Sorry, I had already run a check based on the response to my block here.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 22:02, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I kinda thought you might be doing that, but at the time I didn't understand why you were not blocking them as socks (seemed so obvious). After running my check, which was close to completion anyway (wasn't hard), I figured out why. :-)--Bbb23 (talk) 22:07, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Addition of news

Hey can you at least include the link to Chris Pine's confirmation that he is in Wonder Woman? So far his page has only as "reported" his casting by The Wrap under Career. You need to add his official statement. Darth Vishius (talk) 20:24, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

@Darth Vishius: You could have done so yourself, but I'm happy to help. It's done.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:34, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Hey thanks a lot! I'm new here so forgive me for my brashness. I've one more request. In Hans Zimmer's discography can you include Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell no Tales (2017); Directed by Joachim Rønning, Espen Sandberg; Studio- Walt Disney Pictures , Jerry Bruckheimer Films.
I don't know how to add N/A for transclusion under Notes so if you could do it, it would be great. The Pirates 5 page lists Hans Zimmer as the composer but it's not mentioned in his discography, so please include it and fix the discrepancy. Darth Vishius (talk) 20:58, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Honestly, I know hardly anything about these films. Nor do I understand your allusion to transclusion. In any event, although I do see some discrepancies, when I looked at IMDb for the film itself, it doesn't list Zimmer as the composer. It lists someone named Geoff Zanelli and calls it "rumored". Without a reliable source indicating that Zimmer in fact is composing the music for the film, I'm not touching any of it. Also, although I'm happy to help you because you're new. It would be better for me to answer questions on how to do things rather than doing them for you. You'll learn better if you do anyway.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:15, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Simple English Wikipedia

Is an individual who has been blocked for sockpuppetry numerous times on Wikipedia allowed to edit the Simple English Wikipedia when they are using sock(s) (registered account and IP socks) there? [44], [45], [46]. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:04, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Simple has its own administrators and its own checkusers and its own sock puppetry policy and procedures. I'm not familiar with them. You can try figuring out yourself how you file the equivalent of a report there, or you can seek help from someone like Bsadowski1 or Djsasso, both of whom are admins and checkusers at Simple and administrators here.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:58, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Okay - makes sense. But, Simple is part of the WMF, isn't it (or am I wrong about that)? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:00, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
You're correct about that.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:01, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Okay. Thanks for the replies. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:25, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Recent SPI cases.

I refer to the recent SPI cases, [47] and [48] (07 October 2015). There is little doubt about the surprise expressed by everyone that I B Wright, DieSwartzPunkt and Liverail turned out to be the same user. They He had everyone fooled for quite a long time (4 years). It is this that causes me much unease. I find it even more surprising that Uk55 was able to make the connection based on one content dispute when no one else had with 4 year's editing history. What makes this even more astonishing is that the reason LR gave for opposing Uk55's change was different to that given by DSP and IBR. The later two opposed on the grounds of it not being 'industry practice' (though there was precious little evidence), while LR opposed on the grounds that having a mixture of measurements was not good encyclopeadic practice.

It is clear that the reason Uk55 made the connection was because he has encountered these three accounts before in similar circumstances. But an examination of UK55's editing history shows that the he has never encountered any of the accounts (at least not as Uk55). This means that he must have encountered them as a different account. It is also clear from Uk55's contributions that he is no new user as he has a good knowledge of the way Wikipedia works which genuine newbies lack (even though he made 3 claims that he was a new user). It is therefore clear in my mind that he is definitely a sockpuppet of someone. So why not use his original account? Most likely because it has been blocked.

I have to say, I personally believe that the evidence posted at the Bhtpbank SPI report is very compelling (even once the double reporting is set aside). The SPI clerk who looked at it had not declared otherwise. Add to that the highly suspicious circumstances set out above, and add the (otherwise circumstantial) point that Uk55 was a very sporadic user (7 edits in almost 3 months) - that is until Bhtpbank's previous incarnations as Bethayres and Plojjer were blocked (by yourself), when Uk55 springs into active life (57 edits in under a month).

I believe that the Bhtpbank case should not have been so hastily closed. I think you may have inadvertently let a blocked user off the hook and to continue to circumvent his block and that is always unacceptable (and definitely against policy). I think you (or someone) should have another look at that case. Or should I raise this as a brand new SPI case?

This was always going to be a race determined by which SPI got adjudged first. Uk55/Bhtpbank pushed the process along heading off his own report. There is something that IBR could have done to achieve the same goal (I shall not eaborate to avoid giving others ideas). 212.183.128.203 (talk) 13:42, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Did you forget to log in prior to posting these allegations?--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 16:51, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
No. I have never had a user account because I have enough usernames and passwords without unnecessarily adding more. Wikipedia the encyclopaedia anyone can edit. 212.183.140.12 (talk) 17:36, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Interesting. I hear that a lot, yet haven't seen an instance where it's turned out to be true. Regardless, I'll pass Bbb23'S page back to him, it's rude of me to hog it.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 17:47, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes needed

You reverted me here. Ha!...I say. Needed! Bewareth of the wrath of Annatheth and the overuseth of "th"s. Seriously, the odd thing is that the absence of that line space makes the archives not appear, often. I've been experiencing this for years, literally. Browser issueth? Besth, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:40, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

@Anna Frodesiak: Does purging not work? Have you ever tried adding a blank line and then thelf-reverting so I don't have to revert you for dithruptive editing? Just out of curiosity, what browser are you using?--Bbb23 (talk) 12:45, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
You are right. I just went back to a version before I added the line and the archives are visibleth. It is clearly a purging issue. Thanks for helping me sorteth this out. By the way, I use Chrometh. (P.S. "dithruptive" is not Old English at all. You went well into Daffy Duck territory there.) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:51, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Hehe. I know more about Daffy Duck than I do about Old English. I leave such arcane topics to people like you and Drmies.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:58, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:02, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Drmieth is still mothsly out of commission. Thanks for holding the fort, if it's being held. Drmies (talk) 14:07, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

SPI clerk training page

Hello Bbb23, previous clerk training page is deleted, can you please give me a copy of the page? I want to learn more about clerking from that page. Thank you - Supdiop (T🔹C) 00:45, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure what page you mean. Please provide a link.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:06, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Clerk training/January 2015 - Supdiop (T🔹C) 01:13, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
You can email me or post that in my sandbox for a while and revdel it after I copy it. Thank you - Supdiop (T🔹C) 01:22, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
@Mike V: Why do we delete this?--Bbb23 (talk) 03:42, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
DQ has requested that we delete the page after the training per the BEANS guideline. Mike V • Talk 04:04, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. Supdiop, I doubt anyone will provide you with a copy, but you can try asking DeltaQuad.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:08, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Personally, I'm very cautious about the material, and it's why it got deleted in the first place. The material presented in there is enough to get an idea of how to sock and get away with it. I admit I feel I erred in putting so much information out like that and will be doing it a bit different this time around. I would invite you to follow the training that we start in a short bit here if you wish to learn more about clerking and by reviewing the pages about procedures. You can of course ask specific questions to any clerk or on the clerks talkpage. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 04:42, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. I wanted to participate in the training but unfortunately I couldn't but I will follow that. :) - Supdiop (T🔹C) 05:43, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry

I'm seriously annoyed right now... I tried to help Wikipedia by making Diselenide, and I was just wrong about this page. I am probably going to be banned or blocked, but is what I did over a year ago supposed to affect me extremely? I think you violated that rule about not focusing too much on old accounts... or maybe Supdiop did. My final request? I want Madmans, Selevidus82 (another one of my accounts), Gyrize, all the other sockpuppets except Think Troy, and this account. I am going to just chat on Think Troy's talkpage, because not all my edits were reverted. They were supposed to help, you know. Oh, and link to Selevidus's talk:this. (The talk page exists.) IamNotMadMansAnymore (talk) 13:10, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Request for arbitration: Wrong accusation of being a sockpuppet

Dear Bbb23,

I have been wrongly accused by Kethrus to be a sockpuppet account of User:Kitatom, who also goes by the sockpuppets User:Ebcidic and User:Grockeds. (Here is Kethrus' edit: [49].) Could you please confirm to Kethrus that my IP is different from Kitatom's?

I am 100% sure the accusation happened in good faith. Thank you in advance,

--ElNuevoEinstein (talk) 08:57, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

I've responded at the SPI.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:34, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. --ElNuevoEinstein (talk) 15:32, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TV5Ozamiz

If I block an editor in a report where CU has been requested but not yet run, I assume I should leave the case status untouched and let a CU or clerk handle it, right? --NeilN talk to me 16:29, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

@NeilN: Depends. In this instance there was no reason given for the CU request. You could have therefore closed it yourself. If there's a reason given, it would probably be better to let a clerk or CU handle it, although the odds are that unless there's a history of sleepers, they'll close the case.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:32, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. --NeilN talk to me 16:34, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators#Accountability

We're done here, everyone, no more edits on this subject on my Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:51, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

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.

Per this warning: ([50]), can you please explain why what I wrote was a personal attack but this isn't? RO(talk) 20:54, 1 November 2015 (UTC) Or this: ([51]). RO(talk) 21:13, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

With respect to her first comment, she struck the part that was the most inappropriate in the same series of consecutive edits. With respect to the YouTube link, it was another user who removed it, and apparently it was so bad that you have to log in to YouTube (I don't have an account), to see it. This is much more than a single personal attack, though, for you. This is an unacceptable crusade, and you need to let it go or you're going to find yourself in trouble.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:11, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Bbb23, it looks like RO has retired for now. I know she has been thinking about it for a while but she was continuing to edit while the WikiCup competition was going on. Liz Read! Talk! 22:42, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I noticed, not happily, either, but I didn't notice until after I responded, and either way, she (didn't know her gender) can still read my response if she wishes.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:14, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Here's a version of the video that doesn't have an age restriction on it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4gNAjBPIyjQ And no, you don't have to have a you tube account to log in, you just have to have a google account. The Idaho Fish and Game Department didn't put out porn in 1950, and I doubt it does even now. The histrionics over it are ridiculous. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 23:23, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Assuming that is in fact the video (it's puzzling why such a video would have an age restriction), out of curiosity, why did you post it?--Bbb23 (talk) 00:05, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
It was an article about the fur trade, and how is decimated the fur bearing animals. As to why there's an age restriction, I'm not sure. I'm sure this video was shown to children 50 years ago. The Idaho Fish and Game uploaded it with an age restriction for some reason. I guess people are so sensitive these days they decided to not take a chance. Anyway, don't feel too sorry for MBW. she gives as good as she gets
  • Bbb, could you a link a diff of what you in particular gave RO a 4IM warning for? We have the same toolset, so unless it's been oversighted, I just looked over all contribs @Rationalobserver: made to that RFA, and I don't see any that are frankly even harsh by RFA standards, let alone worthy of a 4im "stop or you will be blocked" template to an established user. Unless I'm missing something, the comments RO made at that RFA are milder than the documents many admins make to each other every single day. If you want to enforce that level of civility, let alone in an aggressive way, you're going to have an uphill battle to say the least. Kevin Gorman (talk) 23:40, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
  • my revert. I would never have left such a warning if there weren't a history to this editor's campaign against MBW. Context is everything. I never even heard of RO (AFAIK) until I received an off-wiki communication from her. I caught up, though, at least at the time, although, frankly, I try not to pay attention to these unseemly obsessions by editors.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:00, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Yes - there is indeed a history to be taken into consideration Kevin. You may want to review the Montanabw RfA for some context. — Ched :  ?  00:16, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Oh, no, no, no, Ched. First, you need to review Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jazzerino/Archive#06 December 2014 where it was claimed that RO was a sock of Jazzerino. She was blocked and unblocked the next day as the conclusion was in error. Then, in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ItsLassieTime/Archive#19 February 2015, it was claimed that RO was a sock of ItsLassieTime. She was completely cleared of this charge but the SPI was very ugly and messy and RO continued to be accused of being a sock because she stated she had a prior Wikipedia account (which she went to the trouble of informing ArbCom of).
At this point, RO was angry about the continuous accusations and she received a two week block for being "disruptive" which was basically talking back to her accusers. She was unblocked within a day but given an ultimatum by Coffee that if she crossed the (imaginary) line once more, she would receive a six month block. Given how subjective the appellation "disruptive" is, it's no surprise that the ban hammer came down in about a month and she was given a six month ban which was clearly seen as arbitrary and excessive and was lifted by an admin after a couple of weeks.
This was all prior to Montanabw's RfA and is at the root of RO's hostility to her. Personally, while I think there has been bad behavior on many sides, I know that few editors would suffer through two SPIs that exonerated them and four unfairly applied blocks within a year and continue to edit. Most editors would have left months ago and while I often disagreed with RO, I can't say that I wouldn't also be resentful if I had been treated similarly. Liz Read! Talk! 17:03, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Excuses for butting in, but that's not exactly what happened. I'm the person who filed Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ItsLassieTime/Archive#19 February 2015, hastily, without sufficient evidence, and I apologized as I told RO I would if it wasn't accepted, or if CUs showed no relation between the two accounts. I now know the RO account is not a sockpuppet of ItsLassieTime, but there were some strong similarities in use of sourcing that led to the SPI and honestly, these things happen. The CUs didn't accept the case, so not quite a complete clearing. The subsequent blocking was for more than talking back to accusers. I can provide diffs and feel free to come to me, since in a sense I began it. And take a look at my activity levels since that time, and maybe have a look at the history on my talk page for February, March and subsequent months until the final unblock. I disengaged - but I've added a lot of content to this encyclopedia and have not been a bit happy about this situation, nor am I happy to see it misrepresented in such a manner. Victoria (tk) 17:24, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Liz and Kevin, please don't jump to conclusions. Sometimes it's in everyone's interests to let things go, and this is one of those situations. SarahSV (talk) 17:59, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Victoria, I'm sorry if you feel like I misrepresented the situation but I tried to write about incidents that occurred and avoid talking about individuals (with two exceptions). If I was unfair, I apologize. I'm looking at the pages in hindsight, not in the moment when the discussions were occurring. SlimVirgin, you make a valid point. I'll remove myself from the discussion. Liz Read! Talk! 18:07, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
(e-c interruption here) User:Flyer22 Reborn knows a lot about clearly false sockpuppetry allegations, as some of us know. She might not be the only one here who does. I agree it can be very, very damaging to anyone to have such allegations made, because there are kind of few ways to prove them wrong. And at least some people will, not unreasonably, react negatively to false allegations or continued badgering or following. There are a few ways to end them, but I doubt many. Maybe one option here would be to impose an i-ban. I know they don't work very often, but this might be one of the better situations for such a measure. John Carter (talk) 18:49, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Another sock of Turnbull

Hey Bbb23,

Another sock of that Turnbull35 you blocked today is vandalising my user page [52], and doing the same stuff his blocked account of earlier today did,[53] as well as removing the discussion I had today with him [54]. I think its time for an indef or long block. Do you want me to create a separate SPI as well, or is this material enough right here? Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 16:38, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

@LouisAragon: My gosh, he was on a rampage. Not only did he create the account you already know about, but he created a bunch more all within minutes of each other, although none of them had edited yet. All of them are now blocked, and the master's block has been made indefinite. Let me know if there's further disruption.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:57, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, the hate is stronk with this user. Some more btw, he just edited with [55] - [56] - [57] - [58]. He claims he has more accounts as well. Maybe protecting this page could help us, which is his main target. If needed, please let me know and I'll make an SPI quickly, just to have everything visible for everyone and the archive, even though hes already CU blocked. Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 17:08, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
@LouisAragon: I blocked the three new puppets. I semi-protected Iranian American and its Talk page for two weeks. I semi-protected your Talk page for one day. Let me know if you want your Talk page protection longer (or shorter or not at all).--Bbb23 (talk) 18:13, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, I think those actions should be sufficient for now, esp the protections. Yep, I will let you know whenever. Bests and take care - LouisAragon (talk) 19:01, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

BLP

Bbb, remember Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Marquis de la Eirron/Archive? Huge456 must be another one. Can you run CU, block if positive, and maybe file some of the paperwork? And can I leave again, then? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 14:17, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I can't even compare Huge456 against SleepCovo, whom I blocked based on behavioral evidence, as SleepCovo is stale. Running a check against a single account is something I rarely do. It's also highly unlikely to yield results but would nonetheless take some time. Do you have another non-stale account, even if not blocked, to check? And no you can't leave again.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:59, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Stop making me log in all the damn time. No, I have no others to offer. But this edit reverts my revert of an IP you blocked for abusing multiple accounts. Their edits typically add categories without verification, etc. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:45, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Ooh, nasty account, they reverted you. Off with their heads. This would be a behavioral block. Why can't you do it? See, there's this thing called a block form used by administrators (log in required), you fill out the form, and click on the magic button. Nothing could be easier. With practice, I'm sure you'll catch on and one day be quite good at it.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:48, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Responding to your edit summary, I owe you big time, not just for that, but for more things than I can count. Still, I have to put my foot down sometimes or you wouldn't respect me in the morning.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:09, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Drmies (talk) 19:30, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
MrX, I see you dragged this editor to ANI one time, and suspected that it was a sock of Goredog. Nothing came out of that thread. Andy Dingley commented that Huge did UK politics but Goredog did US politics; since then (2014), however, Huge has been editing US politics articles as well. Drmies (talk) 15:50, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
@Drmies: It looks like this is moot now, which is good because I only vaguely remember why I thought this user was a sock of Goredog. - MrX 21:00, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Note

Thanks for your note. I'm doing my best to follow the advice in Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Scibaby, and not give him pointers on masking his behavior. I've tried to list specific users to compare to, where comparing edit summaries, content, etc, should obviously pass WP:DUCK for any CU. You're more familiar with the administrative end here than I am, and I guess you feel that's not enough, so I'll list specific diffs next time. I think, if he's watching that page, he's likely to be able to work out why the diffs match on his own, but maybe that's not as big of a concern anymore, given the years of history. Anyway, thanks. I'll see you around.   — Jess· Δ♥ 15:33, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

@Jess: Thanks for the explanation. Why don't we try a compromise approach that respects the LTA advice and avoids a decline by a clerk for lack of evidence. Do it the way you have been doing it. If the clerk asks for diffs, then point the clerk to the LTA page. If that doesn't work or the case is declined out of hand (less likely), contact me or another active CheckUser.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:05, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Will do. Thanks, I appreciate your input!   — Jess· Δ♥ 20:06, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Block of User:Czoal

You blocked User:Czoal with a logged reason of "checkuserblock-account". On his user page you say he is a CU-confirmed sock of User:Lootbrewed and link to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lootbrewed and thus to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lootbrewed/Archive. But that SPI was closed as "inconclusive", and Czoal was never mentioned. Was the CU check actually separate from that SPI? Is there some other SPI or on-wiki discussion of the matter? I ask because I was interacting with Czoal very shortly before the block, and also I wonder if this sort of undiscussed block is actually common in such cases. DES (talk) 23:18, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

@DESiegel: Because I found that Czoal was a sock of Lootbrewed, the template automatically links to the investigation if there is one. Yes, the CU check was separate from the SPI, which, at the time, did not identify another named account, only IPs. As for your last question, CheckUser blocks of accounts are often made outside of SPIs. As to the frequency, I doubt that statistics have ever been collected. Two other things. First, just in case you didn't notice, there was yet another confirmed sock of Lootbrewed apart from Czoal. Second, the evidence was as compelling as it gets.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:45, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. I am aware that CU evidence is often not subject to public disclosure, and I wasn't asking you to disclose anything confidential. I have seen a number of cases where blocks for "sock of someone" were applied when a user seems overly knowledgeable about WP process and details, but no one has identified a particular sockmaster (at least not publicly). I think the way in which we handle socks and sock-blocking could be improved. But it seems this is not a case in point. Thank you for your prompt response. DES (talk) 23:59, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Creating a Miranda Beahm page you locked

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=Template%3AUnreviewed-preload&editintro=Template%3AUnreviewed-editintro&summary=&nosummary=&prefix=&minor=&title=Miranda+Beahm&create=Create+a+new+article+directly

Miranda Beahm has made a new website, which can be used as a direct and reliable reference. http://mirandabeahm.wix.com/mirandabeahm Being a local fan of hers, I'd like to see her get her well deserved credit for working hard to slowly move up. Cky2k2k2k (talk) 03:19, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Her own website is hardly a reliable source, and as a fan you're better off creating a fansite than an encyclopedia article.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:50, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

SPI

I did as you requested. 2601:240:C701:45F0:29D3:1A7D:61A1:8AEF (talk) 12:20, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

@2601:240:C701:45F0:29D3:1A7D:61A1:8AEF: Thanks very much.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:50, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Borcker

There is a lot of suspicious activity over at Footjob occurring the very day the protection by NeilN expired. I strongly suspect that it is linked to Borcker, who had a fixation on vandalizing these kinds of articles. Do you believe that an SPI is warranted? Thanks, GABHello! 01:35, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

@GeneralizationsAreBad: No need to reopen the SPI.  Confirmed. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:52, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Anytime. GABHello! 02:08, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Lazy, disruptive editing

Would you please take a look at this edit? It wipes out quite a few of my edits, and quite a lot of my time, in one edit. It looks like what the editor did was come along, find a diff, and make a null edit to it — to recklessly destroy everything I'd done[59] — despite the big, pink warning boxes that stare you in the face if you try to do this. Why do I think that? Would any reasonable editor argue that this:

and even a "a proto-world war"

is better than this:

and even "a proto-world war"

It looks like lazy, WP:Disruptive editing by an editor that doesn't care about the feelings of another editor — or at least one with an opposing point of view (for which there is consensus). — Ríco 22:35, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Forgive me, but why are you contacting me?--Bbb23 (talk) 22:47, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
To ask if you would please take a look at the diff. You're an administrator.
If I made a mistake, forgive me. It won't happen again.
I think there's a reason I stayed away from Wikipedia for four years. Returning was a really bad idea.
I think I know why Wikipedia has so relatively few active editors. Nobody knows what to do about disruptive editors, and they waste so much of the time of so many editors. Good editors quit, as I should.
We ask, "Who'll do something" — and the answer is, "Nobody".
Wikipedia knows what its problems are, and doesn't fix them. — Ríco 00:27, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
It strikes me that what you and others are having are several content disputes about the article. I don't get why you think that Axxxion is being disruptive. Your statements about active, good, and disruptive editors are a distortion of what goes on here, not that good editors don't quit, but that we so few "active editors". You speak of Wikipedia as if it's a person ("Wikipedia know what its problems are, and doesn't fix them"). Wikipedia is a collaborative environment in which many users play a role in the good and bad things that happen here. Your statements are also loaded so if I decline to help, that means I don't care. I too have my role here, and I rarely get involved in content disputes, yours or anyone else's. I'm puzzled by one thing. What you mean by making a null edit of a diff and the pink warning boxes. I don't follow that at all.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:02, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Can you take a look please?

User talk:Parmarsinghbn‎. I blocked on the basis of DUCK and the Commons CU (referenced in the filed-unnecessarily-SPI.) There's an SPI call sign used about some illegal actions, so figured I'd alert you :) cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 05:31, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Okay, but not tonight. I'm going to bed.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:44, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Didn't mean to request a CU. I'm guessing the Commons one is good enough, just wanted that revert or a response that you've now done (as something from a CU). cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 05:47, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Najaf ali bhayo

Hello. Would you mind taking a look at my latest SPI-report, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ Najaf ali bhayo, and move it to the correct name, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Najaf ali bhayo, since I accidentally included a space before the name... Thomas.W talk 14:49, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

  • I've moved the page and blocked the account for 24 hours -- I'm not familiar with the socks to do a duck block. —SpacemanSpiff 14:54, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks both. I noticed Krzyhorse222 a couple of days ago, at the same time as Gamma+, but felt I didn't have enough on him to include him in the SPI-report about Gamma+. So I gave him a bit more rope, keeping a close eye on what he was doing while I waited for him to do something that really gave him away. And it didn't take long before he did... Thomas.W talk 22:09, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the CU magic on Krzyhorse222. I would have DUCKed it regardless, but Thomas is right that it never takes much of a rope-offer because long-term problem editors are prone to become problematic. DMacks (talk) 22:18, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Indian TV socks

Hi! Thanks for blocking Yatan-verma as sock of Durr-e-shehwar. But @SpacemanSpiff: has suspected that he might be TekkenJinKazama and reported that accordingly at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/TekkenJinKazama#05_November_2015. Is it possible that Durr-e-shehwar and TekkenJinKazama are one and the same and their cases/categories should be merged? Both edit Indian TV/film articles.
Also, after you blocked Yv at 09:19, 5 November 2015, Me-myself22 was immediately created and they continued the discussion at 09:41, 5 November 2015 with their first edit. WP:DUCK here. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 10:08, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

@Dharmadhyaksha: Yatan-verma and TekkenJinKazama are Red X Unrelated. I've noted that at the SPI and linked to the newly-created Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Durr-e-shehwar, where yet another sock, besides the one you mention above, was listed. I've blocked both of those accounts. There's no need, though, to do any merging. The notation is sufficient. I just have to clean up the new SPI to list all the socks I blocked earlier and any already-blocked accounts I confirmed during my check. I've also semi-protected Karan Singh Grover and his Talk page. That should help a bit reduce the onslaught of new accounts as that article seems to be the main target du jour.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:30, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
I added a comment to the SPI that two accounts are tagged as TJK socks but your CU finding was that they were probably not TJK. Could you ask a clerk to get the tagging fixed on those accounts? Ravensfire (talk) 15:43, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
We're cross-posting. I commented at the SPI. I've now removed the tags from the two accounts' userpages.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:51, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Thank ya! Ravensfire (talk) 15:55, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
There's far too many of these characters to make any sense of the nonsense going around. I've filed yet another SPI on yet another group now. And the reason I filed under TJK was because of comparing to Rishika which has now been un-TJK-tagged. —SpacemanSpiff 16:53, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
As you know, it's fairly common to incorrectly identify the master of a particlar account. If it involves paid editing, it's even worse. Trying to keep all this straight, which is only theoretically possible, is a full-time job or jobs. Although there are many very responsible and helpful editors who frequent Indian articles, it seems like the number of socks that also frequent those articles is disproportionate to other areas of the project. Of course, I've never seen any statistics on this issue.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:06, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
The paid editing concept has caught on more in India than elsewhere, especially with re to film and TV because our bar on notability is quite low (an academic with a paper published in Cell (journal) is not automatically notable but a bit part actor in three films is often considered to be), so agencies find this to be a very easy way to make money. It's easier to get a Wikipedia article kept at AfD for a bit part actor than it is for them to update an IMDB profile. Look at Thalapathy Dinesh and compare to Thalapathi Dinesh at IMDb. < /end rant > —SpacemanSpiff 17:23, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Just saw the SPI results where you found the Chander socks. Oh. My. A 6K+ and an 11k+ edit account in there? Sad, just sad. Ravensfire (talk) 23:34, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Gabe Neal page

Hello,

I just don't understand why you deleted the page I created. It was an assignment from my boss, and now it's not there anymore. The artist I posted a page of is someone the company I am interning for represents. It wasn't advertisement. I got the info straight from the artist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charnaye95 (talk • contribs) 06:02, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

If you decline to help...

...I won't hold it against you.  :-)     In the slightest, on general principles, but more especially considering the nature of this specific request! I know I've seen you before on-wiki, in positive fashion, and it looks like it must have been from your top spot over here, since I've been an SPI observer a handful of times.

  Just recently, though, your name came up in an unrelated discussion: somebody who shall remain nameless (okay it was User:Xanthomelanoussprog) has recommended you as a good candidate, who ought to self-nom yourself, for an arbcom term. You've made several dozen to the arb casepages, so you know how things work in arb-land. You're already trusted and vetted, as a checkuser and via RfA. Plus *I* like you which says a lot.  ;-)  

  I note your discussion further up usertalk about roles, and that you have one to play here on the 'pedia. I don't know whether you would consider arbcom-candidate as part of your role here, or arbcom-voterguide-author, but if you would run I think it would improve the 'pedia. Please think about it. Self-nom is open now (three candidates announced so far for nine open seats) through the 17th. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 09:57, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

As I've said in the past, I'm a sucker for good writing, and you write well. As I haven't said in the past, I'm also a sucker for a nudgenik, and you are a one-person-let's-find-an-Arbcom-candidate committee. I don't know who you are, but it's nice to meet you. Happy nudging!--Bbb23 (talk) 15:09, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Well, I don't know who I am either.  :-)     Since I edit "anon" by stubborn tradition, I've forgotten! But yes, nice to officially meet you as well, and yes, I'd very much like to see a very strong crop of arbcom candidates. And I'm nudging people to run themselves, or if they would prefer NOT to join the arbcom membership ranks for some strange reason or other, to write up some voter-guides which give their opinions. But what point voter-guides, when there are not enough candidates to fill the slots? So I would actually like to see discussion -- broadly construed -- of who ought to run, and nudging broadly construed of those who ought to run, to step up. I'm also nudging your rfa-co-noms, as you probably noticed, whom I've also interacted with (slightly more directly than yourself), so if you want to see User:Drmies and User:Dennis_Brown get armtwisted, please join in. Oh no, I just pinged them. So maybe they'll nudge you instead? Us poor anons don't have {{ping}} so I keep forgetting that stuff.... Anyways, arbcom is a hard job, that nobody wants, but as I see it, either a strong push now for candidates, or pretty soon User:Worm_That_Turned/ACE2015's prediction will come true. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 23:47, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Don't think you're going to have much luck with Dennis Brown (who politely said no) or Drmies, who is not particularly susceptible to arm-twisting, although he does occasionally get his nose out of joint if football is involved.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:56, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Sssht, I'm watching the Alabama game. We're up 20 but there's a lot of time left in the fourth quarter. Drmies (talk) 02:29, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Bbb23, it depends on what you mean by luck -- Dennis tried to trick Casliber into running again, and Drmies put up half a dozen names. Which is pretty lucky, since even if the two I personally happen to know don't end up running, by nudging them to think it over some other potential usernames popped up. Which is lucky, if at least some of the above will run, in my book. Bbb23, if you have time, please scan the rough list of "usual suspects" with 50k edits && adminship, and see if you notice any people that ought to run. Drmies made his suggestions there already, plus also recommended a couple other names on WP:AN. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 11:41, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Lazzaro (record producer) page has been deleted

Hi Bbb23, Couple of months before I was created this Artist page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lazzaro_(record_producer) and today I relized that I was created that page with wrong name, it was User:Lazzaro (record producer), I wanted to correct the name and delete (User:), because correct way is (Lazzaro (record producer)) without (User:). then I deleted the page with wrong name and created new one with correct name https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lazzaro_(record_producer), and then you deleted my correct page :)) please I want back my page with correct name https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lazzaro_(record_producer) please help me, Thanks!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lazzaro (record producer) (talk • contribs) 03:46, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

It seems like all you've done at Wikipedia is promote yourself. To accomplish that, you've had at least three different accounts, which is called sock puppetry, and is a blockable offense prohibited by policy: User:Lazzaro~enwiki, User:LazzaroMusic and the account you're using now. I will not restore the article. You're lucky I haven't blocked you, but if you persist, that may happen.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:49, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

I understand, sorry about that, you can delete or block all that acounts, including this one!!! Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lazzaro (record producer) (talk • contribs) 16:21, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Happy Diwali!!!

Sky full of fireworks,
 Mouth full of sweets,
 Home full of lamps,
 And festival full of sweet memories...

Wishing You a Very Happy and Prosperous Diwali.
 §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:31, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Send Diwali wishings by adding {{subst:Happy Diwali}} to people's talk pages with a friendly message.

Hugh Jackman Religion

Hi,

Could you add Hugh Jackman's religion to his wikipage? Source: http://parade.com/426939/dotsonrader/the-hugh-you-never-knew/2/

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.144.34.56 (talk) 23:29, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Bad Ronald NYC

Greetings Bbb23 - Please advise as to why you have deleted my entry for the Bad Ronald NYC page. I can substantiate all of the references and will attest to its verity in a court of law. Best - Ronald — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronald Tunes (talk • contribs) 04:13, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Quick question

What do you use to delete pages that generate the summary "Multiple reasons: speedy deletion criteria...", such as here? Are you typing that out manually? — MusikAnimal talk 02:33, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

@MusikAnimal: When editors tag an article with multiple tags, the delete page form is automatically filled in with the criteria they used in the bottom text box. It didn't used to be that way, but I can't remember when it changed - a while anyway.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:53, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Ah yes, of course. Thank you. I'm working on a big Twinkle update, soon you'll be able to delete under multiple criteria and have it generate a summary like that — MusikAnimal talk 05:07, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

New Rolandi+ sock

Hi Bbb23. We have I-Impartial who is an account that was created after you blocked Rolandi+. He is a 13-edit account who already knows what a sock is and taunts other editors using similar expressions as the blocked master: Rolandi+: There is a discussion at the talk page.However go ahead and report me! vs. I-Impartial: Yes, I'm your sock Athenean. Go and report me.. He also made his first talkpage appearance on a talkpage that Rolandi+ has commented on: Talk:Balšić noble family. Is this enough for a block or should I open an SPI? Dr. K. 22:13, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

@Dr.K.: I-Impartial is  Confirmed. Hope all is well with you. Regards.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:57, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Thank you very much Bbb23 for your fast action. I am very well, thank you. It is always nice talking to you, especially since we haven't talked for some time. But I see your tireless work all over the 'pedia regardless. :) Take care. Dr. K. 23:05, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
I've noticed that as soon as I-mpartial's unblock request was declined [[60]], a brand-new account emerged [[61]] two hours latter with the same interests. I wonder if an spi is still necessary in this case for a CU. Thanks in advanceAlexikoua (talk) 15:32, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm not a sock. I'm keen on Albanians under Ottoman Empire. Report me if you want. I had created my account some hours earlier than my first edit.Gwoomba (talk) 15:44, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Same pattern and same reactions after being accused of socking [[62]].Alexikoua (talk) 15:50, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I'm saying it again. If you think I'm a sock, you should report me. I'm an Albanian editor and maybe you're lucky enough as to block me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gwoomba (talk • contribs) 15:53, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Now you're reverting me because it's same poor citation style with blocked Rolandi.Gwoomba (talk) 15:56, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

You don't say it's an Albanian ISBN for books published in Albania. Now my sockpuppetry is confirmed. You deserve a barnstar.Gwoomba (talk) 16:01, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

OTRS Ticket # 2015111010000057: processing permission email for Yasser Hareb

Was this page deleted for other reasons than just being a copyright violation? If yes, can you tell me what other reasons, so I can inform the person sending the permission email. Do not restore the page yet as I do not have a specific statement of permission yet. MorganKevinJ(talk) 17:38, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

@Morgankevinj: It had been tagged with other criteria, but although I was a bit concerned by the semi-promotional aspect of the article, I didn't think it qualified as a G11. And given the claims, A7 wasn't justifiable. So, the answer to your question is G12 was the only rationale for deletion.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:05, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you

I never had a chance to thank you for a supporting comment you made during one of many discussions that swirled around the Neelix business. Very best regards from all of 99's manifestations. Cheers 2601:188:0:ABE6:31AE:6C32:513:5211 (talk) 02:09, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Expert Drones

Is it worth filing an SPI? Will they be gone when the AfD debate is closed? Would an SPI be good in case recreation is attempted? Sam Sailor Talk! 17:00, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

@Sam Sailor: I'd file the SPI.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:07, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Had preferred "I'll file the SPI." ;) Will do. Sam Sailor Talk! 17:09, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Case filed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Velic02c. - Sam Sailor Talk! 17:31, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Can this range be hard blocked?

Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject on open proxies#45.33.130.46. As a checkuser, are you allowed to say whether there is any good-faith editing from logged-in accounts using this range? It is assumed that people from this range may be using the Puffin mobile browser, which is not part of the XFF system so such users can't be controlled by regular IP blocks. (Compare the Opera Mini Browser). If there are no useful logged-in edits from this range, precedent at WP:OP suggests the one-year anonblock should be converted to a hardblock. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 00:32, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: This is more complicated than just using a Puffin browser. From what I can tell, there are two entities involved, CloudMosa and Hurricane Electric. The latter is a webhost and a colocator, which generally can be hard-blocked, although a year would be a long time, particularly because CU data only goes back about 3 months. Regardless of the implications of a named account using IPs in this range, I did check the range, and there would be collateral damage, even doing a hard block for a shorter period of time, as there are a number of named accounts using IPs from the range. I didn't look at every named account because the amount of traffic is very large. Evaluating the extent of the damage is not easy because it means examining each named account to see whether the account is editing constructively or not. For each account that requires a chunk of time, and it's tough to do without having other accounts to compare to unless I'm lucky enough to hit on one while checking the first. For example, one of the most active accounts is using 29 IPs in the range (that's by far the most of any named account), which is a helluva lot. That same account is using only two IPs that are not in the range. Obviously, hard-blocking the range would cause significant problems for the user. At the same time, the account is a long-standing user with special permissions for non-admin users and has thousands of edits and a clean block log. The upshot of this is I'm not sure what's best. I don't see how a one-year soft block of the range is a problem. I know I wouldn't hard-block the range for anything longer than 3 months, and I would hesitate doing so even for that period of time. If you want to pursue a hard block, all I can suggest is to consult with another CheckUser who may have more experience than I in making these kinds of decisions.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:22, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Holly Boffy

Please send the copy of Holly Boffy, which you deleted. Billy Hathorn (talk) 18:59, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't e-mail users copies of deleted articles. However, I can WP:USERFY it for you if you wish. Let me know.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:49, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Please do what you can, as I have no backup copy.Billy Hathorn (talk) 16:53, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
@Billy Hathorn: Here you go: User:Billy Hathorn/Holly Boffy. Good luck.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:12, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Admin's Barnstar
You CUs don't get enough love and recognition - so thank you, from me and from Wikipedia samtar {t} 16:37, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the kind words, Samtar.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:58, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Pennellville

Universalism Jewish? Judaism and the Gentiles: Jewish Patterns of Universalism (to 135 CE) By Terence L. Donaldson. --Allygggggg (talk) 19:10, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bbb23/Archive_33&oldid=1145828026"