Jump to content

User talk:Bbb23/Archive 47

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 40←Archive 45Archive 46Archive 47Archive 48Archive 49Archive 50

Disruptive user

Do you recall my report? Please check this bad faith edit in Football Leaks. It's pretty clear that user "Wiki observer1" is the same person I reported. SLBedit (talk) 22:05, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

So, how exactly do I report "Wiki observer1"? SLBedit (talk) 23:42, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Just report the one user.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:44, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
But to report the new user I have to mention the other users. SLBedit (talk) 23:47, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
You mean that I should remove {{checkuser}} for the previously reported users? SLBedit (talk) 23:52, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
Correct. Looks like you fixed it.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:10, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Is it considered edit warring if I revert Wiki observer1's edit for vandalism (see edit summary), which reinstated information and primary sources added by Delphine Halgand (talk · contribs), who seems to be Delphine Halgand-Mishra and, therefore, is personally involved in the matter? The current revision doesn't seem neutral, contains links to primary sources and isn't properly formatted. Before Delphine Halgand's edit, it read: "Football Leaks is a website published as a result of material illegally obtained through cybercrime, with the intention to extort money from football clubs and organizations. The material contains confidential information about notable footballers and clubs." Now it reads: "Football Leaks is the largest leak in the history of sports revealing murky financial transactions in the world of European professional football and exposes the tax tricks employed by some of the Continent's biggest stars. Football Leaks refers to the series of investigations published by the media partners of the European Investigative Collaborators (EIC) in December 2016 and November 2018, like Der Spiegel, Mediapart, El Mundo, Expresso, Falter, L'Espresso, Le Soir, and many other major European media. Football Leaks initially was a website containing confidential information about notable footballers and clubs." As far as I know, some of those sources are closely related to Football Leaks, e.g. Spiegel. So, aren't they primary sources and, thus, shouldn't be used? Isn't Football Leaks still a website? SLBedit (talk) 01:37, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
The edits by the other users look dubious to me, but I'm not confident that they rise to the level of one of edit-warring exemptions. Also, if you reverted, it seems likely that someone will revert you, and then what? BTW, I don't think that any of these users are related to each other, so do you have any idea why a bunch of different people want to change the article in the same way, all at the same time? If you could figure that out (maybe some discussion on the web?), I would feel more comfortable taking action to protect the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:48, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
I don't think the three latest editors (other than me) in that article are related, but I'm almost positive that "Wiki observer1" is related to OctopusFactCheck. I think that user reverted me just to annoy me. SLBedit (talk) 02:08, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

CU request

Dinosaurbest32 was created a few hours ago and is removing redirects of articles created by a blocked account, Stoolddog13 (sock of Donaldduck13). Since the latest edits by confirmed socks of Donaldduck13 were made some 3 months ago, can I request a CU or is the case stale? Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:54, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Prolly not in your bailiwick....

... but I hope you can, as ever, point me in the right direction towards someone who specializes in it.

Non-controversial (I’d hope) undeletion of an old user page of mine. Don’t even want it up on Wiki, necessarily, although if that is the easiest way to do it, no problem. Qwirkle (talk) 16:11, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't understand what you want.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:17, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
A copy of an old user page undeleted long enough to make a few copies of it, and then nuked again. Qwirkle (talk) 16:20, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
I need a link.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:22, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
Dunno if us hoipolloienfolk can see links to deleted stuff that has been relaced by something created new with the same name. Current page is User:Anmccaff, which I,ve kept to prevent usurpation. Qwirkle (talk) 16:31, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
I can see previous versions (many) of that page, but after glancing at the history of that account, I'm unwilling to do anything without some assurance from an administrator familiar with your history that your conduct (having two accounts) has not been problematic.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:39, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
Well, thats the “proving a negative” problem, isn’t it? Thanks for looking into it, I’ll ask around elsewhere, then. Qwirkle (talk) 16:42, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

CU Request for edit warring on the University of Management and Technology (Virginia) page

I am writing to you to ask if you can do another check user request in relation to this for which you were the administrator who executed that CU request [1]. For some reason you did not block the two associated IP accounts (38.118.25.194 and 173.73.93.149) who as far as I can tell edited in the same problematic way as the four other users that you blocked (Superbedit, Mgtguru, Bikerun, PolishedRaven), and now one of the IP users (38.118.25.194) is at it AGAIN with the edit warring.. I was tempted to revert but I have left things as they are for now and leave it to you to clear this up. That said if this is not the proper place for me to make this request then please let me know.

On a personal note, thank you for your understanding in relation to this. Flickotown (talk) 18:36, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

You could have reverted. It's obvious block evasion. In any event, I reverted and semi-protected the article for 10 days. I didn't bother blocking the IP; if you see further disruption by the IP at a different article, feel free to let me know.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:46, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
I didn't want to revert because I didn't want to get dragged into a meaningless edit war; the IP user would just undo the revert. I was also hoping that you would just block the two ip's outright.
I didn't bother blocking the IP I don't understand. Why not? the IP user is just going to undo your revert after the semi-protection expires. In any case can I take independent action on this?
if you see further disruption by the IP at a different article, feel free to let me know. I will
Flickotown (talk) 19:32, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

TylerPal

This new editor appears to be making a lot of edits very quickly. Many of them appear disruptive for which I've issued a warning. But I also wonder if they might not be trying to run up their edit count. No hard evidence... just looks odd. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:32, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Wow! signal possible sockpuppet

Hello Bbb23, Long time since we last communicated and trust you are well? Whilst you have closed the sockpuppet investigations into the various names and IP, regarding the promotion of the YouTube "Exoplanets Channel", they appear to have re-surfaced again as Wikicontributor911 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) with exactly the same changes. Yours in haste and regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 21:57, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Was there a report at SPI? I remember this only vaguely.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:10, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
Yes, it was originally down as Alfa0151991 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and then has gone through possible Planehunter91 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Johnford65 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 88.20.191.228 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): and finally Wikicontributor911 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) In haste, David J Johnson (talk) 22:22, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
It appears that NinjaRobotPirate, the lazy, hungry CU did the honors in that case. I was just a nudge.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:27, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
I admit it – pizza is more enticing to me than clicking buttons on Wikipedia. But I did click a few more and block a few obvious socks here. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:33, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
Pizza? And here I thought you were taking breaks to eat health food.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:55, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
Some people I know go for this whole upscale experience where you import gourmet ingredients directly from Italy, follow authentic Neapolitan recipes, and add toppings that I've never heard of. Me, I'm simple: I just buy whatever is cheapest and closest. However, I'm too fancy to drink the water around here unless it's been filtered. You have to draw the line somewhere. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:02, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
The new suspected socks have been added at the SPI for Alfa0151991. General Ization Talk 00:03, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Mrwallace05 is back with new account

After one year of silence, Mrwallace05 created with a new account Special:Contributions/Crimsonsclocks. S/he has made the same reversion as previous reversion. 2402:1980:246:69B6:D492:601D:E4D9:1D54 (talk) 17:34, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, that one plus six others. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:05, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

BLP trumps all!

Hi. In your revert for Roger Stone, you take responsibility for the result. The result is: Accusations against a living person stand without their known response. A known response, even if yet unsourced, probably trumps here. But for now, let's just be clear: You believe the article making unproven accusations is better without the denials, sourced or unsourced. Not a great leg to stand on. But debatable! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcfnord (talk • contribs) 23:20, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

In your second revert for Roger Stone, you take responsibility for the restuls. The result is: Accusations against a living person stand without their known response. You are violating core rules of BLP. You are doing so in name of "poorly crafted, no embedded links (and use edit summaries))". You are making the perfect the enemy of the good, but your revert leaves the page in a state that violates BLP rules about denials accompanying accusations. This is your second revert in 24 hours, which comes close to contradicting the rules for this page at this time. In contrast, I have reached out to talk on this page. On a third revert, I will migrate to the Roger Stone page to continue talk (especcially in light of your silence), as that's what the discretionary sanctions specify. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcfnord (talk • contribs) 20:26, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Contested deletion of FHISO page

I recently created a page for a non-profit standards organisation (FHISO) concerned with data standards for genealogy and family history. The page was queued for deletion because it did not assert the importance of the organisation. I revised the page to make a case that the requirement of formal data standards was long overdue, critical for data sharing, and that the industry had great expectations of FHISO. The sources I chose were deemed to be "self publishing", i.e. blogs, although from highly respected bloggers. I pointed out that several professional organisations and international commercial ones had made public press releases asserting our importance, but they were deemed to be not independent and that they somehow amounted to advertising. I was prompted to send further input by mail, after the page disappeared, but editor was not mail-enabled. The point I wanted to make was that that FGS (Federation of Genealogical Societies) is not a commercial organisation, and so not dependent on FHISO commercially or otherwise. Their press release at https://fhiso.org/2012/10/federation-of-genealogical-societies-to-be-fhiso-founding-member/ makes the following public statement, which cannot be construed as advertising of goods or wares:

"After RootsTech 2011, the Federation of Genealogical Societies launched a Technology Initiative and committed itself to serving as a technological role model for its member societies. By becoming a founding member of FHISO, FGS provides yet another example of this leadership role in an area of technology that significantly impacts the lives of genealogists,” said Drew Smith, an FGS Director and FGS Representative to FHISO."

This clearly attributes importance to FHISO and its role. FGS were sufficiently interested in FHISO that they also invited them to take part in a podcast interview at https://fgs.org/fgs-radio-fhiso-family-history-standards-for-your-genealogy-society/. I am desperately trying to demonstrate the importance of such data standards, and hence of FHISO, and would welcome your advice.TonyP (talk) 17:53, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

You have an obvious WP:COI and should not be creating an article about your own organization. In any event FHISO is not notable per this project's guidelines. I suggest you go elsewhere on the web to advertise the organization.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:06, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I have declared a COI, but the goal of this was not to "advertise", and so I think your suggestion may be a little strongly nuanced. The organisation is tasked with producing formal written data standards, and those standards will eventually be mentioned on Wikipedia, as are some existing proprietary ones (e.g. GEDCOM). When that time comes then attribution will be difficult unless FHISO has a presence on Wikipedia.TonyP (talk) 18:24, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) Sorry but I have to jump into the fray again. Wikipedia requires coverage of a topic from sources that are both reliable and independent of the topic being discussed. This heavily weighs towards mainstream academic and journalistic sources, and sometimes trade publications. If these standards you speak of, or the organization responsible for them, receives significant coverage from these types of sources, then it will be considered notable enough for inclusion - but not before. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and does not have articles on topics that might become notable in the future. We have articles about topics that are already notable as demonstrated by their coverage in reliable sources. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 23:29, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
Rounding this off, I have to say that Wikipedia's criteria for "notability" are clearly flawed. One the one hand, we have an international standards organisation for the representation of digital data in a growing field -- the only horse in that town, I might add -- that cannot be assigned a page. On the other hand, we have a page dedicated to the cast in a US TV sitcom that countries outside of the US have no knowledge of. Maybe 'notability' is not the best choice of word.TonyP (talk) 21:16, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Sock Farm

There is a troll who is constantly creating new accounts that begin with SelavkaS20 and then have been adding two numbers The most recent I blocked was userSelavkaS2042. I don't know how many others there may be but this has been going on for a while. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:56, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SelavkaS2019. EvergreenFir (talk) 02:07, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. It appears that Materialscientist is already on it. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:08, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

User:Xturma / User:Priyar2222

See Samten Karmay, diff diff. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:28, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

User:Holstebro

Hello,

Bbb23, what do you think? His indefinite ban is deserved? He created another user indeed, but only to comment about his situation (it was just a line, a proposition; with his new user he didn't revert just comment on his page, could have done that via IP but maybe he wanted to be hidden). He was blocked for 36 hours or so, even the admin who banned him agreed that he might be unblocked according to the opinions of the others. Holstebro is not a vandal, he was on Wikipedia for years and simply these two handball users didn't agree and they reverted and reverted. Cotillards‎ is also a little bit too aggressive, reporting people for almost nothing. Christina (talk) 15:38, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it "almost nothing". He may have created his account many years ago, but he has made only 205 contributions to the project, and those appear to be single-minded. The duplicity - both in creating the second account and in his unblock request - only exacerbates the situation.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:45, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
I don't deny your work and authority but he is here for ŽRK Budućnost Podgorica and loves handball and Wikipedia. He is not a vandal and was blocked for only 36 hours for his first time. The user Cotillards‎ is slightly different than us and wants to have the last word. He also reverted my edits, even after I brought sources, but I agreed with him at the end. They are just two users who don't want to lose. Please look again, his sockpuppet MNEfan111 only has 1 edit (a comment on his talk page, maybe he didn't read the policy of Wikipedia and wanted to defend himself). Can you give him maybe another chance, please? His contribution was still important for a famous handball club. Regards, Christina Christina (talk) 16:02, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
Did you even look at his (declined) unblock request?--Bbb23 (talk) 16:04, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
I talked to him and I am sure he will read the policy of Wikipedia. He didn't even know what's sockpuppetry. He looks just emotional to me, not dangerous and a vandal how he's called now.--Christina (talk) 16:08, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
I never called him a vandal, and you don't have to be a vandal to be blocked. He's not saying that he was unfamiliar with policy. He denies socking, which is an obvious lie. This is my last comment on the subject.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:14, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Your Favorite Writers Writer

Thanks for the check of Your Favorite Writers Writer at Joliya147. Would you have noticed if Your Favorite Writers Writer was socking with other accounts? Looking more I found Technofreeq1 see this and in turn Dopefornerds [2] and MUI Gohan [3] [4]. Not sure if I should start a new case or add it to that one? SmartSE (talk) 21:38, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

If I had noticed other accounts when checking YFWW, I would have said so. Better to file a new report. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:40, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Scientific Instrument

Hey Bbb23, hope you're doing well. Just wondering whether the deletion at Scientific Instrument was intentional? The page was a redirect to Scientific instrument for ten years. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 02:13, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, fixed.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:17, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Thanks for dealing with that colossal Rowingasia sockfarm.

GABgab 09:43, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, GAB. Great picture on your userpage.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:23, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

your block of user:Conner Kent69

Might need to add talk page access to this CU sock block. I just removed 90k of article copies or modifications form the talk page [5] Meters (talk) 23:36, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for the heads up.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:53, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Unblocked proxy

Hi! How's it going? I just wanted to pass by and let know that a proxy that you blocked last year has been editing again since their block expired. I noticed now that they have started editing in Venezuelan articles again, and when I decided to follow such edits I noticed there's still POV pushing and the addition of unreferenced information/removal of referenced information ([6][7][8]). I wanted to notifiy about this because I don't know if there's currently a block or any administrative measures in place regarding the last user that used it, which I understand is Augurar. Best wishes! --Jamez42 (talk) 10:43, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

(tpw) I'm not sure why you think that IP address (2601:644:1:B7CB:250E::/64) is a proxy, but since it's a residential cable connection, and has been making the same kinds of edits for well over a year, I'm pretty certain that it's not. —DoRD (talk)​ 12:28, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Edit warring with persistant vandal, who must be blocked

YugoBasket is back and keeps vandalizing Panathinaikos B.C.. You have warned him in the past, but he is ignoring everybody. He also copies my warnings on his talk page, and posting them back on my talk page (which I'm going to revert, obviously). I asked for protection for the page Panathinaikos B.C. due to the persistant vandalism of other team's hooligans. There it is once more. I'm asking that user YugoBasket is blocked from editing, due to repeated vandalism behaviour. Thank you. --Panosgatto (talk) 13:33, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Nathan Phillips (activist)

Thanks. I wasn't too surprised. 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 22:03, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

I more or less stumbled into it, actually.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:23, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Sock extraordinaire

Hi there, from Portugal,

new sock from this apparent utter nuisance. For example, keeps changing Andrés Túñez (article where i found them "contributing")'s height for reasons that elude me; to save you some work, the new account is called User:Kuaynaheee.

Attentively, happy editing --Quite A Character (talk) 16:15, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

 Confirmed, blocked and tagged. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:56, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Potential sock, but unclear of whom...

Hi B, this guy (who has been engaging in an edit-war) is odd. On 23 January, he names himself Thackeraykiran, because no doubt he wants to edit at Thackeray (film). He creates a meaningless user page first, makes a few innocuous edits, then boom, five days later, he makes his first edit Thackeray article, restoring a "Controversies" section, justified as reverting vandalism. I surmise that he is sensitive to this section for some reason, since he's edit-warring about its inclusion.

It looks like the controversies section was first added on 27 December by Insaafbarua, a CU blocked puppet of Chutrandi, but I don't have enough behavioral info to link the two. The controversy section was also re-added here by Breakfastisready, an editor I know nothing about other than it looks like they enjoy editing about controversies, but that could just be a good-egg editor improving articles.

The last bit of weirdness for me, is that this brand new editor makes statements like "Sounds Sarcastic when an IP EDITOR blames somebody else of sockpuppetry. Went into ip edit unaware that I'm not logged in. Pease do not remove sourced content. Please take WP:CONSENSUS BEFORE removing content. Else you'll be blocked from making IP edits[9] Why is he so cynical about IP editors? Sounds like someone with lots of experience. Why is he familiar with WP:CONSENSUS? Note also that in this edit summary he is admitting that this IP was him. Anyway, I dunno what to do other than bring it to a CU's attention or sit around and wait for things to become clearer. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:22, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't see any evidence of Thackeraykiran having other accounts.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:38, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
Shoot. Weird. OK. Thanks for lookin'! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:57, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi B, could you please look at Zip! asserts pushpin as a sock of Thackeraykiran? He has the same user page message and participated in the same subject area. Seems ducky, but this brazenness makes me wonder, because I still think they have a history here, even if my instinct above was not solid. Thank you, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:49, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb: The new user is  Inconclusive. It's using an anonymous open proxy and a different UA from Thackeraykiran.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:11, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/2402:1980:8245:A56A:508B:72F0:AF1E:857A

I see you recently blocked this IP under "{{CheckUser block}}". He or she seems to be evading that block. Looking through Special:Contributions/Nicholasp88 makes me suspicious. Can you please also block Nicholasp88 if this is a sock? SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 19:03, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Move please

Hello,

I can't move this stadium anymore. The old stadium is now demolished, so it should be only named Stadionul Steaua. [To be renamed Thanks! Christina

And this Stadionul Tudor Vladimirescu (2018) to this please Stadionul Tudor Vladimirescu. Thx

Christina (talk) 19:29, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Please ask another admin to help you with this.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:31, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
I will if you really can't, but I asked another two and nothing came since yesterday. Christina (talk) 19:33, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
You can try WP:RM.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:43, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Please review deletion of Johniepee

Hello,

I recently spent a number of hours sourcing information and writing a Wikipedia page for Johniepee, an Australian artist who's already got a large volume of plays (hundreds of thousands, which is substantial considering Australia's pop.), support from major artists (including established acts like Bliss n Eso, 360, and Drapht), as has supported dozens of International acts on tour.

What I wrote was all original (nothing was plagiarised), the information was all sourced (I included upwards of 30 sources) and I maintained a sense of objectiveness throughout.

I read through the guide before I started writing it, and I followed all the guidelines.

The page was allegedly deleted because it "credibly indicate the importance or significance". While I can understand that argument, I disagree as it had:

1) Quotes from established acts that were published in outlets that dubbed him the one to watch. 2) It included information on how his mental health anthem was recruited by an airline and extended due to positive feedback. 3) It showed that he'd established a connection and was working closely with a very accomplished producer.

I would like to respectfully request that this page be reinstated, as I belie it's significant enough to be hosted at Wikipedia.

Please review this case, Bbb23.

Kind regards, Skhills — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skhills (talk • contribs) 21:29, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Chhota Shakeel

Greetings.I wish to edit the page Chhota Shakeel with citations and add verifiable information via published sources.Kindly remove the Semi Protection tag as I have no intention to disrupt any editingVendromeblah (talk) 15:14, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigations/NoCal100

I am concerned by the latest block here. The CU was "little less than Likely" - which I'm guessing is based on geographic locale. If I'm guessing right about the locale (based on KF's early editing), please look at List of urban areas by Jewish population#Jewish population by city (and Israeli Americans#By state) to see just how common pro-Israeli editors from that locale are expected to be. The behavioral evidence was quite weak -

  1. Use of capitalized "Talk" - it took me under a minute to find another user who used "to Talk" - diff (and no - I am not suggesting a 14 year old account with 119K edits who is an admin is connected here by any stretch - it just suggests other users view "Talk" as proper noun (or lazily copy-paste)).
  2. The overlapping articles - merely reflect what an editor interested in the Israel might edit (e.g. Hamas, IDF, famous IDF operations, Israel/Gaza conflict) and what a reader of Middle East Quarterly (or MEF's online portal - meforum.org) might edit. Ami Horowitz for instance (presented as the lead off) is a LA native and is known for his production work on Israel and Jewish issues.

If a 10 year old sock (not aware of their history, but you'd think they could've gone Wikipedia:Standard offer by now) is leading us to block new editors based on holding a similar POV and editing from the same (quite significant) region - that's concerning. Icewhiz (talk) 07:15, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Also - another piece of refuting evidence - looking NoCal's time card - [10] as well as recent accounts blocked as - Firkin Flying Fox, Epson Salts, When Other Legends Are Forgotten - while they are sleeping in the same time zone (around 8-12 UTC roughly, though FFF doesn't seem to sleep (or is travelling and edited from a few time zones) - prior socks didn't keep Shabbat. The Kingfisher's editing patterns clearly show no edits from 04:00 UTC Saturday to 02:00 Sunday - which matches Shabbat times (Shabbat comes in on sundown Friday evening, comes out on Saturday evening - times vary between winter/summer and geographic location). During Shabbat an observing Orthodox Jew will not operate electronic devices - KF quite clearly is keeping Shabbat in their edits, while the previous editors are not - this is a major life choice, and KF being a Shabbat-keeper (from Jan 2017 through Feb 2019) while NoCal (including the last sock - FFF - who edited in June 2018) clearly is not a Shabbat-keeper - is a rather extreme divergence between KF and previous accounts. Icewhiz (talk) 08:16, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
If you are just guessing what it is based on perhaps it would be wiser not to make public your guesses. This is really not a good look for you. nableezy - 14:55, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
I will further note that the SPI filing contained a material misrepresentation - diff - "this user appears to be editing in the same time periods as past socks/sock pairs" - this statement is clearly incorrect as The Kingfisher doesn't edit in the 0400 UTC Saturday time bin through to the 0200 Sunday time bin (which is roughly Shabbat times in the Pacific Time Zone). Contrast this with NoCal100, Epson Salts, When Other Legends Are Forgotten, and Firkin Flying Fox who all edited during Shabbat in the Pacific Time Zone (with the same Saturday hours as they edited other days).Icewhiz (talk) 15:07, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
I don't want to hear any more on this subject on my Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:52, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – February 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2019).

Administrator changes

added Enterprisey • JJMC89
readded BorgQueen
removed Harro5 • Jenks24 • Graft • R. Baley

Interface administrator changes

removedEnterprisey

Guideline and policy news

  • A request for comment is currently open to reevaluate the activity requirements for administrators.
  • Administrators who are blocked have the technical ability to block the administrator who blocked their own account. A recent request for comment has amended the blocking policy to clarify that this ability should only be used in exceptional circumstances, such as account compromises, where there is a clear and immediate need.
  • A request for comment closed with a consensus in favor of deprecating The Sun as a permissible reference, and creating an edit filter to warn users who attempt to cite it.

Technical news

  • A discussion regarding an overhaul of the format and appearance of Wikipedia:Requests for page protection is in progress (permalink). The proposed changes will make it easier to create requests for those who are not using Twinkle. The workflow for administrators at this venue will largely be unchanged. Additionally, there are plans to archive requests similar to how it is done at WP:PERM, where historical records are kept so that prior requests can more easily be searched for.

Miscellaneous

  • Voting in the 2019 Steward elections will begin on 08 February 2019, 14:00 (UTC) and end on 28 February 2019, 13:59 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
  • A new IRC bot is available that allows you to subscribe to notifications when specific filters are tripped. This requires that your IRC handle be identified.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:15, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Something fishy...

here. Praxidicae (talk) 23:36, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Indeed. Also the userpage...Praxidicae (talk) 23:41, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Truly bizarre.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:55, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Paul Atherton

Hi Bbb23, I'm concerned about the use of the Nationality of Paul Atherton being associated with his role as Producer. Could you please provide the logic or reasoning of referring to him as a "Welsh Producer". The way it reads, he is Producing in Wales, making programmes about Wales or based in Wales. None of which is of course true. He is a London producer, producing programmes in and about London.

I notice the term Welsh, was brought in by a user who has clearly vandalised the page on numerous attempts and even you, yourself changed the users edit back from Welsh to English on one occasion (and English is more accurate in my opinion).

I've tried British (again more accurate) and based in London (again more accurate).

But you've reverted back to Welsh, be grateful of some clarity on the subject?

212.74.5.219 (talk) 08:58, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Per biography guidelines, it's best to include the nationality of the subject in the opening sentence. After re-reading the article, I'll go with one of your versions: British rather than Welsh.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:49, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

About User talk:Venomous Sniper

I have removed Venomous Sniper's name from the WikiProject portal's newsletter list. There shouldn't be any more newsletters from The Transhumanist arriving on Venomous Sniper's talk page. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 23:09, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you!--Bbb23 (talk) 00:25, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Denial of owning another account

Hi B, so I noticed that this Rnavjr0405 guy got a ton of barnstars from the recently-created JrRnav0003 on 6 February. Obviously, that looks suspicious, especially when Rnavjr0405 was puffing up his user page with milestone awards he hadn't won before he started getting phony barnstars. Both accounts also edited at Adele Goodman Clark, but assuming the best of faith, the JrRnav0003 account could just be following the other guy around. I asked Rnavjr0405 why he was using multiple accounts and giving himself barnstars, but he denied being JrRnav0003. Thoughts? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:47, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

My thoughts, even though I hate the expression, is if it quacks... You assume way too much good faith.  Confirmed. Take care.--Bbb23 (talk) 09:25, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Undelete Kartridge

This was CSD'ed as A7 despite having third party reliable sources in the article (and more available online). This is the version of the article available in Google Cache - https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:O9P8H584Sk4J:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kartridge Happy for you to send it to AFD once undeleted. - hahnchen 23:59, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Who's User:GregLoire, author of the article?--Bbb23 (talk) 00:59, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
No idea. I only know it got CSD'ed because I was messaged by the user who tagged it User_talk:Hahnchen#Speedy_deletion_nomination_of_Kartridge. I can't remember actually editing the article, maybe it was minor. Clearly not an A7 case. - hahnchen 01:03, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
"hot bullshit"? You've certainly got a way with words.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:05, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Is there a problem with the undeletion? - hahnchen 01:14, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
There's a section on Kartridge in Kongregate. You're welcome to create a redirect. I see no independent notability for a separate article.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:22, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Block evasion?

Could you take a look at Talk:Dravidian people#Narasimhan 2018? Could 212.241.98.39 be 213.162.72.209 c.q. 212.95.8.206? All three have an Austrian IP-adress. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:55, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Kya h be

Why did u delete all that I have edited Ckzz david (talk) 17:01, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GiantSnowman closed

An arbitration case regarding GiantSnowman has now closed, and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedy has been enacted:

GiantSnowman is admonished for overuse of the rollback and blocking functions, and reminded to "lead by example" and "strive to model appropriate standards of courtesy"; to "respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrative actions and to justify them when needed"; to not use admin tools in "cases in which they have been involved" including "conflicts with an editor" and "disputes on topics"; to "treat newcomers with kindness and patience"; and to apply these principles in all interactions with all editors. GiantSnowman is placed under review indefinitely; during the review, with the exception of obvious vandalism, he is subject to the following restrictions:

  1. He may not revert another editor's contribution without providing an explanation in the edit summary. This includes use of MediaWiki's rollback function, any tool or script that provides a similar function, and any manual revert without an edit summary. Default edit summaries, such as those provided by the undo function or Twinkle's rollback feature, are not sufficient for the purpose of this sanction
  2. He may not block an editor without first using at least three escalating messages and template warnings
  3. He may not consecutively block an editor; after one block he is advised to consult with another admin or bring the matter to the attention of the community
  4. He may not place a warning template on an editor's talk page without having first placed an appropriate self-composed message containing links to relevant policies and guidelines
  5. He may not place more than five consecutive warning templates or messages; after which he is advised to consult with another admin
  6. He may not use MassRollback.js

Violations may be reported by any editor to WP:AE. GiantSnowman may appeal any or all of these sanctions, including the review itself, directly to the Arbitration Committee at any time.

For the Arbitration Committee, Bradv🍁 18:38, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GiantSnowman closed

Another day, another autoconfirmed gamer...

ThomasleeII. Too early to tell if it belongs to any specific sockmaster, though. Thanks, GABgab 18:12, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Lovely. A bunch of socks, very weird ones, too. Maybe with the edits, you'll be able to figure out a master, but I can't. When they edit other than their userspace, they usually edit Asmara Gay, which was created by one of 'em, Meneses Monroy, which was also probably created by the same person, but that user, along with others that are obviously behaviorally connected, is  Stale, and El Comité 1973. I'll start an SPI with the oldest account I can confirm after I gather all the accounts, which may take a bit.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:36, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Thank you! Always appreciate the help. GABgab 18:45, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Here it is: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BBJZ. I left it in checked status so you can look at it in case you have comments to make. If you don't, please close it. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:08, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Due process

Hi Bbb23, please educate me as to the convention nowadays. You just deleted Open Culture Foundation which I was still working on, and which I had indicated I was still working on by explaining on the talk page, after the initial warning that it was tagged for deletion. If my initial defence and partial meeting of the requirement for indicating notability were insufficient, I would have appreciatied the opportunity to move the work to a sandbox. Is that still possible? Michaelgraaf (talk) 18:16, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Michael, the way it works is that editors should not create pages in article space until they are ready to be retained. If that's too hard to do because you need to do many edits over a period of time, then you should create the page in draft space so you can work on it in your own time. Even better, because you are an inexperienced editor here, when you think the draft is ready to be moved to article space, you should submit the draft via WP:AFC, which is patrolled by experienced editors who can accept or decline the draft. If they decline it, they should provide you with feedback about what's wrong with the draft. Would you like me to move the deleted article to draft space for you?--Bbb23 (talk) 18:23, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

New account

Hi bbb23,

It's Prisonermonkeys here. Several months ago, I forgot my login details. I have been editing from an IP since then because I have been having a few problems with long term abuse from another editor, GeoJoe1000. He appears to have grown tired of his campaign of harassment, so now is the opportune moment to re-register with a new account. I have made a note on my new user page that I am Prisonermonkeys, but is there anything else that I need to do like post to an admin noticeboard?

Also, I was an autopatrolled and extended confirmed user. Is there any way to have those access levels applied to my new account, or do I need to earn them again? Mclarenfan17 (talk) 02:06, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't believe you need to do anything else. Now that you have an account again, though, you should stop editing while logged out. As for your permissions, let me get back to you on that. It's been a long day for me, and I'm tired. I'd rather consider that when I'm fresher as it's not something I do frequently. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:25, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice. I don't intend to edit while logged out any more. There's no rush to restore privileges (if that's at all possible). I thought I'd ask you instead of other admins because I think you've handled things pretty fairly in the past and you're a straight shooter. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 02:52, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
I've restored autopatrolled and ECB. Good luck!--Bbb23 (talk) 01:57, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for doing that. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 02:25, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Posterior Cerebral artery

Visual defects will occur without macular sparing DrAnurag88 (talk) 20:53, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

VJ-Yugo

I expected the case to be stale since the latest confirmed socks were blocked some 6 months ago. Thank you for the CU. Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:20, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

New batch intake

Hey, I was wondering if the CUs should probably take a new batch intake to help out at SPI as trainees. --QEDK (後 ☕ 桜) 21:20, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

We haven't trained a group of clerks in a long time, and, as I recall, the last time wasn't very successful. An individual CU may take on the training of one applicant, but that's up to the CU.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:15, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
In that case, maybe you and a few CUs could decide on training one candidate each. --QEDK (後 ☕ 桜) 06:57, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Hong Sang-soo, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kim Min-hee (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:28, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

User:GUMBALL2004

Hi Bbb23. This user's behavior looks somewhat suspicious for such a new editor. Some of their editing has been borderline disruptive, but I am more interested in their command of wiki-editing for someone who as been around for about a month and with just 165 edits. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:13, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

 Confirmed to Decemberboyl (talk · contribs · count), an existing sockmaster.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:35, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

IPCheck feature request

Per your request at MA's talkpage, I have made IPCheck remember what IP you were looking for before logging in, and return those results once logged in. SQLQuery me! 05:26, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Sockpuppet

I recently checked my sockpuppet investigation. Does that mean those IP aren't from EurovisionNim and instead Wilzz99? --Vauxford (talk) 22:34, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

I can't comment on IPs, but Wilzz99 is unrelated to EurovisionNim.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:33, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
Ah, although Wilzz99 wasn't the person I wanted investigating, was it because I mentioned that user in the investigation? --Vauxford (talk) 23:45, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation of Abhishek9779

So just to be clear each time that I add a suspected sock account I have to give an explanation?Thank You. Mountain157 (talk) 22:25, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, and not just in an edit summary, but in the body of the report in the comments section.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:32, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
I also have an additional question. Is it okay if I can open up a separate sockpuppet investigation even though there is one that is currently ongoing?Mountain157 (talk) 14:15, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
Assuming you mean a new report in the same case, what IPs and/or named accounts do you want to add, and why do you think it's better to put them in a new report?--Bbb23 (talk) 14:22, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

E-mails for notifications

Hi Bbb23,

Do you know how to turn off the e-mails that are automatically sent when I get a notification? I'm getting quite a few notifications and the e-mails are flooding my inbox. If you don't know how to turn them off, do you know who might be able to tell me? Mclarenfan17 (talk) 11:02, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Go to Preferences/Notifications and uncheck Email. That works for me, anyway.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:52, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Funny

Funny that you removed some blank lines in my user page. That is fine with me. Cheesesteak1 (talk) 22:37, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

In retrospect, I didn't mean to be snappy at you about where I came from. It's simply that I believe in fairness and kindness but do seek practicality, which is why I made my plea for a streamlined procedure. Cheesesteak1 (talk) 22:38, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

It was a small tidy as I was about to - and have - warned you about your conduct. You're welcome to put the lines back if you like.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:39, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Please think about how inhospitable you just acted. Just as I was giving you a kind compliment, you write a very threatening and aggressive message on my user page. How would you like it or how does Wikipedia like it when an IP reverts a closed AFD? I merely defend Wikipedia and an orderly process. In the end, in the interest of efficiency and streamlining, I did endorse BC2312's AFD decision but that it should have been a separate decision on a separate AFD.

Please try to act nicely even though you have the power of Mao, Stalin, Washington, Eisenhower. Let's be nice to all. I will. Cheesesteak1 (talk) 22:44, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I would tread carefully. I generally appreciate appeals for civility assumption of good faith. But mentioning Stalin and Mao in reference, even tangentially, to one of our more respected editors is going to raise eyebrows and likely annoy people. I have no idea what this comment was in reference to and I don't care. It was not appropriate. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:52, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Second what Ad Orientem says. Bbb23 wasn't being hostile to you in the message on your talk page. Reading the comments that you made, I actually agree with Bbb23. Your comment about Mao, Stalin, Washington and Eisenhower actually comes across as being very uncivil.-- 5 albert square (talk) 23:15, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) This user is aggrieved about editors reverting their inappropriate AfD close. We are not obligated to be hospitable to disruptive editors. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 13:47, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
(watching) Hospitable, no; civil, yes. ——SerialNumber54129 13:51, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
They retired yesterday. Unfortunately, they unretired today. I just indeffed them.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:54, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
"Welcome to the Hotel California"  :) ——SerialNumber54129 13:58, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Can I undo this revert?

Dear Bbb23, I'm new to editing and would like your advice.

About 4 months ago (31 October 2018‎) I made a small edit to Acrylate. That edit was reverted about 2 months later (3 January 2019) by User:Rekonedth on the basis that they believed the article "was better before {I} made the change". I find this feedback arbitrary and with no way for me to debate or improve.

I tried to start a section on Rekonedths talk page today, but I see you have indefinitely blocked them for socking. Is it now appropriate for me to undo the reversion they made?

Thanks in advance, Douginamug (talk) 17:54, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

I have no knowledge of the subject area. Your edit doesn't look disruptive to me, but whether it's a "good" edit, I haven't a clue. You should do whatever you think is correct. If another editor objects to your edit, then you can take it to the article Talk page to discuss.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:00, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Sock report

Why is my (open) report stalled? It's clear that user Pddalmeida is a sock of Pmmsoares, who in turn is a sock of OctopusFactCheck. SLBedit (talk) 22:44, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

It's not "stalled". Someone will get to it when they get to it.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:13, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Sockpuppet categories

Hi Bbb23

I was surprised and disappointed by your revert[11] of my small enhnacement to {{Sockpuppet category}}, so I have opened a discussion at Template talk:Sockpuppet#Sockpuppet_categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:26, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

United for Macedonia edition

Dear Bbb23,

I am a Presidency member of the political party United for Macedonia. That means that I know what I am changing here. In my language, it is not transcripted Boskoski, but Boshkoski. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LionmindMKD (talk • contribs) 23:47, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

@LionmindMKD: I have reverted you again and left you a warning on your Talk page. First, you have a WP:COI and shouldn't even be editing the article. Second, you cannot add material that is unsourced to the article, and all of the material you inserted is unsourced. Finally, and most important, the material you added about the president of the party's alleged arrest is a WP:BLP violation. Don't touch the article again.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:23, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Protection Expiry

The protection on the page Eddie Vedder was expected to be expiring at 21st February but hasn't expired till now. Please go and fix the problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:204:A71D:3ADB:0:0:7AD:88B1 (talk) 10:25, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't see a "problem".--Bbb23 (talk) 13:55, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

JamesOredan (Sockmaster) and EddTey (puppet)

I've opened a case about this. Can you help me? things are getting out of hand with them. They speak the same way and have some sort of a political agenda (historical revisionism perhaps). Barjimoa (talk) 17:57, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

See if I'm wrong.thank you. Barjimoa (talk) 17:58, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm pretty confident about it tho. Barjimoa (talk) 17:58, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Just asking

Why you don't wish to be called a Dude? I think dude is a good word for addressing. Is this because it is a slang or informal word? Another thing how about calling you Pal? Are you female?
Sincerely,
Masum Reza☎ 16:02, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

You can call me Sire. --Bbb23 (talk) 16:21, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
I think you’re more of a “Buddy” than a “Dude”, Bbb. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:34, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
Over time I've grown fond of "Bbb"; not sure who started using it first (Drmies?), no doubt to save typing, but it's mostly used now by Wikipedia friends in an affectionate manner. I don't think of myself as a warm and fuzzy guy, so it's refreshing. As my mother used to say when I was a kid and I said I didn't care if so-and-so didn't like me, "everyone wants to be liked." Wise lady, my mother.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:43, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
I guess I shouldn't tell you that you are often referred to as "the Beebs" on IRC.please don't block me Praxidicae (talk) 16:51, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
I don't "do" IRC. Would that I had as much money as Justin, but I think that temperamentally we aren't too much alike. I wonder if he likes opera. I thought the Beebs was reserved for Beeblebrox.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:54, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
  • User:Masumrezarock100, no one should be called "dude" unless it is by someone who knows them really well and knows they're OK with it. "Beebs" is, indeed, Beeblebrox, as far as I'm concerned. Who is, as far as I'm concerned, a really good guy and, possible, "dude" to some people. Bbb, I hope your mother is alive, well, and in good health. If she is, please tell her I'm proud of her for raising her boy right. Drmies (talk) 17:33, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
As far as I know, directly adressing someone as "dude" is perfectly acceptable in southern California and nowhere else. It's still better than "bruh" though. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:22, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
Having lived in southern Califonia, I would say that calling someone dude is common, not necessarily acceptable.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:25, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Update to Shimon Gibson reverted.

I am trying to add to this site but my changes are rejected. You stated that my updates were not verifiable and unencyclopedic. I need clarification from you so that I can make corrections. I did add citations that pointed to existing web sites. If current existing websites cannot be used, what would be appropriate? I read the five pillars of Wikipedia and I cannot figure out what was not encyclopedic about my updates. I did not state an opinion, did not show bias, cited sources for my statements. I looked at other Wiki BLP (Biographies of Living people) entries with similar characteristics to serve as models, but I am still confused as to where I missed the boat. Could you point me to a BLP wiki that I can use as a standard to measure against? Any help will be appreciated.

Thank you Gretchen Cotter Gretchencotter (talk) 02:45, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Gretchen, the material you put in the article was cited only to a primary source. Generally - and in this instance - material needs to be cited to a secondary source to be sufficiently noteworthy to include in any article. Also the publications noted in the body are not well-sourced, some not sourced at all, and yet you are adding the material to the lead. Finally, we don't use parentheticals like "See next section"; it's too thesis/essay-like for encyclopedia articles. It also may cause problems in the future if the layout of the article is changed.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:02, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. The see next section was stupid on my part. Just meant that I would be adding a list of published books. When I continue with my updates I will be adding Publishers and ISBN numbers for books. I can look for additional sources for the other information. For the lead I was trying to say that Shimon is a university professor, an active archaeologist, not a former archaeologist, and that during his Archaeology he has authored books. I agree that the references to books should be moved, but since he is currently both a professor and an active director of a Dig, shouldn’t both of these be in the lead? Please bear with me as I continue to learn. Thank you for your feedback. Gretchen Cotter Gretchencotter (talk) 19:02, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

question on revert

Hello! I saw you reverted my edit here because it was unsourced according to you. This is really general knowledge about Charcot and it is on other WP pages as well (just checked). You even have a take on the same page saying he is an olympic winner. I love Charcot and I wanted to start adding things on his page in the English WP.

I do think your revert is a bit harsh. My add is not contentious and the article contains other info not sourced either. As does the entire WP! But sometimes we got to accept these no?

For example: Later on, Jean-Baptiste Charcot explored Rockall in 1921 and Eastern Greenland and Svalbard from 1925 until 1936. He died when Pourquoi-Pas? was wrecked in a storm off the coast of Iceland in 1936. A monument to Charcot was created in Reykjavík, Iceland by sculptor Einar Jónsson in 1936 and another by Ríkarður Jónsson in 1952.

All unsourced in the same way as mine. What is the difference?

Thanks for the feedback in advance!--Lepourquoipas (talk) 17:17, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

The material you added is the kind of material that must be sourced, and you saying that it's "general knowledge" isn't good enough. If it really is general knowledge, it shouldn't be tough to find a reliable source to support it. As for other unsourced statements, see WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:21, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for the answer. I guess whenever another wikipedian challenges you to find a source you should do it; fair enough. And I will. I do think though though that given the rest of the article and the WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS elements, you could've gone for a mention of "source needed" next to my edit as I have seen it happen often. Why not go for that and wait I find the source, or someone else?
thanks!--Lepourquoipas (talk) 18:15, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
I strongly dislike adding new material with {{cn}} tacked on. If I see that happen, although it does depend on the material, I revert it. So, that's "why not". Cute username.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:59, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
Name comes from Charcot's boat. thanks for the answers. I still believe its a bit aggressive to revert an edit like mine in that particular context. think about it for the future. I was mad at u but that's ok. end of it as far as I'm concerned. all the best;).--Lepourquoipas (talk) 03:42, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Deletion

Hello. I want to know why did you delete the sock puppet investigation I opened. Please ping me when replying. Thank you. LPS and MLP Fan (talk) 22:27, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

@LPS and MLP Fan: First, you filed it under the wrong master. If there is a named account, an SPI should always be filed under the named account (oldest created if more than one), never under an IP. Second, there was nothing to do. The named account was indeffed, and both IPs had already been blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:31, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know. Anyway, at first, I thought opening a sockpuppet investigation of that IP user was unnecessary. LPS and MLP Fan (talk) 22:40, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

SPI Clerk

Hi. Can I ask why you removed me from the list of trainee-hopefuls? (Special:Diff/885178170) The summary of no thank you doesn't really explain why. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 17:34, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

You deleted my page

Wow. You have deleted my Wikipedia page. I've spent time on it. It's not a hoax. It's real. Give me some time to get citations. Just undelete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NorfolkIsland123 (talk • contribs) 01:11, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

No one is going to restore the article, and you've already been told that.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:24, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Gharaibeh

Dear Bbb23, I would like help or clarification regarding the deletion of article entitled "Gharaibeh." I was disheartened to see the article deleted based on the opinion of one Mossab Banat. The article was not a vanity article and was well referenced. The ethnic makeup of Jordan is such that one will see personal biases and prejudices factor into opinions such as the opinion of the person who requested the deletion of the article. I believe that the request was based on Mossab Banat's bigotry and Islamic extremism and not on concern for factual accuracy of the article. I believe the article was factually sound and the referenced tribe is well accomplished and notable: any quick google search will bear that fact. I am respectfully asking for you help in un-deleting the article and more referencesGharaibeh (talk) 04:14, 28 February 2019 (UTC) will be added by more users in short order. Sincerely, N. Gharaibeh — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gharaibeh (talk • contribs) 04:12, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

The article was deleted per AfD. I had nothing to do with it.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:19, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Bimal Bhikkhu Mahathera

Hi Bbb23, I am new to Wiki. You are doing great and in the process you deleted the page I created "Bimal Bhikkhu Mahathera" citing the reason as G11. Let me assure you, its not directly G11 (promotion and advertising) although technically it may seem so due to use of certain words. Can you please revert it so that I can edit it. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by SintuC (talk • contribs) 12:26, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

I've restored the draft for you. I strongly suggest you eliminate the promotional, effusive language from the article. You personally may feel that the subject walks on water, but articles here must be written in a neutral manner. Material like
"Venerable Bimal Bhikkhu Mahathera (12 November 1945- ) is a Buddhist monk and a social activist of the Indian subcontinent and works for peace and prosperity and the emancipation of the needy and destitute children.
Born and raised in a Buddhist family and having observed the misery of human sufferings since childhood, he chose to follow the path of truth, peace and non-violence. Thus, at an early age, he was ordained as a Monk forever."
must be rewritten.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:30, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

MariaJaydHicky

Back with new IP, first edit is genre-warring on a Mariah Carey album article. Geolocates to the exact same place as previous MJH sock IP [12].--NØ 12:03, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Matt Bellamy

Hi Bbb23. A little while ago you protected this page from this repeated disruptive behavior. Protection ended yesterday and today the IP is up to the same again. Please could you look into it. Cheers. Robvanvee 14:44, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi Bbb23. Are you able to help here or should I ask elsewhere. This IP continues to add poorly sourced material to a BLP article. Cheers. Robvanvee 11:39, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Here is the latest edit that I'll refrain from reverting for now. Robvanvee 11:43, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 Done this time for one month.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:23, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Much appreciated! Robvanvee 14:47, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Paul Atherton - Case Law

BB23 I am slightly bemused, what was self serving about citing case law on Paul Atherton's Wikipedia page. The amendment was referenced both by the published Judgement from the Royal Courts of Justice and from a recognised and reputable UK Newswire the Disability News Service https://www.disabilitynewsservice.com/about-us/ be grateful of some clarification? 167.98.16.78 (talk) 15:01, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

As I stated in my edit summary, take the issue to the article Talk page. You'll need a consensus to add any of that material.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:50, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi BB23 as you're aware not a prolific editor. I thought you meant this talk page. Is it the Talk page of Paul Atherton you mean or the Talk page of my contribution? Thanks for your assistance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.98.16.78 (talk) 16:36, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
I said "article Talk page", which obviously means the Atherton Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:38, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Actually you didn't you said "take to Talk page" which means nothing to an inexperienced user. Nor do you explain what exacly is required? With such immense amount of editing experiencing on your side I would have expected far more assistance for an inexperienced editor. You've also yet to explain why you deemed Case Law to be self-serving when the only thing it does is serve others, as can be demonstrated from the Twitter feed around the Subject (I'm unable to post a link on Wikipedia to the search but if you search Twitter with the quote "DWP Failed for years" you'll discover part of the debate, from many reputable sources, in respect to the case), would appreciate some clarification and what is actually required to do to "take to talk page" of Paul Atherton as things stand there's just a debate around the pages deletion back in 2012. Thanks. 93.186.152.12 (talk) 10:25, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2019).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • A new tool is available to help determine if a given IP is an open proxy/VPN/webhost/compromised host.

Arbitration

  • The Arbitration Committee announced two new OTRS queues. Both are meant solely for cases involving private information; other cases will continue to be handled at the appropriate venues (e.g., WP:COIN or WP:SPI).
    • paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org has been set up to receive private evidence related to abusive paid editing.
    • checkuser-en-wp@wikipedia.org has been set up to receive private requests for CheckUser. For instance, requests for IP block exemption for anonymous proxy editing should now be sent to this address instead of the functionaries-en list.

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:12, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Could you please explain...

Could you please explain further why you undid my edit?

Your edit summary called it a "mess". It looks properly formatted to me.

I was going through my watchlist, looking for other instances, when I saw you reversion. Geo Swan (talk) 16:25, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

You created a report on the Talk page of the case. I assume that was a mistake, but nonetheless, I had to delete it. Then you created a weird, possibly partial, report on the right page. The "mess" was a combination of both actions on your part. I reverted the project page edits because part of your edit put a "comment" in the wrong section, and the rest of it looked like you hit Publish before you were done.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:33, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes, I created a union list, intended to contain all of the IP addresses this wikistalker has used. I wanted to see how often they re-used IP addresses they had used in the past. I wanted to see how often they re-used IP addresses that had been temporarily range-blocked.

    Did you mean to imply, in your comment above, that there was a wikidocument that barred this kind of use of WP:SPI talk page?

    I didn't realize you deleted this list.

    As for whether I put a "comment" in the wrong section... As with previous instances, I placed a brief history of the wikistalking prior to the diff with the evidence. If this is the incorrect format then previous reports were also incorrect. Did you mean to say the previous reports were incorrect? Geo Swan (talk) 16:56, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

A suggestion

I think some of the comments you have recently addressed to me, and actions you have taken, might be hard for you to explain to your peers. Given your repeated comments indicating limited patience, I am not going to defend myself from your unfair and insulting characterization that I am "obtuse".

Instead, may I remind you that you are not the only Checkuser? If there is something about the SPI reports I have submitted that bugs you, but which you don't want to explain, or can't explain, perhaps you should consider simply letting someone else deal with reports I make? Geo Swan (talk) 20:23, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't want you posting on my Talk page anymore if it involves anything at SPI.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:16, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Blanked user talk page

Sorry if I was overzealous [13]. Mostly the intent was to restore what read like a declined unblock request by Drmies. But I confess to having enjoyed the fuller reversion. 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 00:36, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

No problem. The user made a malformed unblock request, and Drmies did respond, but he didn't fix the malformed request, so technically it wasn't a decline.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:38, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Possible sock?

Hey bb, My gut is telling me that User:109.152.199.173 might be a sock for someone, I don't know who know, it's just the fact of edits directed to Marc-André ter Stegen which are also related to a discussion at WP:FOOTBALL, I wasn't sure to post to the sockpuppet board as I really don't really have any other evidence, thought I leave it with you for know. Cheers. Govvy (talk) 15:22, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Well, I didn't want to be a pain on you bb, fwiw, Matthew hk added the IP SPI and I noticed you had a bit of history about the same issues before in the history log with edit-warring of Walter Görlitz, just thought I let you know, hope I am not being too much trouble, cheers. Govvy (talk) 12:44, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Ramsey Campbell

Thanks for your feedback on my edits to this page. They're appreciated. I'm new to Wiki and am still learning how best to manage edits. I would like to add that although some aspects of the edits you have deleted do not fit with Wiki's policies, many others were, I feel, fine, such as biographical info etc. If I restore the edit and add citations where appropriate and edit some of the language that feels "promotional", would that be agreeable? Thanks again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Witbysea (talk • contribs) 14:11, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

@Witbysea: You can try, but if there are still problems with the material, don't be surprised if I undo your edit(s). Thank you for asking.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:15, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
One more thing. You might try making smaller edits and waiting to see if they stick.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:19, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll give it a go. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Witbysea (talk • contribs) 14:36, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi there. Thanks again for your help with my edits. I've now revised the section I think you found problematic, adding numerous citations and quotations to support the points, while also downplaying material that sounded promotional. Hope this is now ok. Best wishes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Witbysea (talk • contribs) 12:50, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
If that's your idea of doing a better job, I'm afraid you're way offbase. You didn't take my advice to try a small edit first and then wait and see; instead you did a similar massive edit to the article that was problematic in all the ways I outlined in my edit summary undoing your changes - and more. At this point, you shouldn't edit the article anymore. If you want to suggest changes to the article, you must use the article Talk page, and outline clearly and specifically what changes you want, what sources you are going to use for those changes, and why they are appropriate. If there is a consensus among other editors to include certain changes, those changes can be made.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:36, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your further comments. As far as I can figure out, as you're not citing specific areas of contention, the issues you're identifying are with the Style and Themes section. In the Style section, I've added published sources from academic commentators to support each of the points made there. The Themes cited include reference to each of the novels in which this material is addressed; this strikes me as uncontroversial. It wasn't particularly a massive edit; in fact, this is the only section I work on. I added citations to the Personal Life section, however. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Witbysea (talk • contribs) 14:32, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Your comments are at best disingenuous. If you persist in adding inappropriate material to the article, you risk being blocked. Please learn how to WP:INDENT and WP:SIGN your posts here (and at any other discussion).--Bbb23 (talk) 14:48, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Apologies. I am trying to address this with sincerity. I felt the alterations I'd made -- citing published material from reputable sources (e.g. Joshi) -- were along the lines of other Wiki articles I've looked at. Is it reasonable to ask you to indicate specifically where the problems lie? Is it, for instance, the Style and Themes section you're taking issue with? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Witbysea (talk • contribs) 15:06, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

RKO General article

RKO General was created and expanded over a decade ago by a user since banned for abusing multiple accounts. Unfortunately no one else bothered with it and it has been overtaken by events.

GenCorp divested everything except rockets and real estate. The company is now called Aerojet Rocketdyne.

They build rockets and real estate.

The real estate division is Easton Real Estate, and its only holdings are the 12,200 acres it owns in the Sacramento area. Most of it was buffer zone for rocket testing that is no longer needed because of changes in technology. There are plans to develop about half of it as a residential community.

I really doubt that it still owns - even nominally - the RKO General subsidiary.

Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 03:27, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

I have no clue what you want or why you bring this to me at all.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:50, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Block of User:Mrittika.mehjabin

Greetings! Can you give me a little more insight why you decide to go straight to an indef block on Mrittika.mehjabin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? I agree that they made a mess of the deletion nomination with three AfDs opened regarding Nafisa Kamal. However, it looks like innocent unfamiliarity with the AfD process, as they were trying to reopen the nomination after Swe123123 removed the AfD tag.[14] Conversely, if you think the original AfD was in bad faith, why have you not closed it speedy keep? —C.Fred (talk) 16:26, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

@C.Fred: I'm having a hard time finding much of anything this user has done since he started editing less than three months ago. He seems to be on a vendetta with regard to Mashrafe Mortaza and, of course, Nafisa Kamal. His behavior shows all the earmarks of WP:BATTLEGROUND, screaming vandalism and admin frequently, edit-warring, and removing other editors' comments from Talk pages.
My first introduction to him was when he tagged the Kamal article with a7 and g7. I have no opinion on the notability of Kamal, but when an inexperienced user does any speedy tagging, it raises red flags. Of course, the g7 was completely fatuous.
The user's reasons for AfDing the article are obviously inappropriate (and at least partly false if I understand the accusations). The only reason I didn't do a snow keep was because you were fighting so hard to retain it. I do agree, of course, that the other users should not have been removing the tag, so I understood what you were doing, but I didn't want to interfere on that point.
Disruption would probably have been a better basis for my block, but often NOTHERE and disruption are interrelated, so I just "chose" NOTHERE. Finally, this is not a case where I think escalating blocks are needed, but if you feel strongly that I'm wrong, you are free to unblock the user or reduce the length of the block.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:59, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
Frankly, you're right, the article should be kept, but I was still in admin mode and didn't want to get involved evaluating the merits of the claims. If Swe123123 had, instead of (or even in addition to) removing the AfD tag, left a comment requesting a strong/speedy keep, I might have closed AfD 1 myself as speedy or snow keep. If you had closed it, I probably would have null-edited the article with an edit summary like "okay, now the AfD is properly closed, and the tag gets removed".
When I started digging through the editor's past history, I saw a number of small disruptive edits and one BLP edit that made me cringe, but I didn't see anything that raised the giant red flag. The exchanges on the user's talk page right now have me thinking that there is likely a language issue in play and could also be a competence issue. It's a bubble case where I'm willing to err on the side of giving a newbie a break an assuming unfamiliarity rather than malice or battleground mentality.
I'm going to decline the unblock request but suggest they spend the next 48 hours reading up on WP policy and ask again after 48 hours with a suggestion of a constructive edit they'd make if unblocked. We'll see how they do with that. —C.Fred (talk) 17:28, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Weirdly incompetent users

Hi B, I'm not sure this is a "ring", but I've happened upon a weirdly incompetent set of users who are definitely the same guy. I first noticed this guy, Harikarthysiva making a whole bunch of butcher edits to a Malayalam TV series' infobox:

  • They can't figure out line breaks,
  • They misuse various parameter,
  • They include Indic scripts
  • They miscapitalise
  • They use the |show_name_2= parameter to include "A made for each other story", though the infobox renders the content as "Also known as: A made for each other story".
  • They add the |channel= parameter when we already have |network=
  • Then there is the weird choice to include International broadcast in the References section.

Then going back through the edits at that page, I noticed that this guy, Sreesiva nandhana, a few hours earlier added:

  • a bunch of parameters they didn't understand. They add |channel= when we already had |network=. Parameter |followed_by= is almost certain to be misused, as is |released= and |first_run=.
  • Here he seems to have problems in the |related= parameter with line breaks and he adds the |network= parameter when we already have |channel=
  • Then I noticed that Sreesiva added International broadcast to references.

These are clearly the same person, and I feel like this is a serious competency issue since there are so many mistakes going on, so I'm wondering if there are other accounts related. If you want me to open an SPI, I'm always happy to do that. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:33, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb: It's a fairly large farm. I haven't finished yet.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:48, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
WOW! Should I create an SPI one the earlier of these two, just so we have something centralized? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:54, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
No, there are many earlier accounts. When I finish, I'll create an SPI with the oldest account I've found.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:56, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
I pinged you, but: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sivakarthy.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:40, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Man that's a spicy meatball. Thanks for doing the grueling work. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:46, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Hey B, could Sivagopalakrishnan be releated to the Sivakarthy tribe? There is a similarity with the "Siva" name and he created some of the articles that two Sivakarthy socks were interested in. Here he seems to be oblivious to what the |related= parameter is for. I'm not 100% convinced that they're related. Based on the Tamil focus and general incompetence in article creation, I'm leaning more toward this being Arnav19, who was a huuuuge CIR concern and super-prolific editor. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:16, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

This guy Amminithankom could be a Sivakarthy contender as well, as as this Asianet article was a very attractive target. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:31, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Sivagopalakrishnan is Red X Unrelated to Sivakarthy. I didn't check the one you've already blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:49, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

One more for the sock drawer...

here Appears to be from this place. Qwirkle(talk) 22:51, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

God, every time I see that language... --Bbb23 (talk) 23:39, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
No good deed goes unpunished. Here’s more. BTw, is there any way to simply tag these for needed revision deletion? Qwirkle (talk) 00:23, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Not really. Too many for me. I didn't get enough sleep last night. See WP:REVDELREQUEST.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:55, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Hoax

For context: Relay Ball Sport and this whole slew of socks. Praxidicae (talk) 19:34, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Aha. Knowing that would have made it easier. I just g5ed it.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:40, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Yeah I realized I probably should have just done that. I abhor filing SPIs for idiots like this. Praxidicae (talk) 19:41, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Possible sock

Hi, it is likely this user is a sock of [15], same interests and numerals in username is also similar [16]. 137.97.147.31 (talk) 17:39, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Simulation12 sock

Hey Bbb23!

I've just come across a UTRS request that is a bit odd. It's from User:MikeySalinas17 who is a sock of User:Simulation12. I know you don't frequent UTRS so here is the appeal:

"I confess, I am a master sock, I started off on this account then ended up getting block, so I created many accounts. Some other accounts I have created included FetchFan21, 1mikie19, MikeySalinas17, BeeBliss16 and Bigteddy1. Currently I own CaptainDanger25 where I set up many accounts to get blocked that included WP Editor 2012 and many other accounts that were part of the May 2018 case. Like some of my other accounts I reported accounts to chase admins using CaptainDanger25. I even threw off admins to let them believe Bigteddy1 was being attacked when it was just me along.

I have many ip's to chase admins away. I have even submitted socks cases wait other simulation 12 socks"

What's worrying me is that they've said that they "own" User:CaptainDanger25 and that they reported users using this account. I thought I'd come to you as you're one of the CheckUsers involved. Is CaptainDanger25 related to the above sock?-- 5 albert square (talk) 19:31, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

@5 albert square: No, the sock just likes to attack and impersonate him.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:10, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Bbb23, just had to check :)-- 5 albert square (talk) 20:29, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

A page that has been salted with a similar title that appeared on the new page feed, not sure if it is the same one though

Here Ratul Roy Hriday (singer) (saw you did delete one of them so I figured I let you see on Ratul Roy Hriday. ) Was about to put a BLP unsourced on it, but this might just be a delete person. Wgolf (talk) 00:50, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Self-promotion. The latest iteration is now deleted, and the editor is indeffed. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:04, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

RE: AmericanAgent

This user: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:AmericanAgent

Has uploaded a copyrighted image of Lion Air 610 to wikipedia, in which A) he swapped my image to his (they are the same image but his according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:MilborneOne another Admin, states the user is Flickr Washing). OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 17:45, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Please see:

Here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:MilborneOne#Image_copyright!_Something_not_roght

And here: File:Lion Air Boeing 737-MAX8 PK-LQP.jpg

OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 17:47, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

He is a sock and now blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:56, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you sir. I hate it when people mess around, if affects the reliability of our info and makes us look like cows. Thanks again bud :) OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 18:13, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

User:TheRealCanadian71

Thanks for saving me wasting even more of my time. Can I assume from the fact that this is a CU block that I do not need to be concerned with their last edit on their talk page which I've revdel'd? --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:42, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes. I was going to comment on the Talk page that the account is now CU-blocked, as well as tag the userpage with the name of the master, but I'm cleaning up a bit first. Making sure there are no others.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:45, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Now that I've reread your double-negative, my yes should have been a no. I'm not going to put a comment on the Talk page about the CU block now that you've (happily) revoked TPA and disabled e-mail. Between us, I think we're done, at least until the next one. He has more puppets than you'd think because some of them were not tagged.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:00, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure whether to disbelieve the unlikelihood that you didn't misunderstand my double negative. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:08, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Cali4niaOpera

Is User:Cali4niaOpera you? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:27, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes. Cali4niaOpera (talk) 00:29, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
I need to hear that from Bbb23's account. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:35, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
yeah, no. Blocked. —Floquenbeam (talk) 00:38, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Floquenbeam, Anna Frodesiak How about Akron-terion? Coincidence? HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 01:05, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Oh yeah, that's definitely got to be me, editing from pirated Motel 6 wi-fi from the Waffle House next door in Akron for epic lulz and great justice. Pure coincidence, nothing to see here. Except I've never been to Akron. Acroterion (talk) 01:19, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Possible WP:SCRUTINY sock

I see that this user, Offend, is doing some anti-vandalism work. However, I see that the user was created on March 13 and the next day started the anti-vandalism work. This shows that the person who controls that account has some prior experience from another account. Can you run a Checkuser to see if the user is a sock-puppet of any blocked user. I suspect that the user is a sock of Seby1541 and Septrillion. Thanks! INeedSupport :3 16:56, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

American Agent again

Here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mjroots&diff=887289216&oldid=887234848

Copying nominsations OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 21:23, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't understand your point.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:09, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
He is copying the nomination table which another user poster hours earier. OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 23:05, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
I don't see any table, but I also don't see what difference it makes what he is doing. Why are you even telling me this?--Bbb23 (talk) 23:08, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

It doesn't matter, at least you banned him. OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 23:33, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Possible sock

Saw your name on the SPI page. Brand new user with attitude problem comes in and immediately votes on merges, adds unsourced info (but not vandalism), gets feedback on talk page and blanks it. Special:Contributions/Stormcloak_EthnoNationalist Thought this was suspicious for a new editor. Possibly a user evading a block? TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 22:49, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Consider that this was a test or coordinated prank to get this exact response.TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 08:28, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Question following semi-protection

First, thanks for protecting the Waynesboro, Pennsylvania article. The issue that led to this was an anon user(or users) who kept deleting a legitimate notable resident. My question is, can I re-add that person or should I consult with an expert in the field (musicians)?Itsasoa (talk) 00:59, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

I put the person back. If we have a Wikipedia article that substantiates a person's connection with a place, we don't need a source, and we don't need to "consult with an expert". I also cleaned up the section. It shouldn't include people without articles in Wikipedia, whether there is a source or not, and the descriptions were overly long and inconsistently formatted.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:08, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
OK, thank you for the clarification. I have not done much work on that article yet. --Itsasoa (talk) 15:32, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

List of K.C. Undercover episodes

I noticed this article has been deleted, with G3 (vandalism) being cited as the reason. Could you explain this as I haven't seen any problem with this article, nor a notice of speedy deletion about it. MPFitz1968 (talk) 18:21, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

It was a mistake and I'm trying to get it restored but there are system issues. See my post at WP:AN.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:23, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

FYI, sock

Greetings Bbb23! Thought I'd alert you about this (since you've previously handled that sockpuppet case -- Smart Aleck, CoolRichWiseGuy, etc.) It's obvious so I didn't bother with the sockpuppet case. I caught a biggish copyvio so brought the banhammer down. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 18:04, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Seems to be your mission this morning to help me out. Always a pleasure.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:28, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

I didn't log this guy...

I made a big mistake a few weeks back: I didn't keep a personal log of the guy who kept making changes to articles and pasting the entire article back into the edit summary. I feel like I noted it somewhere, but I can't for the life of me figure out where that somewhere is. This guy Aditkumars has done the same thing, pasting the entire article into edit summaries, where the rest of his edits look like computer-generated edits intended to bypass autoconfirmed status and editor scrutiny. But clearly this is a dubious account. Got any ideas? Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:58, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I've definitely run into them before, I think I may know who it is but I need to take a look in some past sock cases. Praxidicae (talk) 16:30, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Found him, ping pong @Cyphoidbomb: same as (probably) this guy aka this other guy.squishyboxes Praxidicae (talk) 16:43, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
I struck my probably, if it's not him, I'll eat my words. See history here, specifically the last edit summary by World50. Praxidicae (talk) 16:49, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
@Praxidicae: Nice work finding the proof on this one. Thanks for the assist! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:59, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Socktags

I don't consider it being a pest, after all I am still in training. I'd rather make the mistakes while I'm supposed to be learning than screw it up once I'm supposed to know already. And while Katie's inactive due to illness I'm glad for all the guidance I can get (credits to DQ, Reaper Eternal & JJNC89 so far).

You said the tags should be "suspected", not "expressed a concern" but {{sockpuppet|Wolf Cola|suspected}} results in the text "expressed a concern". I was going by the "Brief guide to using this template" on Template:Sockpuppet/doc, but even reading the more complete usage examples beneath that section I can't see one which matches this case where the suspect is confirmed to a non-confirmed sock on another SPI. Is {{sockpuppet|Wolf Cola|proven}} what you're after? Help! Cabayi (talk) 15:29, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Proven results in "is a sock", which is a higher degree of likelihood than suspected, which is done with {{sockpuppet|Wolf Cola|blocked}}. None of these flavors, though, is complex. I used to know how to do those back in the day, but now I leave it to the clerks. Either Sro23 or GeneralizationsAreBad use them more and can probably help you if you want. And, btw, I don't discriminate against trainees; I can be a pest with experienced clerks. Ask anyone. --Bbb23 (talk) 15:36, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
@Cabayi: Yeah, the "expressed a concern" tags aren't really used anymore, since 1) non-admins/non-clerks aren't supposed to tag socks and 2) non-indeffed socks/masters aren't supposed to be tagged. Thus, they became rather pointless. I generally use "proven" with either obvious behavioral socks or a "likely" checkuser finding coupled with behavior. Regards, GABgab 22:55, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks GeneralizationsAreBad, I've tagged Linked03 and Uniflo as proven. Cabayi (talk) 19:37, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Requesting deletion

Can you please delete Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kishfan as it is no more valid and just a stigma on my name?-Kishfan (talk) 23:30, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

No, that is not going to happen.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:31, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
What is the reason?Kishfan (talk) 23:32, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
The rare scenarios where we delete cases do not apply to this case. That's all I have to say on the subject.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:38, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
I am also not here for arguments so if I myself request for speedy deletion in case you don't have any objection?-Kishfan (talk) 23:41, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Based on what I've said, I would consider a speedy tag disruptive. So don't.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:42, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigations

Hi, You just reverted my comment in the archive. Sorry, I didn't know that it's not allowed. But a new account has just opened (User:Cangevarto followed by another user) pushing Azeri nationalism on the Iraqi Turkmen article. How can it be concluded that this is not a sockpuppet? Selçuk Denizli (talk) 17:23, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Once a report has been archived, to add suspected socks to the case, you need to reopen the case. Follow the instructions at WP:SPI for opening/reopening cases.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:26, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for your swift reply. Selçuk Denizli (talk) 17:29, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Re recent SPI closure

I though this was suggestive. Note the handoff, so to speak, on Russian thread one and Russian thread 2. Qwirkle (talk) 02:53, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Test edits

I know the general rule is not to remove speedy tags but this was clearly an incorrect tag. It was a draft, unsubmitted to AFC and clearly I'm an active editor. It was not a test edit and frankly I'd consider tagging something that is clearly in draft/userspace as a test edit of an experienced user disruptive. It had context and having had this discussion with the tagger and others before, utilizing draft space to draft ideas is allowed so long as it doesn't violate policy, so I'm not sure why that tag was acceptable to begin with. Praxidicae (talk) 13:21, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

You shouldn't remove the tag. You should do what you did after I reverted you, contest it, which resulted in it being moved into your userspace. If you think the tagger is being disruptive, that should be addressed separately. As for the merits of the tag itself, I don't think it matters whether it's in draft or user space. Anyway, I wouldn't have noticed it if your Talk page weren't on my watchlist. --Bbb23 (talk) 13:34, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Just curious, shouldn't it be "your Talk page wasn't on my watchlist" and not "weren't"? Offend (talk) 07:45, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
@Offend: The smiley changes the mood. Just curious, what other accounts have you used?--Bbb23 (talk) 15:34, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Mention on SRCU

Hello, hope you are doing well. I mentioned you on 14 March at m:Steward_requests/Checkuser#Lupulcarunt@ro.wiki. Best --Alaa :)..! 16:59, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

@علاء: Thanks for taking the trouble to notify me here. I don't get cross-wiki pings (I turned them off because it's rare for them to be constructive and I got tired of pings from socks). I responded to your offer.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:00, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Welcome I closed the request and put the data on CUwiki. Best and thanks a lot --Alaa :)..! 20:19, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Apparently moves do not edit-conflict with edits

I moved the SPI out from under you while you were putting in the clerk request. I'll file a bug report, since your edit should have edit conflicted and not just saved a broken revision. Cheers! Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:17, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Kevin Lustgarten

Hello, I wanted to discuss the speedy deletion on the page that I created yesterday regarding "Kevin Lustgarten" - I am unsure of why this deletion was carried out (given the justification that the subject was not relevant/famous enough), as the page was written about an internet personality with over 400 million video views and features on BBC, Business Insider, etc. Given that this page was written about a minor celebrity, it is my opinion that there was ample grounds for keeping the page up on Wikipedia.

Thank you, and I look forward to hearing back.

Idjacobson (talk) 16:58, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

If you wish, I can move the article to draft space. I'd spend some time getting better sources for the material (the few there are are largely puff pieces). Then, you can submit it through WP:AFC and users more experienced than you will tell you whether it's good or, if not, why not. Let me know if you want me to move it.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:15, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

That would be great, would you do that for me?

Thank you,

Idjacobson (talk) 20:13, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

 Done Draft:Kevin Lustgarten. Good luck.--Bbb23 (talk) 10:52, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Other sockpuppets at Columbia University?

You recently blocked a sockpuppet editing at Columbia University. Did you have an opportunity to look at other editors who are also editing that article and participating in the Talk page discussions? This article has been absolutely lousy with sockpuppets for quite some time; "new" editors frequently begin engaging in old debates, frequently centered on the exact status of either Barnard or Teachers College. It's rarely obvious enough to meet either a duck test or open an SPI but it looks pretty obvious to me so it's a pretty frustrating situation hence my question about "you just found one sockpuppet editing this article did you see if there are others there, too?" Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 16:14, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

@ElKevbo: I understand the frustration. That article has a tortured history of socking. I didn't see anything else, although I didn't do an exhaustive search.--Bbb23 (talk) 10:54, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for looking into this! ElKevbo (talk) 13:50, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Manda Case

Hello, I've left you a msg on Checkuser Wiki.--AldNonUcallin?☎ 17:50, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I'll take a look, but I'm not sure when.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:57, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Jamie Shupe

I am undoing your edit of Jamie Shupe's page. I know first hand that he disagrees with your characterization of why he now says he's a male. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mathezar (talk • contribs) 01:28, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry continuing

Two IP's have started editing after the ("80.134.255.64" and "217.224.67.228") after the blocks that took place as a result of the investigation of Jahmalm.[17] They seem to continue his work of manipulating[18][19]. --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 02:12, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps semi-protection of the articles could be a solution? --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 02:13, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
A third IP address (95.91.215.224)[20] --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 02:45, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Blocked the wrong guy

Dude I was the one reporting the legal threat, not making it. Alivardi (talk) 19:32, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed that. No excuse but it was because he was posting on your Talk page instead of on his own and I stayed there and used Twinkle to block. I've now blocked him, and I sincerely apologize for my error.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:36, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
No problem buddy. Funniest moment of my day so far, so I'm not complaining too much! Anyways, thanks for responding to and fixing my issue so quickly. Alivardi (talk) 19:42, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your understanding. If you ever have a dull day in the future, let me know and I'll be happy to block and unblock you. --Bbb23 (talk) 19:45, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
Haha I look forward to it! Alivardi (talk) 19:50, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Huggums

Just wanted to say that I reluctantly agree that revoking their Talk page access was probably the right call (though I'd be willing to bet they'll try to appeal through other channels). I tried to counsel them that sometimes the best thing they could do to help themselves was to bite the bullet, keep quiet and move on, and it pained me to see that they seemed to feel the need to rise to every occasion. I feel they could be a valuable editor, but not as long as they keep succumbing to their own worst instincts. I hope they'll take everyone's advice to heart now. DonIago (talk) 13:55, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Master?

You deleted Nikhil_Chinapa a few weeks ago and it popped back up today but I'm not sure who the master was for the G5...Praxidicae (talk) 20:06, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Heh. The last user to create it was a sock of Abhishek4889 (talk · contribs · count). The new user who created it is a sock of Dimpletisha (talk · contribs · count). What a world. Thanks for the heads up.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:14, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Star Air (India)

Was Star Air (India) undeleted? I thought there was an AFD on the article or one that was close to it and it closed as delete. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:03, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

On January 16 of this year you tagged the article for deletion per a7 and g11. On the same day, I deleted the article per a7. Somehow it was recreated, but I can't for the life of me figure out how.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:16, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
I had looked at this earlier and figured out that on Feb 27 Sunnya343 moved the article Ghodawat Aviation (a charter airline with ame owners and dubious notability) to Star Air (India) and then essentially rewrote the article. One can quiblle about the process (an AFD/RM would be preferable; also Ghodawat Aviation should arguably redirect to the yet-unwritten article on the parent company), but I think the current article itself is reasonable. Abecedare (talk) 00:25, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
@Abecedare: Thanks for the help, but (1) there are two edits after my deletion and before the move by two different editors; how can that be? and (2) why doesn't the move show up in the logs of the article?--Bbb23 (talk) 00:47, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Those two edits were to the Ghodawat Aviation page, which now show up in the Star Air article history because of the move. The move itself shows up in the logs of Ghodawat Aviation. Took me a few minutes earlier in the day to figure this out mmyself, so thought I'd save you the time. Abecedare (talk) 00:55, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
A few minutes to figure it out? It took me a few minutes to give up. Thanks again.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:59, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Bbb23, so should we AFD that article? --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 04:21, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Edit: I have already AFD the article again Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Star Air (India) (2nd nomination) --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 04:38, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Block evasion

Hi, User:117.234.14.161 is admitting in their edit summaries that they are User:HardSunBadMoon and User:Chandra Shekher Mishra. Regards, -- Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:15, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Pawnkingthree, I had reported the IP to WP:AIV --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 16:28, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Apparently wrong board. Ignore me. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 18:55, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Altnews.in

Can I please know why my edit was reverted? Dheerajmpai23 (talk) 22:28, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Please provide reason for the edit reverts. I am not indulging in any disruptive editing. Dheerajmpai23 (talk) 22:41, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
I've reverted your edits twice because they are non-neutral and disruptive. If you believe I'm wrong, then go to the article Talk page per WP:BRD. I won't discuss it with you here.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:43, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

OPEN community

sir, you deleted my page a couple of days ago. This was the page - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_OPEN_Community

I have made a draft of this page. It would be really helpful if you could tell if the page can be published now. this is the url of draft page - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:OPEN_Community

Thank You sir. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ManushiKapoor (talk • contribs) 14:16, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

You've apparently resubmitted the draft for review. It will get looked at in due course.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:27, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Lil Nas

Can you undelete Lil Nas? The artist has made the charts since the page was deleted, meeting WP:MUSIC, and his song has its own page. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 13:41, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

 Done.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:52, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Opinion needed

Hello, Bbb23. I would appreciate your opinion regarding the issue raised here and here. --Sundostund (talk) 23:34, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

You've already received advice. My opinion, though, is leave the userpage alone.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:46, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
I did, while I disagree with it... I just wanted to get opinion of some other admins as well. --Sundostund (talk) 23:50, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
(tpw) FWIW, I also agree with Jpgordon. —DoRD (talk)​ 16:38, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Jean Mill

(talk) Are you sure you are commenting about the right user? You have said I was forum shopping? and arguing with every voter...and then you locked my notice. I have raised what I considered a legitimate question, and you have shut me down, made false accusations and locked the discussion. Lubbad85 (talk) 16:30, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

I ask for an explanation. How did I forum shop? And why was it necessary close the discussion on the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents ? Lubbad85 (talk) 17:57, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

My close was my "response". Unfortunately, you have seen fit to continue your misguided crusade. No more posts on my Talk page on this issue.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:00, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

New User Alif Fizol

Their contrib log is suggestive of someone who has been around longer than they appear. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:35, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree, but I can find no evidence of socking.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:47, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. They dropped a line on my talk page saying they are from Malaysia. Perhaps they have experience on another wiki. In any event, aside from their poor command of English I'm not seeing anything super disruptive. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:53, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Block evasion by Infinenoi?

I saw that you were involved in the SPI against Infinenoi (talk · contribs). IP 59.189.109.170 (talk · contribs) just began editing in the same pattern as some of Infinenoi’s past socks, e.g. this revert that reintroduced content first introduced by Iowasboon (talk · contribs). Could you take a look? Thanks. — MarkH21 (talk) 10:03, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Actually, this diff makes it obvious (cf. this edit summary). — MarkH21 (talk) 10:13, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
Another: 111.65.46.94 (talk · contribs) — MarkH21 (talk) 17:14, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps this is not really the right place to be posting these, as I don’t anticipate that it will end anytime soon. But SPI doesn’t seem to be the right place to periodically update with these. Another IP likely to be the same editor: 111.65.46.199 (talk · contribs). — MarkH21 (talk) 20:45, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
Frankly, it's tough. You should probably be posting them at SPI, even though IPs often get ignored until their edits are too old, meaning nothing happens. You can post them here, but I can't promise I'll do anything and, often, I may not even respond to you, mainly because I'm limited by policy as to what I can say about IPs. Sorry I can't be more helpful.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:13, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Sockpuppet Investigations

I am admitting that I am a sockpuppet of Branflakes452701, the reason I keep creating accounts, is because you never put a time limit for me to continue editing. I want to edit Wikipedia, but you are not giving me a time frame of when I will be unblocked. I ask that you give a time of block, and then once it is over, I will edit normally. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.52.209.4 (talk) 01:05, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

More Ohio Highway socks

See the contribs of those listed here. Cards84664 (talk) 02:23, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

 Confirmed, blocked, and tagged. Thanks much.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:42, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Personal attack?

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:111.220.164.171&oldid=889765082 You removed something @CaradhrasAiguo wrote. Did you think it was a personal attack? He's posted stuff of similar nature on another talkpage (211.27.126.189) yet nobody removed it nor was it archived.111.220.164.171 (talk) 11:31, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

User:WIKIPEDIA

In all seriousness I would salt this as a troll target. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:50, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

47.145.67.53

Hello. I am sorry, but I would like to request immediate attention on user:47.145.67.53 because they attempted to make a threat of violence per the filter log. Thank you. CLCStudent (talk) 18:29, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Not really sure if it's a threat of violence, but it's certainly a gross personal attack. Blocked for 31h.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:35, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. FYI, it did include "ur dead" which sounds pretty threatening to me. The editor probably did not intend to sound legit, but I do not take chances when it comes to the safety of our community. CLCStudent (talk) 18:37, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
It was a brief statement; I assure you I didn't miss the dead part. I've been declared deceased so many times on this page I've lost track. More important, I don't suppose you know what provoked the attempted attack?--Bbb23 (talk) 18:42, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
I do not know what could have provoked it, nevertheless, I take all threats of violence very seriously. CLCStudent (talk) 18:44, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
To be clear, I'm not criticizing your "report". You should take threats of violence seriously, and I appreciate your coming here. My question about provocation wasn't to excuse the IP but to see if I should be taking any additional action against a named user or another IP.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:57, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Tejasvi Surya

You semi-protected this article, but it appears that the serial tag-bomber is auto-confirmed, so can still edit this. I don't think a block is needed yet, but I would appreciate it if you could keep an eye on this. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:52, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

It seems that the editor in question has finally listened to me and another user and nominated this article at AFD rather than repeat the tag-bombing, so I think this is under control now. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:14, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
User:Phil Bridger thanks a lot for your kind efforts in explaining the new user. Like all newbies, he clearly was not aware of our multilevel deletion process. Somehow my comment did the trick. I will request you to be more patient in future when you encounter such new users. Regards. --DBigXrayᗙ 18:14, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
(Sorry, Bbb23, for talking without you, but I prefer to keep a discussion in one place) DBig, I try to be patient, but in this instance, where both supporters and opponents of the article subject were behaving disruptively, I think that a bit of impatience was in order. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:31, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
@Phil Bridger: Not at all. FWIW, I think your behavior was just fine.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:20, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

reason for rollback of my edits on Charles Goodwin (semiotician)?

Hi. I Marjorie H. Goodwin am the spouse of Charles Goodwin (deceased) and recently I wanted to correct some of the inaccuracies in the Wikipedia entry on him. Can you please tell me why you rolled back my edits? I would like to make the the entry more accurate but I've never edited Wikipedia before- did I do it incorrectly? Thank you

Much of the information you added was unsourced. In Wikipedia, everything must be reliably sourced. If you want to make any future changes to your husband's bio, please use/create Talk:Charles Goodwin (semiotician) and suggest your changes, if possible with sources. I can't guarantee it, but hopefully more experienced users will help you. If you're still struggling, you can also ask questions at the WP:Teahouse.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:20, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/UA85

Sorry to bother, but the discussion is to be archived and I am afraid that you would not see this. Some other possible socks were listed here Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1003#User:03wikicreator. The data may be stale for now but I think blocks can still be performed. -- Regards, 94rain Talk 13:42, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

It's not so much that they're stale, but the majority made no edits, and a few made only one. Unless they start/resume editing, they're not worth blocking.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:53, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

UTRS appeal #24601

A user you have blocked has opened UTRS appeal #24601 on the Unblock Ticket Request System. The reviewing administrator, Just Chilling (talk · contribs), has requested your input:

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

Time: Apr 04, 2019 17:21:01

Message: Hi, please see my question on this UTRS appeal. Thanks!

Notes:

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

--UTRSBot (talk) 17:21, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Possible block evasion / return of sockdrawer / quacking

Repeated addition of inappropriate images and inaccurate descriptions to Native American articles, as we saw with Chitt66 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) notably, Chitt's sock: Higher Ground 1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log).
New account, created March 19, 2019: BuckyBeaver2019 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) Beaver account has been warned for this and copyvios by myself and Diannaa on usertalk, but just continues with the behaviour without responding. Same disruption, same refusal to engage. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 17:25, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

@CorbieVreccan: Am I supposed to know something about this master or socks?--Bbb23 (talk) 17:34, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, you investigated some of them. OK, this overlapped with another investigation, let me see what the other sock accounts are that weren't connected to Chitt. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 20:14, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Never mind; memory glitch. You were called in on this one, but by the time we pinged you at ANI the socks had already been blocked on behavioural evidence. Sorry to bother you. I'll consult with the blocking admins. Best, - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 20:22, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Pattyboyd

A new user whose very brief editing history is suggestive of someone who has been here before. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:13, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

@Ad Orientem: She's made 4 edits, one in 2007, one in 2013, one in 2017, and one today. I don't find that very limited editing over 12 years to be typical of socks.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:57, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Striking

Hi Bbb23. While I don't like to edit a closed section, I was specifically asked to strike those comments of mine and I agreed to (not sure how I got an extra sig in there, and the slight refactor was only moving a wikilink that affected an unstruck sentence). If you'd rather no changes be made and just leave it be, I'll abide by that as I made my intent known (though it would've been time for archiving soon in that case), so I just wanted to stop by and clear up any potential misunderstandings up. Thanks. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:02, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Who asked you to strike any comments?--Bbb23 (talk) 16:49, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Dugin

Could you please semiprotect that page? The Russian IPs are back at it.--Galassi (talk) 19:13, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

 Done --Bbb23 (talk) 19:37, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Question about Frivolous Tag

Hello, you reverted my edit to Hilscher netx network controller where I added a deletion tag based on promotion as it was just a list of products created by the company and has no independent third-party sources. You marked this tag as frivolous, but this was the only way I could find to remove spam. Is this not the correct methodology for this type of edit? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TJWREditor (talk • contribs) 06:17, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

revert of a page deletion

Hi Bbb23 ..

you deleted two days ago Papillon_S.r.l. - also referenced on Papillon

I know it was a stub .. though the company is little known, it produces one hard candy product, which at least to my knowledge has notoriety. Known in Asian Countries / Korea. (perle di sole - globe shaped lemon hard candy)

could you revert the deletion?

or should i create a product page leaving out the company? - feels a bit like the action to take from the guidelines ..

could you in this case paste the deleted page content from Papillon_S.r.l. as I lost the source I wrote? .. here or on my talk page .. thanks

--Ebricca (talk) 10:03, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

HughD sock IP

Bbb23, would you look at the HughD sock IP that commented here [[21]]. This is typical HughD behavior, Chicago based, follows me to an obscure area of Wikipedia, is the same IP address as similar 2017 edits. I've pinged NeilN but they haven't posted since 2018. The local editors aren't familiar with HughD's behavior and want to let the edits stand. I've tried to remove per EVADE. Thanks Springee (talk) 10:34, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

There's nothing I'm going to do based on two edits to a Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:27, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
Would adding a SPI be productive? This is one of several recent HughD sock edits. Springee (talk) 13:52, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
Only if the IP continues to edit. Otherwise, the likelihood is the SPI report will die from lack of attention.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:54, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Matt Bellamy...again

Hi Bbb23. Here we go again and again, same page same edits. You protected it last time for a month and it seems this guy just waits for the PP to pass before starting up again. Please could you look into protecting it again. Many thanks. Robvanvee 10:15, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

@Robvanvee: This time for three months. Could you do me a favor and keep an eye on KemsCh05? They are a new editor who, as far as I can tell, has been adding information to music-related articles that is either unsourced or sourced to a blog (Muse). It looks like it's mostly stats, e.g., how many albums have been released. They don't use edit summaries, and they really should have multiple warnings on their Talk page, but editors are reverting the edits but without posting warnings. I posted a generalized level-3 warning, and it won't take much more for me to block them, but music articles aren't my thing, so it's a little harder for me to monitor them.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:25, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for that Bbb23. Coincidentally, you'll see I was the first person to revert one of their edits and leave a welcome/warning on their talk page so they are in my sights :) Thanks again for the PP. Robvanvee 14:23, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Reporting promotional user names with promotional user pages

Hello Bbb23. When I come across these situations, do I need to report both the page at CSD and the user at UAA or should I just pick one? I recently did both but I do not want to create more work for admins by doing so. I appreciate any guidance. S0091 (talk) 15:16, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

It seems like it would create more work for you rather than for admins. It's your choice. Personally, I think the speedy tagging is more important than the username itself, but each case may be different.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:22, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
Makes sense. Thanks! S0091 (talk) 15:39, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Block of 2607:FEA8:BE60:28E:D8D4:87C7:B7C3:7FA0

Hello! I noticed as I was opening up a sockpuppet investigation here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Sophie_Mills you had already blocked one of the IPs - this is my first time opening up an investigation and I was wondering if you had any additional insight (i.e. how did you know to ban this IP?). Thanks! Mvolz (talk) 15:00, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

A few things. First, I deleted your report. The additional named user should be added to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Media Studies lecturer. Second, next time you create a new case, please follow the instructions at WP:SPI. You did it wrong. Third, I can't comment on my IP block.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:11, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, I did read the directions but I'm still not sure what I did wrong! I should have checked better for open reports though :). Cheers, Mvolz (talk) 15:22, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
The main thing you did wrong was in your third edit you removed the header (your edit summary was "trying to get syntax right T_T"). Also, when you put the sock names in the body, for the named accounts you should not include "User:", and for the IPs, it should just be the IPs, not a link to their contributions.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:30, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
(ec) Mvolz, I fixed the template for the account you added, but you will need to go to the "Comments by other users" section of the SPI and add your evidence. Thanks. —DoRD (talk)​ 15:31, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2019).

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • Two more administrator accounts were compromised. Evidence has shown that these attacks, like previous incidents, were due to reusing a password that was used on another website that suffered a data breach. If you have ever used your current password on any other website, you should change it immediately. All admins are strongly encouraged to enable two-factor authentication, please consider doing so. Please always practice appropriate account security by ensuring your password is secure and unique to Wikimedia.
  • As a reminder, according to WP:NOQUORUM, administrators looking to close or relist an AfD should evaluate a nomination that has received few or no comments as if it were a proposed deletion (PROD) prior to determining whether it should be relisted.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:57, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for moving the comments - we edit conflicted on that one --TheSandDoctor Talk 19:51, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

An early morning sock gift...

Happy tuesday. Praxidicae (talk) 11:31, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Bruce Liddington request to recreate

This article was deleted according to policy as a creation of a blocked user I believe. Liddington is now subject to two redlinks and we have: Sir Bruce Liddington Bruce Liddington Guardian article which I plan to use to create a start class BLP, to clear the redlinks. Is that ok with you? --ClemRutter (talk) 08:32, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

It's kind of you to ask but unnecessary. Fine with me.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:03, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Concerns Regarding User:Bbb23 and Possible Misuse of Admin/CU Abilities". Thank you. Notifying you as I mentioned your name when I started a subthread, and you may assume it is closed. Nil Einne (talk) 10:28, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Request for a proper citation

Why my request for a proper citation is removed? Current reference doesn't contain any information who and when established this remembrance day. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=International_Day_of_the_liberation_of_Nazi_concentration_camps — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alik65 (talk • contribs) 17:30, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

You're welcome to find another citation to add after the existing citation, but there is no need to add a tag, particularly with rather biased reason you gave.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:36, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Question about sandbox and submission

Hi Bbb23, I'm new to editing on Wikipedia and I want to add a Java framework I work for. I decided to practice first using my Sandbox but I think you deleted it. I though my sandbox was made for such testing? Sorry about that!

I now have provided public declaration on my profile and submitted the actual page for the framework to be reviewed. I'm open to any comment to improve/fix it. Thanks for your help. —Preceding undated comment added 16:37, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Irish sockpuppet

Hi Bbb23, just saw an article made over something I had watchlisted by the user StaniforthHistorian. I was looking at other albums by the same artist and noticed the user who had made some, NJStaniforth, was blocked by you for being a sock of FreeBirdBiker, who was using sock accounts to support keeping articles in AfDs. I think due to the same topic area, creating articles by the same artist and even using part of the same name(!) that they are the same editor. Ss112 05:23, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Blocked. Too bad they escaped detection for so long. They've created a slew of new pages, all of which are subject to G5 (they have to meet the other requirements of G5). I'm reluctant - maybe I'm being overly cautious - to mass-delete the more recent ones (mass-delete has limitations on how far back you can go) partly because it doesn't allow me to look at the history of the pages beforehand. If you feel like it, you can look at as few or as many as you like and tag them if appropriate. If you don't wish to, I completely understand. In any event, thanks for the heads up.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:02, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

IP sock

User:146.198.193.9 is now back as User:124.104.235.93. Have gone ahead and blocked. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:20, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

FreebirdBiker

Looks like they've begun using another sock. Just opened an SPI on HordeFTL, who has begun to recreate all the pages recently G5'd. Onel5969 TT me 00:54, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Oh, and if it is a sock, let me know and I'll tag the pages. Onel5969 TT me 00:56, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
No matter what happens, don't tag. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:57, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Anand-Milind page being undone

Hi, what are the best practices to keep this page alive? I have added citations and facts about the duo. What other guidleines do I need to follow to make sure that my changes are not being undone? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.93.126.17 (talk) 15:20, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Taking it to SPI

Actually, as it's a new one, I should just take it there. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 19:40, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Kalpana Mohan Page

Hi. I had created the edit as per suggestion & it was included in the Kalpana Mohan page, Now It is removed again. Could you please clarify Wikipedia policy on the matter. As it has removed the person Filmography which was even there in the previous edits too. Please check the previous editions too. How it possible to remove Filmography, its there in public domain on other media as well. thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yashkkaryan (talk • contribs) 19:59, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Please provide diffs. Otherwise, I have no idea what you're objecting to.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:58, 11 April 2019 (UTC)


Hi, The changes were approved by Oshwah but you had revert back on 23 March,2019 could you explain why? I understand it is about perception but it is possible to revert changes once it is approved by an admin, no time frame to collapse & again it gets revert by another admin. The changes which were reverted were part of previous editions too including the hyperlink leading to the movie pages. so suddenly what went wrong with it? It is beyond logic. Below are the changes which you had removed, How could you discredit her work? Thanks

Career: Nehru often invited Kalpana, a trained Kathak dancer, to dance at the Rashtrapati Bhavan whenever dignitaries visited. Actor Balraj Sahani and Urdu writer Ismat Chughtai spotted the beautiful dancer and encouraged her to come to Mumbai and try her luck in films.

Filmography

1. Pyar Ki Jeet (1962), as Chitralekha | Romance | 1 January 1962 (India) Director Vasant Painter | Stars: Mahipal, Kalpana, Indira

2. Naughty Boy (1962), as Meena Sharma / Edna Wong | Comedy Movie Director Shakti Samanta, Stars: Kishore Kumar, Kalpana, Om Prakash

3. Professor (1962), as Neena Verma | Comedy, Drama, Musical | 11 May 1962 (India) Director Lekh Tandon, Stars: Shammi Kapoor, Kalpana, Lalita Pawar

4. Saheli (1965), as Reshma | Romance | 1965 (India) Director Arjun Hingorani, Stars: Pradeep Kumar, Kalpana, Vijaya Choudhury

5. Teesra Kaun (1965), as Shobha | Action, Crime, Drama Director: Mohammed Hussain (as Mohd. Husain) | Stars: Feroz Khan, Kalpana & Shashikala

6. Teen Devian (1965) as Kalpana | Musical, Romance | 10 December 1965 (India) Director: Amarjeet (as Amar Jeet) | Stars: Dev Anand, Nanda, Kalpana, Simi & IS Johar

7. Biwi Aur Makan (1966), as Geeta Director: Hrishikesh Mukherjee | Stars: Biswajit Chatterjee, Kalpana, Mehmood

8. Tasveer (1966), as Piloo | Director: J.B.H. Wadia Stars: Feroz Khan, Kalpana , Helen & Rajendra Nath

9. Pyar Kiye Jaa (1966), as Malti | Director: C.V. Sridhar (as Sridhar) Stars: Kishore Kumar, Kalpana, Shashi Kapoor, Mehmood

10. Nawab Sirazuddaula (1967) Drama | Director: Ramchandra Thakur Stars: Bharat Bhushan, Kalpana, Naseem Banu, Murad & Johnny Walker

11. Ek Bechara (1972), as Radha | Drama, Family | Director: S.M. Abbas Stars: Jeetendra, Rekha, Vinod Khanna, Kalpana, Pran, Bindu & Anwar Hussain

She has 11 films to her credits, all films are not mentioned in the Biography. I request you to please restore the info in a tabular format as original version with the hyperlink leading to the movie. The list is genuine.

References Please add the link, as it was part of the earlier Biography. https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0436200/bio?ref_=nm_ov_bio_sm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yashkkaryan (talk • contribs) 20:26, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

user:Seppi333

Seppi333 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) User is reporting being caught in an open proxy block (204.152.200.0/21) and requesting IP block exemption. I have a high degree of confidence in this user but normal procedure is to request a check user before granting IP block exemption. I would also note that they got caught in a similar situation a couple of years ago and I granted them the flag which I subsequently removed when the situation no longer required the exemption. Thanks... -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:22, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

There are some CUs who are used to granting IPBE. I am not one of them. It would be better if Seppi333 asked for the exemption from another CU, and I also think it would be better if the request came directly from them. Another alternative is for them to e-mail the functionaries or checkuser list.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:32, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks and I totally understand. This has me swimming farther into the deep end of the tech pool than my comfort level normally allows. I think I will suggest they submit a request via UTRS. It can then be forwarded as appropriate. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:39, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
@Ad Orientem: My apologies again for the hassle. I've emailed the functionaries. This issue isn't that big of a deal, but it is annoying since I'm randomly subject to hard IP blocks when I edit from that location. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 11:44, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

OZ/AmritasyaPutra SPIs

Hi Bbb23. In checking over some old interactions, I found Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/OccultZone/Archive. The last few entries of that archive have accounts blocked for socking, per that investigation casepage; but the Occultzone is now unblocked, and your comments at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/AmritasyaPutra/Archive suggest that there are, in fact, two sockfarms. Surely something needs to be moved or merged, for consistency? Vanamonde (Talk) 21:56, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

I wouldn't touch any of that with a 100' pole, maybe longer.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:58, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
I can't argue with that, even it it leaves my inner obsessive deeply dissatisfied. Oh well. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:07, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
lol.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:10, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Returning IP

Hello Bbb23. This IP 109.152.176.175 (talk · contribs) is making the same edits as the blocked IP 109.152.178.22 (talk · contribs). If I am misreading this my apologies. Thank you for your time. MarnetteD|Talk 23:12, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Blocked for block evasion. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:47, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
You are welcome. MarnetteD|Talk 00:33, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts... A while back, there was a huge fight about the name "Bruce Duffie" being spammed. After much discussion, I agreed to simply delete the name when I had time to do so, and have continued to delete it on many of the Wiki pages. To read the full discussion, it is on my website... http://www.bruceduffie.com/awikiedit.html. I would be very interested in your comments about that. Also, I appreciate your desire to maintain the original content of the links. Please respond... Douglasburton (talk) 19:04, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

@Douglasburton: Ah, fascinating. I think you should do what was proposed a year ago, which, as I read it, was not to delete your name from existing links, but to not include your name when you add links. Did I read it wrong? As an aside, please WP:SIGN your posts on a discussion page, including this one. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:28, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. Sorry I forgot to sign it. You did read the discussion I posted correctly, but I've been deleting a few things as I stumble on them. Maybe I'll quit doing that. On another topic, recently a page was deleted from Wikipedia. Is there any way to find it, or is it gone forever? (It was not one of the interviews, but an article about something else.) Douglasburton (talk) 22:21, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
If you know the exact name of the deleted article or the name of the editor who created it, I can probably find it. Nothing is gone forever on Wikipedia.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:10, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Can we do this in a non-public forum? Please use the e-mail address at the bottom of any of the interviews. Or, if that's not possible, let me know. Thanks. Douglasburton (talk) 03:04, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
I don't e-mail editors. If you wish me to look into it, you'll have to e-mail me through Wikipedia.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:23, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
OK... Never done that before, so what is the procedure? Sorry to be such a bother to you... Douglasburton (talk) 20:35, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
On the left side of this page, there is a link that says "Email this user". Click on that.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:41, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

@Douglasburton: Too weird for me to sort out. You're the one who knows the most about it. I'd have to do independent research.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:14, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

WNIB (defunct) is a redirect. The history of it, though, has the article before it was merged and redirected, e.g., here.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:51, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. The link sent me to exactly what I wanted. Douglasburton (talk) 03:30, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

User:BbbTwentyThree

Hi, is the above an alternative account of yours? Regards, JACKINTHEBOX • TALK 05:25, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

OK. JACKINTHEBOX • TALK 07:07, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Block evasion by Abudabanas

Hi Bbb23. I hope everything is well. I would like to point to your attention that the master has resorted to block evasion twice via 212.205.171.49 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). I suggest a block upgrade. Thank you. Dr. K. 07:50, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry

I'm not really much knowledgeable in this field, is it possible to renew the archive? Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Abh9850/Archive The reverts have substantially increased since last time. --HistoryofIran (talk) 00:54, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

No, it's been dealt with.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:57, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
So he's just gonna continue abusing the rules/his edit warring crusade, nice. --HistoryofIran (talk) 00:58, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Markaz

Do you have any memory of a group of sock puppets that tried to remove all mention of organisations called "Markaz" from Wikipedia a few years ago? It's come up in this AFD, and it does look like a bad faith nomination. I've closed it as keep, but was wondering if you might be able to do a check? It's odd for someone with 200 edits to first edit an article and then nominate it for AFD. Dusti*Let's talk!* 01:54, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Blocked and tagged. Here's a tip for next time. Do a search of the SPI archives for Markaz. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:21, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
I didn't know that was a thing, but now I do! Thanks :) Dusti*Let's talk!* 02:26, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Billiekhalidfan

Billiekhalidfan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User is currently blocked as a very probable sock of PeopleEater143 based on behavioral evidence. However they are now claiming mistaken identity. Out of an abundance of caution could you do a check? PeopleEater143 is a serial block evader and their IP addresses almost invariably geolocate to Pennsylvania. Just yesterday I range-blocked 2601:48:8100:6D8A:0:0:0:0/64 which they have used quite a bit which makes me wonder at the sudden revival of this account. Their edit summaries on music related articles tend to be quite similar in tone. Thanks... -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:06, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

@Ad Orientem: What would my check accomplish? Do you know of any blocked named accounts I can compare the new user with?--Bbb23 (talk) 21:02, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
I will have a look through my archives and see what I can dig up. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:07, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Resolved for now. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:52, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm back...

...with another request. Could you possibly check out this PERM request? Thanks (: Dusti*Let's talk!* 16:10, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Another admin granted it.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:15, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Impersonation

FYI
 – User:32bbB

- Already CU confirmed and blocked but just a heads up. RhinosF1(chat)(status)(contribs) 22:16, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Sock seems to be back

@Bbb23:Hi there, this particular sock that you blocked seems to be back with a new name. These diffs should be enough evidence. [[22]] and [[23]]. Sharkslayer87 (talk) 13:57, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

The results are  Inconclusive. I suggest you file a report at WP:SPI so the new user's behavior may be evaluated. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:11, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Nora Hanen

That IP address has immediately returned and has automatically resumed their editing as before. Might there be a way to re-lock the page? livelikemusic talk! 13:29, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Jstar

Looks like it was just recreated as Jstar punjabi singer (There seems to be deleted articles under J Star and J star as well), apparently one of them links to a sockpuppet report even. But yeah wanted to point this out. Wgolf (talk) 23:29, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Is there something further you think I should do?--Bbb23 (talk) 23:33, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
I've deleted and salted the alternately-named article. I haven't come to a conclusion on whether the current editor is evading a block. Acroterion (talk) 23:41, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Danny Jakab

Tell me please why you deletion the page in 5 minutes? What evidence you need or what's wrong with the page? Thank you. Djene94 (talk) 1:16, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Because there was no credible claim of significance. I should have also added WP:CSD#G11 as the article was excessively promotional.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:31, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Can I create it again, without the promotion of a company that has been dashed in the topic? In that case, the page would not be deleted or be?Djene94 (talk) 2:11, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
No, the subject doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability standards, and it appears to promote that person. Acroterion (talk) 00:26, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Cirt?

User:Cirt is a sock? What's the evidence for that? Doesn't say anything on his user page. (I know he's inactive, but for reasons of my own I'd appreciate being pointed to evidence of that, if there any exists, thanks.) Herostratus (talk) 17:14, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cirt.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:23, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Ohhh, OK, thanks. Herostratus (talk) 07:30, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bbb23/Archive_47&oldid=1085930539"