User talk:Bbb23/Archive 50

Archive 45

←

Archive 48

Archive 49

Archive 50

Archive 51

Archive 52

→

Archive 55

More sockiness

Hey, could I trouble you please to look at RonakshiStan? I suspect it's Dimpletisha because of the large intersection between the new account and the socks, but it also gets unclear, because when Dimpletisha edits, she is often in conflict with KaranSharma0445 and I can't tell them apart yet. Interestingly, (debatable, I know...) Dimpletisha is in conflict with InGrayscale, who has been around off and on since 2017, but only has 2k edits. Don't know if they're either of the socks, but there is some back-and-forth that we normally see when Dimpletisha edits. Oh, and RonakshiStan uploaded this MTV-related image. Dimpletisha was interested in MTV Splitsvilla. And of course I'll be happy to write anything up if you need it. Thanks and regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:15, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

It's Dimpletisha.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:47, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Bbb23, Thanks for checking and blocking! Ravensfire (talk) 02:18, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry

• Genderdiscriminated (talk · contribs)

Please check that this is no-one's sockpuppet. Uncle G (talk) 11:17, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

• That's an amazing discussion at BLPN. Way beyond my pay grade. I assume Gender will either stop editing for another seven years or some admin will block Gender as NOTHERE (and not quite there, either).--Bbb23 (talk) 13:02, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
  • It is more than that. This seems possible to me to be a known such impersonator up to xyr old tricks, which were indeed seven years ago, again. Uncle G (talk) 13:40, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
    • Other than the 7-year old account, which they've acknowledged, I'm not sure what you mean. In any event, I noticed the user before your post here, and I found no evidence of socking. It's always harder when I have no other non-stale user to compare to.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:48, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
      • I actually disbelieve the 7-year old account claim, on the basis that the new account has made several slips that set off alarm bells. I still think it to be impersonation. I presume that your check would have turned up the known impersonator, whose main account was still actively editing yesterday, had this been that impersonator, even if you had not plugged the main account name in explicitly. Uncle G (talk) 14:01, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
        • I'm lost. Gender is not stale. Is there another non-stale account you suspect, or are you asking if a check of Gender by itself would turn up any socks?--Bbb23 (talk) 14:07, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
          • There is another non-stale account. Have a quiet word with Drmies and see whether the impersonation of erstwhile child actors rings any bells. Uncle G (talk) 15:17, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
            • I don't get why you're being so cryptic. If you like, you can e-mail me the name of the other user. Otherwise, my "quiet word" is pinging Drmies.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:02, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
              • Yes, that does ring a tiny bell--but given my memory, I am not the best person to invoke here. Sorry. Drmies (talk) 20:17, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
                • You deleted the revisions. Uncle G (talk) 11:00, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

If i change my name will you change your amazing equality loving personality? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Genderdiscriminated (talk • contribs) 02:20, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Alright these accusations of being an impersonator are going straight to an attorney so that all of your baseless, libelous outrageous accusations based on nothing more than your factless SPECULATION can be appropriately made actual defamatory statements worthy of being linked to on WIKIPEDIA. Genderdiscriminated (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:26, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

>Uncle G< I deleted because no one cared. Genderdiscriminated (talk)

>Uncle G< most of you were not helpful and definitely not understanding what the problem was, and also expressing that I dont have the same rights as other people. So i deleted it. i decided to go get an attorney to deal with this. Genderdiscriminated (talk)

Whatever else is the situation here, the user is now blocked for legal threats. —C.Fred (talk) 02:37, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of 2019 National Conservatism Conference Washington D.C.

Hello, could I please request that this article be undeleted and moved to WP;DRAFT so that I may work on it further? National_Conservatism_Conference_Washington_D.C. Williamallison (talk) 02:00, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

 Done. See Draft:2019 National Conservatism Conference Washington D.C..--Bbb23 (talk) 18:21, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you ! Bbb23 Williamallison (talk) 01:03, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Would you mind looking into this?

Bbb23, would you mind looking at this IP address[[1]]. It’s Chicago based and my concern is it might be a HughD IP trying to make it look like I’m EVADING here [[2]]. BMK has obliquely suggested as much here[[3]]. Thanks, Springee (talk) 13:00, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, and some followup

A question: Re: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Mcelite

Any connection to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/SolarStorm1859/Archive who is now indef-blocked on both of these accounts for harassment of multiple users:

• SolarStorm1859 (lostpwd) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• SolarStorm1859 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

SolarStorm primarily edited with proxy IPs, but there is another connection. Mcelite is the only user we can't rule out (among the very short list of those who had the email address of a harassed user) as having either sent the disturbing emails, or having given out her address to the sender. One of the senders' emails was very similar to SolarStorm's username, but could have also been a third suspect spoofing SolarStorm. This could help narrow down the list even further. Thanks again, - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 21:13, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

The second one is stale. The first is  Unrelated.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:21, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 21:39, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Madhesi people

@Bbb23, Kautilya3, Utcursch, and Ponyo: Could you please take a look at the Madhesi people page (with special job of checking the contents with cited sources) and recent talk page discussion. Thanks. — Jakichandan (talk) 00:13, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

• I have no idea why you're talking to me about this. Also, there is no need to ping me on my Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:10, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I thought you would be interested as you have helped in various investigations against socks who have shown interest in the concerned article and related stuff. As for ping, I would take care. Thanks. —Jakichandan (talk) 02:19, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
    • Are you talking about Special:Diff/910054351? Uncle G (talk) 08:36, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
      • @Uncle G: No, I am talking about the lead, and whether the source cited say the same thing. Also the most recent discussion about the same on talk page (Talk :Madhesi people#Madheshis of Indian ancestry ? ). Thanks. —Jakichandan (talk) 08:46, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Rupert Degas

Do you have any reason for declining speedy? The article in the form to which you restored it contains no evidence or even assertion of notability. DuncanHill (talk) 18:06, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

He's done enough acting to get past an a7.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:23, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

I must have missed the bit in a7 that says "does not apply if subject has done some acting". DuncanHill (talk) 18:27, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

No doubt. No more snark please.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:28, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Then can you please explain to me, in a manner that actually takes account of what a7 says, why you declined the speedy? The article very clearly "does not indicate why its subject is important or significant", and is not about an educational institution. DuncanHill (talk) 18:32, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

• The original article Special:Diff/87343114 made credible claims of a lot of stuff, and the speedy deletion criterion is for articles with no credible claims.

  Looking through the edit history at Special:Diff/188592939, Special:Diff/578250849, Special:Diff/558491313, and a lot of others, it seems to me that sourcing has been substandard here for 13 years, with people adding stuff that they cannot back up if pressed. But the article has been through the BLP Sources process, twice, and Speedy Deletion evaluated by one person on sight is clearly the wrong route to take.

  Have you tried looking this person up in books?

  Uncle G (talk) 08:52, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

  • It's an autobiography, pretty much all the IPs have been the subject. Valid tags about sourcing get removed by him willy nilly. Have only found puff pieces on Google. If you think he's notable enough for an article then fix it. DuncanHill (talk) 09:06, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
    • So that's no, you haven't tried looking up in books. That's an important next step. Uncle G (talk) 08:29, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
      • He is not mentioned in any of the 2,500+ non-fiction books I have to hand, and looking things up in books is not mentioned anywhere in your own personal essay to which you linked. But there you go. Have you tried looking him up? You want to keep the article. You are making the baseless claim of notability without bothering to produce any evidence. DuncanHill (talk) 09:02, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
  • And that second diff is breathtaking. The article was not well referenced at that or any point. DuncanHill (talk) 09:09, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Potential sock puppet of User:Joker5122

Hello,

I believe User:Arrow5122 may be a sock puppet of User:Joker5122. Can you help? Cardei012597 (talk) 18:11, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Who dat?

It was a couple of years ago, but whoever you checkuser blocked here is still in control of the IP. Not sure if it's evasion, but giving you a heads up in case you're interested. -- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:50, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Now blocked for two years. Look at the CU log and you'll see who it is, not that I think you'll know the master.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:05, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

adjusts checkuser goggles Ah yes, I see now.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:09, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Rev Delete

Hey, wondering if it would be possible to have this rev deleted? [4]. Thanks! Garchy (talk) 04:41, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

 Done. I got this. El_C 04:43, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Confused

what is happening here?! Praxidicae (talk) 15:47, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Michepman closed a discussion without including the closing template, so I reverted. They reclosed using the closing template, and Bradv reverted because Michepman was "involved". I haven't paid any attention to the merits.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:51, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that but just the whole thing is strange with a random account of 340 edits suddenly closing an ANI report with seemingly no resolution, giving a vandalism account a barnstar...just very, very strange. Praxidicae (talk) 15:52, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Ah, that's another story. I've been aware of Michepman for a long time.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:55, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Dharmatic

I noticed you deleted the article and wondered if you noticed the AfD, regards Govvy (talk) 18:21, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Of course.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:45, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Closed?

Hi, you just closed Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Shingling334 - I don't understand the comment, "One edit two days ago". There are more than 50 edits, going back to 1 September, and I'm quite sure they're all his...? --IamNotU (talk) 21:28, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

The last edit was two days ago and the only one for that day. We rarely block IPs unless the disruption is very recent.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:39, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Anatoly Geleskul

Hey there. You deleted this article a little over a month ago for being created by a banned/blocked user. But you didn't put the editor's name in the summary, so I'm not sure. But it was just recreated by a new editor, who started editing on 9/11/2019. Methinks this might be another sock, but I can't report it, since I don't know the other editor's name. Could you help me out? Thanks.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:36, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

The user has already been reported at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Кориоланыч.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:37, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Zombie gunner

Does Zombie gunner (talk · contribs) seem like Hammy0007 (talk · contribs), now banned? Their behavior, respectively, on Architecture of India and History of domes in South Asia—creating content forks, changing halfway through the talk page discussions from an IP to a user name, editing (as IPs) pages earlier edited by Highpeaks35 (talk · contribs), now topic banned from India-related pages—seem similar. Also pinging @Johnbod:, @RegentsPark:, @Abecedare: and @Vanamonde93: Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:47, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

A report has been filed by another editor.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:22, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

JR Ewing (band)

I'd like to expand the JR Ewing (band) page as it currently contains next to no information. Was it the Facebook post citation you saw as unreliable? It came officially from the band. Thanks. NaiveSuper (talk) 18:13, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Both sources were not reliable, particularly in support of the material.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:15, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

IP sock 193.240.15.54

Hi Bbb23, about a week ago, you CU blocked IP 193.240.15.54 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Immediately upon the release of that block, the user went back to causing disruption. Would you mind taking a look at their contributions? I believe a further block is necessary. Thanks, Aoi (青い) (talk) 05:15, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks!

Hey, thanks for somehow nabbing and cleaning up after this guy. I had an internal debate about whether or not I should mention him to you. His edits stank so much of undisclosed paid editing. Brand new user, multiple articles created, zipping through talk pages and re-grading the article assessment scores... I was sure he had to be a sock of SOMEONE, but even before adminship, that's always been such an unpleasant thing to say to CUs, especially without any corroborating information. I went through all his new articles and couldn't find anything to tie him to a past sock. It all just feels like a bad (or very gooooood?) 1980s police drama. "I'm tellin' ya chief, I got a hunch!" Anyway, thank you. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:00, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Conflict of Interests

Just in case you don't remember, you once threatened to ban block me in order maintain incorrect content on a biography of a living person. You repeated your desire to ban block me here in order to push your fringe view that facilitated communication is legitimate, even there was already strong consensus at that time that it is pseudoscience. These actions were an abuse of admin tools, and your statements indicate that you are unable to remain impartial in your interactions with me. As such, you have a conflict of interests in disputes in which I am a party. I would appreciate if you would refrain from involving yourself in such disputes, as you did here. I would would also like you to acknowledge that you have the aforementioned conflict of interests for future reference. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 00:28, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

I acted only in my capacity as an administrator.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:59, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Abusing admin privileges by threatening to ban block me for opposing a fringe view that you favor may technically be acting in the capacity of an administrator, but this shits all over violates the spirit of the rule. A content dispute is still a content dispute even if you try to force your view with admin tools. After reading these diffs, can you really say with a straight face that you have the ability to moderate discussions in which I am involved without bias? I'm not asking you to admit to abusing admin privileges, I just don't want you to moderate discussions in which I am involved. If you agree to that, we can settle this now. Otherwise I will have to take this to dispute resolution. --Wikiman2718 (talk)

For the record: Here is another post in which you say you want to see me blocked. If my memory serves me right there may have been more to that effect on the talk page of Amy Sequenzia, but I can no longer access that page because it has been deleted. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 02:14, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't mean to be rude, but I would like to hear your reply so that I know whether or not to proceed with dispute resolution. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 22:26, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

It is difficult to accept that somebody who wrote, this shits all over the spirit of the rule, didn't mean to be rude. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:37, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

@RoySmith: Fixed it. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 00:55, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Restore the articles

Hello, It's me again. Can you restore the following articles as you did last time regarding the Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/RadyoUkay819, these articles are

• Danna García (model)
• Dayana Davtyan
• Shanel Ifill
• Bria Smith
• Alyssa Boston
• Geraldine González
• Barbora Hodačová
• Clauvid Dály
• Ako Kamo
• Alfïya Ersayın
• Lee Yeon-joo
• Elmara Buranbaeva
• Sharon Pieksma
• Inés López
• Helene Abildsnes
• Ketlin Lottermann
• Sylvie Silva
• Bebiana Mangal Triila73 (talk) 08:55, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

I didn't delete those articles. If you want them restored, you'll have to request the deleting admins.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:48, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Socks don't always come in pairs

Socks wear out eventually.	Darn socks
	Thank you for your tireless contributions in a seemingly thankless job of sniffing out socks. Your efforts are greatly appreciated and a comfort to editors like me who can't duck fast enough. Your contributions have not gone unnoticed. Atsme Talk 📧 04:08, 20 September 2019 (UTC)	Have a vat of sake on me!

That's cute, thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:49, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Potential sock of Joker5122

Hello,

I believe that User:Deadpool5122 is a sock puppet of User:Joker5122. This user contacted me, asking me to create drafts for him. Can you please investigate this issue? Cardei012597 (talk) 18:05, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Done. Sorry it took longer than usual. I had some problems that distracted me and then I forgot.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:58, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Question

So I noticed you blocked this ip today and while I'm not naive I want to be cautious before I do the same elsewhere, but they're currently flooding another project. Is this their normal MO? Praxidicae (talk) 18:44, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Heh, I don't know why I second guessed my first feeling. Praxidicae (talk) 18:46, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Mevagiss

Hi again, last year I brought your attention to several socks of the blocked user Mevagiss and I was just wondering if you could take a look at these accounts:

• Capristic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Politovsky (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Their editing patterns are very similar, mostly focusing on the nationality of people from the UK as well as dating formats (BCE > BC)--Comnenus (talk) 14:40, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

You'll have to reopen the SPI, and please sign your post above.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:43, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Ah ok--Comnenus (talk) 14:40, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Adam Phillips (animator)

Hello. I want to ask if we can get Adam Phillips (animator) reinstated as an article? Before it was deleted, it had been vandalized, but it did have plenty of information and sources for the person's work before then. Though not many sources from mainstream newspapers. --Luka1184 (talk) 13:23, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Who's "we"? The last version of the article, the one I deleted, was a nothing and is not worth restoring even as a draft.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:06, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

We is everyone who is interested in reading about the animator. It's just a habbit of mine to use "we". Sorry. Also, what do you mean by "a nothing?" Do you mean the vandalization? (inserting of gibberish). The page used to have a biography, a filmography, sources etc. --Luka1184 (talk) 11:07, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

It's two sentences long.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:16, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Then someone brought it back and added nothing. The original page was very long and extensive. See: https://web.archive.org/web/20170122170558/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brackenwood Is it possible to get this back? --Luka1184 (talk) 12:41, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Not from me it's not. If appropriate, I restore or userfy only articles I deleted.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:43, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

By that, do you mean that you can move the stuff that was on the non-vandalized page unto a subpage of my userpage? I don't understand. --Luka1184 (talk) 12:47, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Edit Warring

You may be interested to know that User:Generic515, who commenced editing on August 22, was suspended for 24 hours on September 11 for Edit Warring, and whom you suspended for 72 hours on September 16 for Edit Warring, returned to his Edit Warring ways as soon as his latest suspension was up, making the same edits to the Santo Domingo article as he had made (and had gotten reverted) three days before, engaging in pretty nasty edit warring at at the Brazil article and then pulling this stunt. He then found an old edit of mine (from June) and proceeded to revert it with no explanation, and when I reverted his reversion with an explanation of Spanish orthography, he reverted it again, falsely claiming that I'm a "one-language editor" (as if that mattered anyhow). As before his suspensions, he not only relentlessly edit-wars without providing an explanation (or paying heed to explanations provided by other editors), his edit summaries are as uncivil as ever. I've reverted him twice with full explanations, so I gave him two chances to follow proper procedures and discuss his proposed changes; I can't revert him a third time in less than 24 hours, though. I leave it to you to decide what should be done. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 05:55, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

I see the two of you edit-warring a bit, and I don't care for some of his edit summaries, but I don't see sufficient misconduct to justify further sanctions.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:55, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

When there's something strange in the neighborhood...

I came across these two accounts today who are copying other folks user/talk pages and it seemed very sketchy/LTA like/nothere, so I asked an admin to block but figured you might want to also take a look in case there are some other ne'er-do-wells. Praxidicae (talk) 13:08, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Make that three. Praxidicae (talk) 13:08, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Bolton Pride

Hi Bbb23, please could you restore the Bolton Pride article for further work? It's has been covered by dozens of sources. Richard Nevell (talk) 13:28, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Facially it was clearly an A7, demonstrating no claim of significance for a local event. Your "dozens of sources" are all local rags, which do little to demonstrate sufficient notability to get past an A7. That said, if you wish, I'll restore it to draft space. Perhaps you or the creator can convince someone at WP:AFC that it deserves an article. Let me know.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:37, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Make it so. Richard Nevell (talk) 13:57, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Bolton Pride.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:30, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, I'll take it from here. Richard Nevell (talk) 18:16, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Starqt Award

Greetings, kindly assist to put Starqt Awards page to a draft page for further improvements.

Thanks Ndizibanana (talk) 18:49, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Jack90s15

Regarding your comment at ANI, this is not retaliatory. That is a good faith mistake: when I myself saw this series of reverts by MVBW: [5], [6], [7], [8], and these reverts by the IP [9], [10], [11], my first reaction was: "that is MVBW's sock". Note, the IP seems so experiences that they stopped after a 3rd revert. The only two reasons why I hadn't requested a check was that I knew that MVBW is too experienced and too cautious for such games, and because I was aware of some facts about MVBW Jack90s15 was not aware of. Therefore Jack90s15's mistake is quite explainable per AGF.

I agree that Jack90s15's edits are sometimes really annoying, especially from the formatting point of view (I warned them several times, but without any effect). However, he seems to be a good faith user, and some reasonably short block may have a positive effect on them. Actually, the only thing they should learn is that it is necessary to think twice before hitting the "Publish changes" button, and serving a, e.g. a months long block should be sufficient for learning that lesson. If not, I will have no objections to re-impose the block.

P.S. One may argue my intention is to support a user who enthusiastically supported me. However, you must agree that this type support is hardly valuable. I think I am somewhat responsible for people who trust me. --Paul Siebert (talk) 03:54, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Resolved SPI

Hi, I see you deleted [12] on the basis of it only detailed a single account. It's my first SPI request so I assume that's in line with a procedure, but it seems to ignore that the user demonstrated a detailed knowledge of WP Policy and a familiarity with procedures like AFD on their first edit. Given that we know how brand new editors on single issues tend to argue in AFD (bad formatting, no citing of policy, appeals to emotion etc) why would this account's near perfect conduct on their first edit not be considered suspicious enough for investigation as to whether it was truly a new user? Thanks Battleofalma (talk) 10:32, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

We don't entertain one-user reports at SPI.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:40, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Why not? Do you not agree that the behaviour is suspicious? Battleofalma (talk) 09:56, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Dimples

Hey there, could I trouble you to please look at ABTHEBOSS? This user has made some really stubborn edits and I'm picking up a paid editing vibe from them, since they seem intent on fluffing up Indian articles with various awards. I note that he created Indian Television Academy Award for Best Actor Popular, which had previously been created by Udu222, a sockpuppet of Dimpletisha. The user is also sloppily barreling through their edits, which is requiring other editors to lecture them, so they'll wind up blocked eventually, but this feels like someone marginally familiar with this project. I also notice some intersections with Tracy Von Doom, but I'm not certain that's significant in any way. Thanks! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:21, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Cyphoidbomb, honestly, I think Dimples (love that nickname!) current sock is RaimaVerma - there's an SPI open on them, just backlogged at the moment. I think AB is a sock of someone, I'm just not sure who. Ravensfire (talk) 15:31, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

@Ravensfire: Good note. Dimples tended to directly edit TV articles, updating mundane info, where this guy tends to be into award stuff. No clear sockmaster is jumping out at me. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:37, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb: ABTHEBOSS is a technical match to Shankar 1382 (talk · contribs · count). I assume it's the same person, but Shankar 1382's behavior was somewhat different. Can you look at the behavior and tell me what you think?--Bbb23 (talk) 15:54, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Hmm, not confident. Few intersections, no minor edits, no wonky talk page comments... Not sure what to do here other than keep an eye on the new guy. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:47, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Arthurfan828

Hey bbb23. I dropped a 72 hour on this one cause they're disruptively editing, but a review looks like Ricardojoseph20052010 may be an Arthurfan828 sock. I also believe it's the same editor as 2607:FEA8:929F:FB9D:0:0:0:0/64

Thanks -- ferret (talk) 21:45, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Understandable but  Unrelated.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:08, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Drmies

Did you understand that there are now two issues up on ANI relating to Drmies and each message on his talk page just refers to a single issue ? --Penbat (talk) 15:02, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

First, the latest thread has already been correctly closed, and, second, your links are generic and don't point specifically to the two threads, so your second notice just looks like a hiccup and serves no purpose.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:09, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

• See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Controversial behaviour at squatting position, where Penbat absolutely refuses to accept that half a dozen other editors don't agree with them... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 15:18, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Now what

Where should that go? --evrik ^(talk) 22:02, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

You could bring the IP to ANI, but I'm not sure you'd get very far with that.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:11, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

I’m not sure why you deleted that page, when I have a valid complaint. By the way that page was made prior to your revision so I’d like to know where to put the complaint. --evrik ^(talk) 13:41, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

@Evrik: I already told you above that you cannot report the IP to SPI without evidence of who the master is. I've also noticed that at two AfDs, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/South Florida Council and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Camp Men-O-Lan, you've been attacking the IP without justification. In the former you removed a legitimate comment from the IP more than once and were warned by another administrator (Drmies) for your disruptive behavior, and in the latter you accused the IP of being a sock. I've removed that accusation as a personal attack. Consider this a warning that if I see you doing something like this again, you risk being blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:28, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

It is my intent to follow Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Let me say a few things. First, looking at the timeline. Drmies warning came five hours after I reverted the edits - and they had been restored. I have also tried to be as polite as possible with Drmies, with whom things at time seem to get heated. Second, I find it hard to believe that simply stating that an IP may be a sock is an attack. That said, if you look at the history of 110.165.185.203 and 110.165.186.42 you will see a clear history of participating mainly in deletion debates. Reading, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations, that doesn't rise to the level of check user. To me, it does raise suspicion when IP users jump into a contentious deletion debate. Thank you. --evrik ^(talk) 15:24, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Calling any editor a sock without solid evidence is a personal attack. The first IP you link to above has no contributions.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:28, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

I fixed the link. --evrik ^(talk) 15:34, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

It's pretty obvious the two IPs are used by one person, but that doesn't make it socking. Editors who contribute anonymously often change IPs, not to avoid scrutiny, but because they use dynamic IPs that change, sometimes frequently. Unless, for example, you have evidence that the two IPs are both voting at the same AfD, I don't see an issue.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:42, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. --evrik ^(talk) 15:50, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

FYI - Drmies asked to stop being pinged. I haven't done so, but I am trying to comply with his request. --evrik ^(talk) 15:58, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

I suspect that Drmies asked you to stop pinging him, not others. In addition, your changing the template after the fact doesn't "undo" the ping. No need to reply to this note.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:08, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you evrik. I hope this makes a few things clear--I really have little to add to Bbb's account. Some editors participate only in certain kinds of things--that's fine. Some editors choose not to get accounts--that's fine. Some IPs change--mine does regularly, and I cannot help that. Du moment that you have credible evidence that someone is using IPs, and changing IPs, to avoid scrutiny (such as voting more than once in an AfD), the accusation of "socking" makes sense, but even then, as I mentioned to you and as Bbb confirms, we don't just go around checking. In such cases the argument will be made based on behavior. Drmies (talk) 16:17, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Request for advice

I'm sorry to bother you, but I wanted to ask for your advice about some issues I have been having with another editor, Ajñavidya. This editor recently reported me for disruptive editing at 3RRN here with an inaccurate report. They also repeated unsupported accusations of sockpuppetry and canvassing against me. They have repeatedly engaged in disruptive, tendentious editing on pages such as Carlos Maza, Carl Benjamin, and Tucker Carlson, and seem to either lack the required competence or not be acting in good faith. I believe you are aware of at least some of their conduct ([13]), and I was wondering what I should do. Can this situation be handled on a boomerang for their 3RRN report? If not, do you think the situation is at a point where I can take it to ANI or AE? I appreciate any advice you can provide. Thank you. – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 21:40, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Sorry but to give you advice, I'd have to study the situation, which I'm not interested in doing.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:50, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

That's fine. I appreciate the response. – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 00:51, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Violation of three-revert rule

Hi, User:S.A. Julio has violated the three-revert rule on Template:2019–20 Bundesliga table. I made a complaint but they have instead acted against me because of "live updating".--Sakiv (talk) 16:15, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Sakiv has also filed complaints at both RFPP and AN3. See AN3 for the latest. EdJohnston (talk) 16:21, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Then why do you ignore it.--Sakiv (talk) 22:32, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Sakiv has also emailed me. Sakiv, stop canvassing. Acroterion (talk) 22:34, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

@Acroterion: It is not so easy for me when all of you is not interested in leaving anything on his talkpage. This is so harsh towards me!--Sakiv (talk) 22:37, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

@Sakiv: It may get harsher. If you don't stop, I will block you. In my view, you should have been blocked for edit-warring, not warned, but your post-warning behavior has been blatantly disruptive.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:47, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Where_be_me_spice

Hi Bbb23. Far be it from me to tell you how to do your job the volunteer activity you are very good at, but I did wonder if you had taken this discussion into account when indeffing; and if you came to this from somewhere else, whether you were aware of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Intellectualdarktrance. Cheers, Vanamonde (Talk) 00:11, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm aware of all that now. I commented at Drmies's Talk page and pinged you there.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:36, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Edits of Zamani Project and ALUKA

Hello Bbb23,

please, can you advise me, in how I can update our Zamani project and the ALUKA page? All the edits I did regarding the Zamani Project and ALUKA in the last days, coming from me, as a member of the Zamani Project. What must I do, that my edits are been approved? Do I need to register with one of our domain email address? Please advice. Thanks so much. Best Ralph Schroeder — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rscapetown (talk • contribs) 08:12, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Generally, an editor with a conflict of interest should (1) declare the conflict on their userpage and (2) not edit articles that are related to their COI. Instead, add requests for edits to the article Talk pages. You are not following either rule. Plus, your copyright violations exacerbate the problem. I see that Diannaa has given you similar advice on her Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:55, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Potential sock of Joker5122

Hello,

User:Deathlok5122 just tried to contact me with a request on my talk page. I believe its the same banned editor. Can you help me? Cardei012597 (talk) 17:10, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Fdery

Hi Bbb23. The master is probably User:Haiyenslna. While Haiyenslna focused on Maureen Wroblewitz, not Akane Yamaguchi, the talk page spam is telling. Cebuah (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) used the telling heading, and the Fdery socks use the same language as the Haiyenslna socks. I don't think CU data is available for Haiyenslna, but I'd say the behavioral evidence is strong enough to merge the cases if you think that would be helpful. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:08, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Forgive me but what is the "telling heading"? Too bad that Wroblewitz and Yamaguchi share nothing in common except that they're female.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:07, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

I've been looking. Are you talking about the section header "Wish" on other editors' Talk pages?--Bbb23 (talk) 13:09, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, that's the one. Yes, I realize that Wroblewitz and Yamaguchi don't have anything in common, but talk page spam messages use the same language. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:19, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Charlie Rishmawi's Page

You just deleted the page that i wanted to enhance to fit the criteria, where i can retrieve the deleted content now?

i tried the deletion administrator to get the content back but didn't work. how can i get it and redo the page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saher AlSous (talk • contribs) 16:03, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – October 2019

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

Administrator changes

Barkeep49

Beetstra • KillerChihuahua • Kusma

Arcadian • Extraordinary Machine • Xeno

JamesBWatson → JBW

Interface administrator changes

Evad37

CheckUser changes

Courcelles • SilkTork • Timotheus Canens

Oversight changes

Courcelles • SilkTork • Timotheus Canens

Guideline and policy news

• Following a discussion, a new criterion for speedy category renaming was added: C2F: One eponymous article, which applies if the category contains only an eponymous article or media file, provided that the category has not otherwise been emptied shortly before the nomination. The default outcome is an upmerge to the parent categories.

Technical news

• As previously noted, tighter password requirements for Administrators were put in place last year. Wikipedia should now alert you if your password is less than 10 characters long and thus too short.

Arbitration

• The 2019 CheckUser and Oversight appointment process has begun. The community consultation period will take place October 4th to 10th.
• The arbitration case regarding Fram was closed. While there will be a local RfC focus[ing] on how harassment and private complaints should be handled in the future, there is currently a global community consultation on partial and temporary office actions in response to the incident. It will be open until October 30th.

Miscellaneous

• The Community Tech team has been working on a system for temporarily watching pages, and welcomes feedback.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:54, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

A little help needed

Greetings,

I appreciate that you took a step to correct me and make sure the community guidelines are being followed. But it would be of a great help if you could help me a little more by specificying in detail the mistakes of my article User:Vanshikasood0112/sandbox that you deleted stating the reason G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion for it. Your response would be of great help as i could rewrite this article. Thanking you in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vanshikasood0112 (talk • contribs) 13:31, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

SPI / CU question

Yesterday you declined a CheckUser request as part of an SPI I raised. Should I be asking for a CU as a default, or is the behavioural evidence more important? I have a few pages on my watchlist which I monitor for suspicious activity and raise SPI for any strange activity on them. Is there more evidence or reasons that I should have included, or am I being too hasty? Spike 'em (talk) 11:20, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

CU should never be requested as a default. If you believe there is a reason to request CU, you should provide that reason (along with the behavioral evidence): "If you also wish a CheckUser to investigate, change |checkuser=no to |checkuser=yes in the edit box on the next page and explain why you are requesting it."--Bbb23 (talk) 13:01, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll stop ticking the box then. Spike 'em (talk) 14:19, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Physo172

• Physo172 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I hope you're OK with me draftifying those, I could not work out if they were legit, bad translations, confused or what, but at least some of them do appear to exist so might have some hope if anyone feels inclined. It's an area where we have limited coverage, otherwise I would probably just have nuked them. Guy (help!) 14:09, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

As you know, deleting them was discussed at ANI. At least some of them should be deleted. I know I'm not going to take the time to see if these people really existed and if they're notable. Draftifying them will probably accomplish little, but maybe a constructive editor will take an interest in them.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:29, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I was thinking of it as a kind of extended PROD but out of mainspace. I don't know, may be quixotic, but who knows. Guy (help!) 20:19, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Disruptive editing at Anuna De Wever

Hi there, the disruptive editing has started up again at Anuna De Wever (which you semiprotected in the version on 22 September). Could I trouble you to repeat the exercise? It's a different IP now (185.194.187.136) but so far almost all of this has been a range of IP addresses beginning 185.194.187. I suspect that must be significant. All the best! --Andreas Philopater (talk) 19:28, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I've semiprotected for a couple of weeks as well as blocked the IP. Bishonen | talk 20:43, 2 October 2019 (UTC).

BrillLyle/1940CStreet

I was in the process of creating an SPI for these accounts when you blocked 1940CStreet. Should I continue with and submit it or is it not needed now? Thanks. Ca2james (talk) 15:52, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

@Ca2james: Actually, it would be helpful for you to continue for two reasons. First, please include the evidence you provided at ANI and any additional evidence you've thought of. Second, I can post my findings, which would be good for the record. I was going to post them to ANI, but the thread's been closed. Besides, it would be better at the SPI. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:58, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Ok thanks I'm still working on it (gathering example diffs takes time) and I'll post it when it's done. I'll request a checkuser on it, I guess. There may be sleepers. Ca2james (talk) 16:01, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

No worries about the time, and no need to request a CU. I'll probably know when you're done, but it wouldn't hurt for you to let me know, either here or at the SPI by a ping.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:03, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

I closed it, chortle, no, I mean sorry. But it is better at SPI, isn't it? More findable. Thank you for your work, Ca2james. Did you get my e-mail? Bishonen | talk 16:11, 2 October 2019 (UTC).

Thanks @Bishonen:! You're right, it's better at SPI and I started writing one as soon as I saw that reply. It takes time to put together. I just saw your email and I've replied. Ca2james (talk) 16:19, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

I've submitted the SPI here and pinged you. I hope the evidence I put together is ok. Thanks for your help! Ca2james (talk) 17:01, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) The account is also quite active on Wikidata, one of BrillLyle's favorite haunts. Since the original account is globally locked, shouldn't the sock be as well? Favonian (talk) 17:05, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

• Thanks everyone. Global locks requested (I might've missed that, Favonian). Good job, Ca2james, and you're right on all counts, Bishonen.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:28, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
• You deleted Folake Olowofoyeku as created by a banned editor; I think she is notable and should have an article. Can you userify the deleted article for me, please? I'll double check everything (BrillLyle also has a tendency for OR and for citations to not support text) and move it back to mainspace when I'm done. While you're lookingat articles, 1940CStreet created Paul Cauthen and it should also probably be deleted. Nevermind - I saw just saw the speedy was declined. Thanks. Ca2james (talk) 03:00, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

All Money In

I know, because I contacted the owners and they don't have an official website yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RipDeuce (talk • contribs) 21:52, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

AN3 report

Hello. As the warning administrative in the report between myself and Fyrael, you stated "they are welcome to discuss the issue constructively on the article Talk page". How am I meant to do so, when the other editor stated "There is no requirement for me to continue a discussion" [14]? The edit clearly needs discussion, but the other editor refuses to discuss. -- /Alex/₂₁ 22:25, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Fyrael was not the only editor involved in the discussion. There were a couple of others. I suggest you resume the discussion, with or without Fyrael (they might change their mind...editors do) and try to reach a consensus. If you can't, then you must use other methods of dispute resolution, possibly an RfC.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:05, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

RFC it is. Cheers. -- /Alex/₂₁ 06:45, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Another sock of User:Joker5122

Hello,

I just want this returning abuser to stop using socks to bother me. User:Joker5122 keeps using sock puppets to contact me, and has decided to use my name. The new sock is User:Cardei5122, using my name, because I believe he is stalking me. Can you please block his IP or other methods to keep him from Wikipedia. He continues to stalk me and persists to edit the wiki pages I created. Can you permanently block his IP or some other method to keep him away from disturbing Wikipedia? Cardei012597 (talk) 05:19, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Sorry but can't do anything but block them as they come up. IPs should never be indefinitely blocked, but even limited duration blocks are often not feasible depending on the characteristics of the case.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:24, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

New Account

Hi, I created the new account since my new interest is in literature research. My old account (User:EncyclopediaUpdaticus) was mostly used for Canadian politicians and political articles but I am no longer using that account much. I still sign on to monitor my old watchlist. If necessary I can delete the old account. LiteratureCompanion (talk) 16:12, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

@LiteratureCompanion: Accounts can't be "deleted" at Wikipedia. There are several problems with what you're doing, but they are fixable. First, I should block the old account. If you want to keep your old watchlist, you can copy it to a text file and then copy it to the watchlist for the new account. Second, you should put declarations on the EU userpage and the LC userpage so other editors can see you're the same person. I did notice that you have tapered off your editing with the EU account since creating the LC account, but you've still been editing and you are editing the same articles. Let me know if you are willing to proceed with this plan.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:49, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

OK sounds good. I meant to do all my new editing with LC but wasn't careful enough with the two signons. Blocking the old account will make that clear. Thanks. LiteratureCompanion (talk) 18:34, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

 Done. I blocked the EU account with a permalink to this discussion through your most recent post above. If you have any questions, let me know. Thanks for your cooperation.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:47, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

OK. Checked an EU account now blocked. But just found out that LC account blocked too (I am replying from a public access terminal right now). I suspect you might have blocked my IP address. I tried to edit a page with LC and it says I can't edit. Can you fix this? Thanks, LiteratureCompanion (talk) 18:08, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Oops, the "autoblock" is checked by default on the block form. I should have unchecked it, but I didn't think about it. I've reblocked the EU account with it unchecked. If you still can't edit, let me know. Sorry.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:15, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

OK, working again. Thanks. LiteratureCompanion (talk) 20:22, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Checky?

Hey there, might I please trouble you to look for undiscovered Bothiman socks? I duck-blocked Gandsop yesterday-ish for adding a slew of questionable awards at List of awards and nominations received by Vijay. Fadroca, which I'm pretty sure is a sleeper account, made some edits in September to an article about a South Korean singer, then showed up a month later, made a slew of insignificant sequential edits to their user page, to get himself up to auto-confirmed status. (For the visual, he started with his user name Fadroca, then deleted a letter, saved the page, deleted a letter, saved the page, deleted a letter, etc. This was something Bothiman did.[15][16]. Thanks man, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:15, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Fadroca and Gandsop are  Confirmed. I didn't see anyone else.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:43, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Gracias, matey. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:04, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

HMS Phaeton (1848)

@Broichmore: Hallo Bbb23, I spotted this in Category:Stubs while stub-sorting, but by the time I looked at it it had been speedy-deleted A3 by yourself. This seemed a bit surprising so I created it as a redirect back to the set index at HMS Phaeton where there is some (unsourced) content. Could you just check whether the article had a fair chance before it was speedy-deleted - had it only just been created, or had it been gutted by a vandal since creation? It was created by a longstanding editor who appears to have a track record of DYKs etc in and around naval matters and is a member of the Ships Wikiproject, so I'd have expected it to have some content worth keeping and not be A3-able. I've found enough sources to re-create it, including an image, but would rather it was undeleted and left to its original creator to expand if that's a sensible option. Of course I have no idea what was in the article as it stood, or how long it had existed. PamD 15:01, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

@PamD: I created it in error, yesterday. I thought I was in Wikimedia creating a catalog entry. I'm of the belief there was no article prior to that. Thank you for your vigilance. Regards Broichmore (talk) 15:27, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

@Broichmore: Ah, I see! Well I've now created a very modest stub, ships not being my particular area - two online sources neither of whose [[WP:RS|"reliability"}} I'm sure of, plus a catalogue record from The National Archives. PamD 16:03, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm happy y'all are happy. Now, PamD, if you could please stop copy editing your posts to my Talk page repeatedly, including responding to this comment, I'd sure appreciate it.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:05, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Translating to English

When translating a Surrah from Arabic to English, should some words be capitalized to emphasize their weight? (Eg. “You” when referring to the Lord, “Merciful” when referring to a holy name of the Lord.)? Sarahlulu125 (talk) 18:06, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

I think you should ask your question at Talk:Al-Fatiha.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:28, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation on hold

Hi, I just want to ask if I did something wrong when requesting a sockpuppet check back in August. The investigation I requested was immediately put on on hold and then hasn't been touched in six weeks. Just currious, since this is a side of Wikipedia I don't interact with often. I've also been waiting for this to close before doing some updates to the article in question, so if they're not all the same user, I'll just get on with it. Thanks-- Patrick, _oѺ^∞ 16:39, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

You did nothing wrong. It was my fault as I didn't follow up. I've posted findings to the SPI and closed it.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:09, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

I am not Bbb23, but I did look at the Satt2 SPI and left a comment in the admin section on what I can see from behavior. EdJohnston (talk) 17:02, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Got it, thanks guys!-- Patrick, _oѺ^∞ 20:32, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

SPI

Hello. As you blocked some socks of Azerti83/Gaditano23 last year, could you look at this open SPI? The sockpuppetry is very evident, including a DUCK Negin2019 of Negin1. The most recent account has made 50 edits in the past week and is currently editing the same article the previous accounts have edited. Hrodvarsson (talk) 02:35, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Deletion of personal sandbox

Hello. I noticed you, rather abruptly, deleted my personal sandbox page that I had been using to draft an update to the Institutional Limited Partners Association page on the grounds that it constituted "unambiguous advertising or promotion." Frankly, I am not quite sure why you did this action, nor do I agree with your justification. Please explain to me, in which ways, that drafting an update to an existing article using a personal sandbox page to ensure the edits are properly integrated, constitutes "advertising or promotion." I look forward to hearing from you. Thank you. --RollingWaves (talk) 18:53, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

I think you have a WP:COI, and, as such, should not be editing the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:57, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

MariaJaydHicky?

This newly created user has a suspicious username, and is editing Mariah Carey, Meghan Trainor and obscure R&B album articles; as well as changing the order of genres on several of them. Everything about it screams MJH.—NØ 18:24, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Bbemoni (talk · contribs)

Hi, am pretty sure this user is a sockpuppet as he went to afd within his first few edits and the article he nominated was previously nominated for csd by ToT89 (talk · contribs) so it could be them. Should I start an spi ? Atlantic306 (talk) 19:21, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:06, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Atlantic306 Hlw, you can start a spi on me. I hope you don’t found any connection with this user with me. Thanks Bbemoni (talk) 20:16, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Precocious to have figured out, on their second day of editing, how to use Twinkle to nominate an article at AfD. --Worldbruce (talk) 19:20, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Please restore my sandbox

Hello. You deleted my sandbox with the claim that I was "unambiguously advertising." I didn't even realise that such a rule applied to sandboxes, nor was it my intention to advertise; I was only temporarily using Wikipedia to contruct an article for another wiki that also uses media wiki. I put a lot of time into that article and am currently very stressed because of this; I would really appreciate if you could recover it for me, even if it's just to allow me to get the source code back to edit elsewhere. Keeg-Turner (talk) 01:44, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

What other wiki?--Bbb23 (talk) 02:11, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Are you asking this ironically to suggest that I actually was advertising, or are you serious? If you are seriously interested in knowing, I'll answer you next time. Either way, all I really want is my source code back; I can promptly remove everything afterwards if that's what you want. Keeg-Turner (talk) 02:24, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Re: Draft:Jarfy

Hello Bbb23. I seen that you reverted my CSD tag, with an edit summary of "ineligible". May I ask how this page in ineligible for CSD G5. The editor that created the page was banned by TonyBallioni as a checkuser confirmed sockpuppet of AceGB.[17] Thank you for your time. Lupin VII (talk) 23:11, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

The creator and the master were blocked at the same time. You should read the criterion more carefully.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:39, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

I see. I'll be sure to re-read the criteria. Thanks. Lupin VII (talk) 08:57, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Thank you so much for your work. I am sorry for what happened in the past. I realised that I was wrong. I am very grateful for your work in Wikipedia. SharabSalam (talk) 09:38, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Check User request

- an SPA account ANMC001 (editing exclusively on Mandaeans)‎ was blocked and today two new SPA accounts have been created, Mikey5627 & GF46238 - I wasn't sure if there were enough edits to start a Sockpuppet investigation, so I thought starting with Check User might be the best approach - I have never started an investigation like this before, so I hope this is the correct procedure - thanks - Epinoia (talk) 15:12, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

If you get a sec...

Hi Bbb23, if you get a sec, I created an SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ABTHEBOSS. I don't know if you think it's worth doing a CU or not, I only requested one on the off chance that this guy is one of our regular known socks who has yet to be determined. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:54, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Revert, just a quick Q

Aloha! You reverted my SD on that attorney page. Is a small company like that now in scope on enwiki? Anyhow, no problem with the rv. --Hedwig in Washington ^(TALK) 01:17, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't see how "small" relates to G11.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:18, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Urgh, had too many G11 today on Commons. Should have been A7, of course. Or do you think a regular DR is more appropriate? --Hedwig in Washington ^(TALK) 01:25, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Just forget about it. You are probably busy with other stuff. Sorry for my mistake. --Hedwig in Washington ^(TALK) 01:47, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

No problem. I'm about to go off-wiki, but I was just enjoying a homemade Thai cucumber salad with home-grown cherry tomatoes. Lovely. Anyway, there's nothing wrong with tagging the article with an A7. There's always some reluctance to speedy-delete an article that has been around for years, but if the A7 is declined, you can still AfD it if you wish.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:13, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Another Sirisecuresock?

Hi Bbb23, I noticed new user 0900k who has created about a dozen drafts consisting of a few sentences or a paragraph of an existing article; being all about the AGF (heh) I have tagged them as CSD G2, but then I saw a bit of an overlap with blocked sock Siri30k (talk · contribs) (in Draft:Ali Yasini) and it seems Siri30k also copied mainspace articles into drafts. Same user? --bonadea contributions talk 10:32, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Can you please sign the above?--Bbb23 (talk) 13:03, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Oops – very sorry, I have no idea how I forgot to sign. I have been known to sign emails with four tildes... Anyway, thank you for taking care of this. --bonadea contributions talk 15:11, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

quick CU

Kunuchiva. What is the difference between quick CU request at wp:spi talkpage, and an actual SP investigation? —usernamekiran(talk) 11:49, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

The best way to view quick check (which is not at the talk page) is something that you should never use. Who/what is "Kunuchiva"?--Bbb23 (talk) 13:40, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

thank you for the response. Kunuchiva was a huge typo. In Japanese, Konnichi wa generally means hi/hello. In English, it is usually spelled as Konichiwa, or kunichiwa (also as kunichiva). I messed up "kunichiva" to kunuchiva (see also: Konichiwa Bitches). See you around —usernamekiran(talk) 19:33, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Suspicious new user

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

When you have a minute... New user behaving in a manner that suggests they have been around for a while. Ss112 is also suspicious of a file recently uploaded by them as a possible copy-vio. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:35, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Guccislidesboss is  Confirmed to Edsheeranhater (talk · contribs · count). You can find more information about previously blocked socks of this master at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TannerGoethals3/Archive. @Vanjagenije: I've blocked and tagged the new account. Could you please create a new case for Edsheeranhater? Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:28, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

 Done see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Edsheeranhater. Vanjagenije (talk) 01:37, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks a lot.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:07, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

I watched many Wikipedia tutorials online. Sounded like something fun. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guccislidesboss (talk • contribs) 02:41, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1020#AnimeDisneylover95

I was doing something unrelated to the above mentioned ANI section when I noticed in a check of my ANi-related post comments made to by the editor I was looking into at the above linked ANI page. There's just enough information in the linked ANI page and on the user's talk page to lead me to believe that this could theoretically be a sock of BF101. The account's been indeffed at ANI for disruptive editing, but I wanted to float this here in case you hadn't seen it. A lot of pissy replies in edit summaries, a quick trigger finger for disliking changes, and edits made to actors and Disney+ pages; the first two are said to be telltale signs of the sockmaster. Listing for your consideration. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:26, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Marte (Song)

The reason that you deleted the page i created for this song? Esc Steven (talk) 13:58, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Check User request

User:Pseudo-Dionysius the areopagite was blocked for multiple accounts on 24 September 2019. On 6 October 2019, an IP account 124.171.138.122, began to make edits very similar to Pseudo-Dionysius the areopagite. I don't have any evidence of sockpuppetry except that 124.171.138.122, although a new account, is obviously an experienced editor and is making edits on Christian religious topics similar to Pseudo-Dionysius the areopagite, so thought a Check User might be appropriate. - cheers - Epinoia (talk) 00:36, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, checking to connect the IP to the named account would be a violation of policy.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:53, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

- ok, thanks - Epinoia (talk) 01:55, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

SPIrand

I don't know what case to file Utrryy under but this is an LTA, it's the same guy in the 2409:4052 range who goes around randomly tagging for CSD, removing CSDs, afds and just generally being disruptive, they also tend to heavily edit List of Presidents of xyz (usually African and Indian countries.) There was once a case but he switched to IPs and I can't recall the name but wanted to give a heads up since they appear to be operating under Utrryy now. Praxidicae (talk) 13:22, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

I was going to look into this shortly (in the middle of something else right now), but thanks for the additional info.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:24, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Sorry about the weird title, I forgot what I was typing there apparently. I'll look more into it to find the master but the 32 on that range above going back to July-August should provide some insight. Thanks for checking it out! Praxidicae (talk) 13:39, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

I've blocked Utrryy, but I'd still appreciate it if you can find the master.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:50, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

I wasn't 100% sure but due to the suspicious activity at Shiva Sharma, I had filled the SPI under Shiva0706 as the master. GSS ^💬 14:12, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

GSS this sock isn't a content sock, he's a drive by vandal who just removes tags to be disruptive and likely not related to that vanity spammer. Praxidicae (talk) 15:00, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

• I'm off to a sportsball game so I'll get it for ya some time tomorrow cause anything I do today afterward will be incoherent :P Praxidicae (talk) 14:57, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
• Praxidicae, have fun at your game. In the meantime, I've blocked two accounts and tagged three using a recently created account as the master. GSS, I've undone your addition to the Shiva case as these three accounts have nothing to do with that master.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:03, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Rebel media labeled as far-right

Hi I edited Rebel media as conservative. And you quickly reverted it to far-right. How on earth is that media even possible to label far-right. Just look at this from Wiki: Far-right politics are politics further on the right of the left-right spectrum than the standard political right, particularly in terms of extreme nationalism,[1][2] nativist ideologies, and authoritarian tendencies,[3] all sustained by an organicist vision of the world.[4]

Used to describe the historical experiences of fascism and Nazism,[5] it today includes neo-fascism, neo-Nazism, Third Position, the alt-right,[6] and other ideologies or organizations that feature ultranationalist, chauvinist, xenophobic, racist, anti-communist, or reactionary views.[7] These can lead to oppression, violence, forced assimilation, ethnic cleansing, and even genocide against groups of people based on their supposed inferiority, or their perceived threat to the native ethnic group,[8][9] nation, state,[10] national religion, dominant culture or ultraconservative traditional social institutions.[11] "" End quote.

Have you ever watched Rebel Media? They are on the right side maybe, but there is a long way from extreme nationalism and neo-nazism to this media company. Are you just another antifa dude? You call yourselves a neutral guy. So please explain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MauserM98 (talk • contribs) 19:23, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

• This has been discussed before. Take it to the article Talk page and lose the inflammatory rhetoric or you won't last long here.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:46, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Electoral history of Andrew Scheer

Hi, I was going to prepare a new page, "Electoral history of Andrew Scheer", to have ready in advance of next week's election, but I got a notice that a previous page with this title has been deleted. Please let me know if there is any problem with me starting this page. If you check out my User page, you'll see that I've already created an electoral history page for each of the prime ministers of Canada. No idea if he'll win or not, and I don't have any partisan affiliation, but I'd like to have a page ready to go if he does. Thanks, Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 04:07, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't see a problem. Thanks for checking.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:39, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Suspicious user

New user Delilah050 seems suspicious. First edit itself looks less like a beginner. Talks about "possible vandalism", "POV", encyclopedic, "wiki standards", wikimedia commons, tagging. Edits such as citing IMDb [18][19][20], at the same time, calling IMDb unreliable; removes unsourced entries [21][22], but adds in others [23][24][25]; removes POV, adds POV; calling globally trusted Box Office Mojo as unreliable, but calls a non-RS ticket-selling site (Bookmyshow.com, it even comes with a disclaimer that they do not claim the authenticity of the figures) as reliable. Worth suspecting. Can you look into this please? Continental Rift (talk) 13:15, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Rational for speedy of User:Mayank.chandnani

The page's edit history contains the following edit rationale: Mayank Chandnani is a famous person in khairthal town.He has a channel on YouTube named Technical Mayank Chandnani.He is also a technician [26] — Preceding unsigned comment added by MoonyTheDwarf (talk • contribs) 14:02, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

An editor of your limited experience should not be tagging pages for deletion.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:26, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

The only way for me to learn is to be bold and try new things. If I sit on the sidelines until I have the required "experience", how will I learn? --MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 16:40, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Nonsense. You watch other experienced editors and gain experience. You edit articles and gain experience. Your total # of edits is 431 since you created your account in March of 2018. You have only 86 edits to mainspace. The largest number, albeit still small, is to project space, 101 edits. These are not the earmarks of an editor who wants to review pages for deletion.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:54, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Bbb23, At the end of the day, I'm not a good writer. However, I still wish to contribute to the English Wikipedia, and other Wikimedia projects, and assisting in finding a small subset of pages that potentially need deleted is one way to do so. Articles are not the only thing on wikipedia, and watching others is not the only way to learn. I personally learn best by doing, and i've always been that way.

For example, how did I learn how to use templates? I designed one I thought would be useful, and got feedback from other editors, and used this to improve it. (Said template was moved to Wikiversity, as it's more suitable there than on wikipedia.)

Alongside that, edit count doesn't necessarily correlate to time spent learning, either.

--MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 17:06, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

The fact that you learn best by doing is not a legitimate defense to mistagging pages. Tagging pages is not a laboratory for your benefit. An alternative might be to find a mentor to assist you in advance of doing anything. Otherwise, you may find yourself being sanctioned for disruption, even if that is not your intent. You don't need to be a great writer to contribute constructively to articles (as opposed to creating articles). Finally, pinging me on my Talk page makes no sense.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:38, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Deletion of my page

It had been noticed that you have deleted a Wikipedia page without knowing any details about it. I have noticed you deleted it for the reason of Promotion and Advertisement. Now Would you justify that How come a Popular Community falls under Advertisement? How is it ever possible that the most searched community, which you will get 1000s of news and channel talking about be a type of Advertisement? Its a extreme harsh of you. You should not do things without knowing. What ever. There are numerous page like the one i created on english Wikipedia like Chaltabagan Durga Puja, Delhi Puja etc etc. Astrojyotiraditya (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:09, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Editthon

Hi, you left a message on my talk page and then removed it. Ye, Swedish Embassy in Pakistan ran WikiGap edit a thon and I was the one to moderate it. --Saqib (talk) 09:55, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the note.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:01, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Can you please restore Kanwal Ahmed and move it to draft NS. --Saqib (talk) 15:27, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

 Done --Bbb23 (talk) 17:10, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Tipu's article edit

The "massive edit" I made to Tipu Sultan's article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tipu_Sultan was merely a restoration (without any extra edit from my part) of the previous content that was removed recently. You can see the removed content in https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tipu_Sultan&oldid=916590533 (dated 19th september 2019). This massive removal was done without a talk. I request you to restore my edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edithgoche (talk • contribs) 17:32, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

That's almost a month ago. You should take it to the article Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:41, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Possible ABTHEBOSS sock?

Hi there, I happened upon Yyh yuuu, a brand new account that added some awards including the problematic Star Parivaar awards, which ABTHEBOSS was trying to force into articles, despite being told it was a problem. He used a sock account to do this. This Yyh account is obviously throw-away, but what's weird, is that if I look through the edit history of Shrenu Parikh, I see a number of these throw-away accounts:

• Ghhh gg
• Yuujh
• Good bpy
• Gghhjj vgh

So naturally, my curiosity is piqued. Is it ABTHEBOSS? Someone else? If you need me to do anything, lemme know. Your help is appreciated as usual. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:25, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Only Yyh yuuu and Ghhh gg are not stale. They are  Confirmed to each other but  Unrelated to ABTHEBOSS. I've blocked them without tags.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:04, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Gracias. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:42, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

busy, busy, busy

Someone has been very busy.-- Deepfriedokra   11:50, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Question about editing protocol on bio page

My apologies, I am not a regular Wikipedia contributor, but you have undone a number of my recent attempted edits, as well as those of others attempting similar edits, and I am uncertain how to proceed when it is a matter about which I have personal knowledge that does not yet have a public source. Are you able to provide guidance? (Note: I'm not being specific about the page because I'm unclear about where this note will appear, but believe it will be obvious to you.) Thank you. HudPix (talk) 11:17, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

You should keep your comments on the article Talk page. I have just posted there. Hopefully, even though you are new to Wikipedia, my post is understandable to you.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:16, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

User:Wahyudi nainggolan

Hi. Will you check this Wahyudi nainggolan (talk · contribs)? I suspect him as a sock of Agus suharto (talk · contribs) as well. Maybe you can block the IP address in the future? Thanks. Flix11 (talk) 11:44, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Blocked and a global lock requested. IP blocks are not feasible in this case.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:25, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Larger range block

Hello there, last week there was a range block on the range for only 31 hours. As I've noticed that you've set a 2 month block on the range of 256 IP addresses, this is apparently not the full range as some of the same pages have been affected by vandalism from similar IP addresses within this larger range. Therefore I should think the range block would be applied to that large range of 1024 IP's instead. Iggy (Swan) (What I've been doing to maintain Wikipedia) 14:36, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Can you specify the precise range you think should be blocked?--Bbb23 (talk) 15:37, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Special:Contribs/84.9.228.0/22 would be the precise range I was talking about. Cheers, Iggy (Swan) (What I've been doing to maintain Wikipedia) 15:48, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

69.178.192.0/22 (Hypocritepedia)

Continuing to rant on User talk:69.178.195.73...might be time to kill TPA and extend their block further. Nate • (chatter) 03:31, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

I've dealt with it, thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:25, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cambridge capital

Hi @Bbb23:. I planning the good fight there but I see it is gone. Can you close this for delete please. Thanks. scope_creep^Talk 13:10, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

A7 Guidelines Article Deletion

Can you help me to understand why you deleted my page? It is a biographical article on an incumbent elected official in the State of California. This elected official, Alameda County Supervisor Scott Haggerty, has been in office since 1997 and currently serves on multiple boards and commissions in the Bay Area. This seems like a significant topic to add to wikipedia, don't you? Do you have any tips as to how I can avoid having my article deleted? Thanks-- Dst20191 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dst20191 (talk • contribs) 16:09, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Not speedily delete BaoFeng UV-5R

Hi @Bbb23:! Could you please review the talk page of BaoFeng_UV-5R so it won't be speedily deleted? I think the explanation is sufficient proof of notability. Thanks! Initramfs (talk) 17:30, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Why me? Also, it's not tagged for notability but for advertising.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:42, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Moolala and Moolala2012

Just curious what the outcome of this was...even though it's old, Wikipedia has no time limit. Isn't it worth flagging, or at least warning, these accounts that only one account is permitted?Doug Mehus (talk) 23:59, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Absolutely not, and please don't file reports of users who haven't edited in 7 years.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:01, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Bbb23, Okay, thanks. I just thought we should flag the accounts as related to one another. Doug Mehus (talk) 00:02, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Sri Jayanta Barua

Sri Jayanta Barua is renowned Journalist.He is the owner of Asomiya pratidin and many other media group. Asomiya pratidin is the largest newspaper in Assamese language. He is honoured by many prestigious Award. This article is notable and will gain significant attention over long period of time Moshaddique (talk) 04:09, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Salt Morphe Cosmetics

Would you consider salting that page? This is the third time it has been deleted after being repeatedly recreated. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 16:41, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

 Done.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:00, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks

For helping to quell the disruption on Keith Fink. James-the-Charizard (talk to me!) (contribs) 01:00, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

It's had a lot of socking. The semi-protection should keep it quiet for a while.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:02, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Hopefully it will. If I may ask... What was the socking related to? James-the-Charizard (talk to me!) (contribs) 01:03, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Not sure if this is what you mean, but the socks were promoting the subject.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:05, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

I see... And yes, that is what I meant. Happy editing! ^^ James-the-Charizard (talk to me!) (contribs) 01:06, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation

Hallo. I hope you will take care of this case and check my request or place it in more appropriate page. With regards, Gdarin | talk 14:27, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

You need to refile your report at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Smmurphy.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:31, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Please check if now is ok. Gdarin | talk 14:50, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

It is not. Follow the instructions at WP:SPI.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:52, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

I followed the instructions at first time, but something went wrong: the sockmaster's username is Icewhiz, so I wrote this name. Gdarin | talk 14:58, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

The sockmaster's username is Smmurphy. It used to be Icewhiz, but the older account was found, and the case was moved to the new name. Your original filing was under the old username, which is effectively a redirect, and you cannot file a report at an SPI redirect.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:01, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Devi Vaibhavishriji Wiki page undeletion

Hi , I found that you have deleted the page i was working on few hours before. I found it has been deleted on clause of A7, which indicates she is not notable, instead she is a public figure Goddess and spiritual leader in Maharashtra and was featured in many leading news papers so i created the page and its a stub and i want to work on it as well.Also i didn't got time to respond to the speed delete tag. Hoping you will undelete the page. Jehowahyereh (talk) 03:28, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Another sockpuppet

Hey, will you please check Asnawi wiyagus (talk · contribs)? I suspect this as another sock to Agus suharto (talk · contribs). Thanks. Flix11 (talk) 17:41, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

SPI snafu

Our previous discussion was about "merge" not "move". If the problem stretches beyond the 3 "merges" I screwed up and into "moves" that's a whole different (bigger) kettle of fish. On the current one I've restored both cases to the point before I carried out the move. Cabayi (talk) 13:41, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Don't get hung up on the words. Think about the consequences of fulfilling the request. When I request a move or a merge to an existing case, it should be done by a clerk admin because you must either lose the old history or the new history. When I request a move to a new case, you can do it because the only history is the current history and it will carry over. Does that make sense? In any event, in the future, if a move or a merge is requested, you can always ask.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:47, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

I've left a list on Vanjagenije's talk page, with my apologies for dumping a load of work there again.

The alternative fix for the future is for me to go for an RFA, so I'll be able to see the deleted contributions and correctly assess which cases are genuinely stale or fresh, and I'll be able to do histmerges, and generally have the tools to do the job right. Cabayi (talk) 16:07, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

As an admin clerk you would be more valuable to the team. Is there a reason why you haven't run for RfA (I assume you haven't)? If you decide you want to run, you should probably consult with administrators who are more expert on the gotcha's of running (there are so many it seems). Then, unless you're incredibly fortunate, there's the grief: it's not for the faint of heart.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:15, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

I have - in 2009 - and that's the reason I've been cautious about a second run without good cause. Thanks for the thoughts. Cabayi (talk) 17:48, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

That's pretty old, and it appears that you had very little experience at the time, whereas since you have gained a tremendous amount of experience.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:56, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Curious

Hi Bbb23. When you get a minute, could you have a look at OmoYoruba45? I don't have a strong conviction here but they are a newish editor who just dropped a note on my talk page that looks like it was drafted by a wiki law firm. It's late here and I'm not going to respond to it until tomorrow. Thanks... -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:18, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Please disregard the above. On further reflection, I don't think this is a sock. They are just a run of the mill NOTHERE editor that after consulting another admin I have indeffed. Thanks for all your work, it's much appreciated. -Ad Orientem (talk) 06:41, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

page deleted from my user sandbox

I am a newbie on Wikipedia.

You deleted a page from my user sandbox User:RobMielcarski/sandbox. I thought this was an area that I could use to learn how use the Wikipedia editing tools and that content in the sandbox was not visible on the main site.

You deleted the page because you thought it was G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion.

Please restore the page so I can remove the link that presumably caused you to think it was advertising.

Thank you, Rob — Preceding unsigned comment added by RobMielcarski (talk • contribs) 23:32, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a platform for you to promote yourself in any name space.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:15, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining. I thought my sandbox was private. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RobMielcarski (talk • contribs) 00:40, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Strange account

(Redacted) - this looks to me like a sock by User:Icewhiz who mocks User:Volunteer Marek. My very best wishes (talk) 02:53, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

 Done. El_C 03:35, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Email

I sent you a super-short no-frills email so that the gist would show up in alerts without requiring you to check your email. (I hate checking my Wikipedia email.) There is a please and thanks that is implied in my note, even if I didn't actually say it. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:20, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Block of User:Rcorsini54

I see that you blocked User:Rcorsini54 with a logged block reason of Clearly not here to contribute to the encyclopedia; also disruptive and WP:CIR, having previously deleted that user's userpage under U5. This seems to me rather hasty. The user had been cautioned about the user page by C.Fred and had responded that s/he would clean it up -- the user was already posting at the Teahosue asking about the appropriateness of his edits. The user has not yet made any useful contributions to the project, but had been here only a couple of days, and had not engaged in any vandalism, or anything that I see as disruption. I am not sur what you consider to have shown a lack of competence. I ask that you reconsider the block, please. It seems to me that there is a WP:BITE issue here. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 17:34, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

You don't see this and this as disruptive? And his userpage was simply confirmation of the fact that he's not an asset to Wikipedia.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:43, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Bbb23, Honestly seems like WP:BITE to me. They have been otherwise agreeable at, say, the teahouse, and likely simply misunderstanding the site. MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 17:48, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Being pleasant and disruptive are not mutually exclusive.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:49, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Bbb23, Fair. But seems like it's lack of understanding/competence on their part to me. MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 17:50, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree with User:DESiegel and User:MoonyTheDwarf. This block really seems excessive and WP:BITEy. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:53, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

• No, I do not see those edits as seriously disruptive, certainly not enough to block without warning the user not to repeat such edits. Most editors lack full understanding of what Wikipedia is for and how it works when they start out. This is not the same as a lack of competence. If an editor fails to understand after clear explanations, that eould be different. This editor agreed to "clean up" the user page when asked, and had hardly had to to do so before beign blocked. I will grant that there can be polite vandals and polite but NOTHERE editors, but I honestly don't see what this editor did that was so disruptive as to warrant an indef block. The user made a user page quoting 4 poems or song lyrics, at 4-6 lines each. With attribution at that. I have seem more extensive quotes on the user pages of long-established, active editors. The user posted at the teahouse to ask if this was OK. S/e may ahve been askign about formatting, or about policy, but was intersted enough to follow a teahouse invite and ask. Afte the user page was deleted, the user asked why, and was blocked shortly thereafter. The user posted two one-line additions to biographical articles in an apparent attempt to communicate with the article subjects. This is not helpful, but it is minor and easily explained -- however no one attempted to explain -- both edits were reverted with a minimal edit summery, and no note or warning, templated or manual, was placed on the user's talk page. All of thuys you obviously know, and it doesn't seem to have persuaded you. I will therefore be posting on WP:ANI and asking for a review of this block and of the U5 deletion. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 21:54, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
• The one edit I see that would warrant a block is this one, where they implied that somebody else was using their account. Personally, this is when I ask them "Are you sure somebody else has been using your account? Accounts cannot be shared, so we may need to block your account if we can't guarantee that only you have access to this account." A lot of times, the sons (or little brother) mysteriously disappear from the picture after that. :) IMO, that's the only thing that warranted the block—although I was certainly getting red flags about what this user would be up to after the start of the new year. —C.Fred (talk) 22:13, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
• What I would do is wait to see if the user requests an unblock and then ask him at that point what he intends to do at Wikipedia. Depending on his answer, an unblock may be appropriate. To date, the user has not made a single constructive edit during his tenure here. Normally, that wouldn't be enough to block, but when that is viewed alongside the unconstructive edits he's made, a block seems justified and certainly within my discretion, even if others disagree. All that said, we have three administrators who disagree with my actions here. They haven't persuaded me to unblock, but they have fulfilled their responsibility to talk to me before taking any action. Why doesn't one of you just unblock the user (and restore the userpage if you wish) rather than wasting more time in a community discussion? If you prefer to "punish" me for what you may think is an abuse of my tools, well then you should go to the noticeboards.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:26, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

ANI discussion opened

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Disputed and WP:BITEy block of new editor. --DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:10, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Advice needed to help solve the problem

Hey. I see that no action was taken in my request at WP:AN3. I understand that it is not an active edit war, but it still is edit warring of some sorts. Therefore, I want to know what should I do from this point in dealing with the disruptive behavior of the other user. Should I go to WP:ANI, WP:3O or WP:DRN? Or is there another place that would solve it? I am asking, because Jamesmiko clearly indicated in his message on my talk page that he will continue reverting to versions that go against MOS:COLOR and MOS:NAVBOXCOLOR. – Sabbatino (talk) 14:17, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Question

Hello Bbb23, sorry if I made a mistake. To learn from it, I would like to understand what was wrong with my question, and how I could report that issue properly. --SI 19:46, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Two ways: one is to file a report at the SPI, not on its Talk page, and the other is to ask Yamla or me your question on our Talk pages, although we may simply tell you to file a report. With the usual evidence, of course.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:47, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia on a Saturday night

Yeah, that was close, wasn't it--if Auburn had recovered that onside kick, LSU might be a one-loss team too! I am sure you were spellbound. Drmies (talk) 23:33, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

I plan to watch it tonight. It's still daytime here. I'm rooting for Auburn because I like red hair and because sockeye salmon is very tasty.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:40, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Bbb23, Alaskan sockeye salmon is clearly best. MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 23:42, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

The best salmon I had was some variety in Normandy. (You don't need to ping me on my Talk page.)--Bbb23 (talk) 23:44, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

It's the reply script i'm using. I know I don't need to. Hmm. Will have to see, I grew up on alaskan salmon/halbut/etc. so i'm heavily opinionated :p MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 23:49, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

I see what you're doing, Bbb--stop playing dumb. I understand if you've checked out of the Alabama game--Arkansas is a cupcake--but plz don't make fun of the SEC, or Ima sick Nsmutte or one of those dudes on you. Drmies (talk) 23:51, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

You're right. I did watch the game, and it was brilliant, especially when Koufax struck out Nsmutte.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:58, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Bbb23

Bbb23 I am sorry but please stop blocking me I do not harm Wikipedia anymore I stopped I wish to make good edits and yeah I don’t vandalize any more Expachie (talk) 08:46, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Expachie, which accounts did Bbb23 block? Cabayi (talk) 09:06, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

@Cabayi: I was a former sockpuppeter but I was making some good edits and put some helpful tips and then I got blocked as Pipercalle. Expachie^mail 09:12, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

My signature went wrong someone never mind! Expachie^mail 09:19, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Expachie, your route back to editing is to request an unblock for your first account Gun23man via WP:UTRS. However, the poor appeals you've submitted so far do not make it look likely that any further appeal would be successful. Cabayi (talk) 09:32, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

42Marco P

I noticed 42Marco P's edits on Oleg Maltsev (psychologist) when looking at DrPoglum's activities here (a look that resulted in this), and decided to keep an eye on both of them, so I noticed the blocks. But he, or more probably they (because I believe the accounts were used by more than one person, as I noted on ANI) will no doubt be back soon, so I have watchlisted the article about Maltsev and a few other articles related to him. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 08:10, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

• There are dozens of interconnected user accounts and IPs plugging Oleg Maltsev (psychologist) and CESNUR (an organisation with strong ties to Maltsev) on Wikipedia (not only en-WP but other language versions too), several of the accounts editing only for a couple of months each year, like DrPoglum, mostly within a specific field but also supporting each other when needed, including at AfD. I don't know if it's a paid editing ring or just members of Maltsev's organisation, but can't see why that would matter... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 18:45, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

question

Although I don't understand this, I also know you have checkuser tools that could easily explain it. My question is should this page be deleted as spam/promotional? (not that it's all that big a deal anyway - it's not like copyvio or BLP issues - I just wondered) — Ched (talk) 18:47, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

It's a sock.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:51, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Oh, sorry Ched, I just realized that I didn't answer your question. The user is part of a very large sock farm, one of the characteristics of which is they put outlandish drivel on their userpages. It didn't hurt for you to blank it, but most of it is just nonsense anyway. Take a look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Marcus lyon‎. It's been a while since I blocked 150 accounts in one day. A large portion were no-edit accounts, but, unfortunately, this person has been known to create accounts and not edit with them for months, so I feel it's necessary to block sleepers. It was truly tedious and time-consuming. My eyes started to glaze over as I recorded account after account.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:36, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Hey Bbb - no problem at all. Sorry you had such a rough day. I did a quick google and found a Facebook page, so meh ... I just blanked the user page. I never really studied or got involved with the sock end of wiki, but I respect your dedication to the problem. TY for the reply - hope tomorrow is better for you. — Ched (talk) 00:42, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

The recent deletion of the page for the artist B.O.L.T

Recently you deleted the page B.O.L.T under speedy deletion criteria A7, yet in the page about common claims of significance for artists it lists "Is signed to a label with a Wikipedia entry or to a label that is part of such a label" as criteria for notability, which the group falls under as they are signed to King Records (Japan). I was wonder what the circumstances of this page being deleted were. -Dude22072 (talk) 19:55, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Can you get me a reliable source that says that the new group has recorded anything on King Records? They haven't released much, and I don't see anything to indicate they are using a notable label.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:10, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

They recorded Digital release 1, and they will release their 1st CD on November 15 1st CD release Vimoral2 (talk) 10:31, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

The CD link indicates that it will be released on Evil Line Records, not on King Records.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:42, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

"Evil Line Records is the label's new division, established on April 2014, and comprises artists like Momoiro Clover Z and Meg, among others." King_Records Wiki Vimoral2 (talk) 10:31, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

The entry for Evil Line Records at the King Records article suffers from the same problem. It is unsourced. I have removed it, and it should not be re-added without a reliable source.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:46, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

The King Records Official pagehas a link to Evil Line Records on the header, also it sells the products of the label. Vimoral2 (talk) 11:56, 23 October 2019 (UTC).

I posted some references in Evil Line Records at the King Records article King_Records Wiki. It's okay now? Vimoral2 (talk) 11:58, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Please explain your decision

Hi, User:Bbb23 please explain your decision on request page here. The user clearly vialotes 3RR rule and never shows up on talk page when called. Clearly he's a vandal or at least do not care about wikipedia rules.--Arsenekoumyk (talk) 17:50, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

• User:Bbb23 let me give a clear example. After one of vandal edits he makes (all of them are the same he removes the part "of Kumyk descent", never answered on talk page) I return it (here) to consensus version adding a quote which the user pretends to ask for. The quote is clear: Shamil's "fifth ancestor — Kumyk Amir-khan, a man very famous in Caucasus". The user just 3RRs it in a raw again here. Am I supposed to stand by and revert his vandalism forever while you clearly signal to him that he's allowed to come back once in a while and play with articles as he pleases to? I hope it's not what you're suggesting.--Arsenekoumyk (talk) 17:59, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

• I've warned you at WP:ANEW. You're on very thin ice.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:02, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Bbb23 fine, I answered. if it pleases you to close your eyes on vandalism & edit warring so be it. let him continue--Arsenekoumyk (talk) 18:06, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Poroshenko

I am sure that his term ended and a new MP elected. But if you claim that his term does not end, you must bring a source that he have been reelected. The source for 27 November 2014 - 29 August 2019 is the term of the 7th legislature. We have source for it. --Panam2014 (talk) 01:14, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Amin Mehraein

Hello Bbb23, I am writing as a friendly reminder just in case you you forgot to close the Afd: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amin Mehraein as speedy delete per G5. Regards. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 17:21, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Nope, someone will close it.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:22, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

You are right, someone did a non-admin closure, I did not know that it was OK for us to do it for already deleted articles, otherwise I would have done it myself. Best. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 18:25, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Someone always does it, and with greater ease than I as I very rarely close AfDs, which means I have to look at the instructions on how to do it. I think there's a script, but I've never installed it.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:39, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I close AfD's by hand at eswiki (I'm an admin there). I will look for that script and hopefully it works there as well. Regards. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 18:59, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Just in case you are interested: Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts/CloseAFD --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 19:06, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks...I think. I didn't know you were an admin (and a bureaucrat) at es.wiki.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:08, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Is there a script? I always close 'em manually. Put {{afd top}} at the top of the discussion and {{afd bottom}} at the bottom, and delete the article (or keep the article, remove the AFD tag, and put an {{old afd}} template on the talk page). ~Anachronist (talk) 00:45, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

WP:XFDC works great. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:25, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

re: Icewhiz

Since I spend an hour compiling this report and don't have a backup saved, would you be so kind as to restore it at whatever is the appropriate place? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:40, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

I've placed the substance of your report at User:Piotrus/Icewhiz. You should be able to do the rest yourself. Please tag the user page after you're done with it so it will be deleted. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:48, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Possible sock of Marcus lyon

Hi Bbb23. You blocked this sock for this and I've just noticed this guy with a very similar user page, also from South Africa. Might be nothing but just in case. Robvanvee 15:59, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't see any real similarity in behavior.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:11, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Cool. I just thought their user pages bore similarities. Cheers. Robvanvee 16:54, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Hurricane Ducker

Oh, right. A blocked user would have no need for such a notification. And that person could use the information wrongly.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:21, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

New sock of U + 1F4AD

Hi, you blocked Utrryy earlier this month as a sock of U + 1FAD. Hfhjhu has now appeared and is editing the same pages as some of the other socks. They've also tagged Diaz virdani as a sock of U + 1F4AD well, though they often vandalize the userpages of accounts that revert them, I haven't looked close enough to tell if Diaz virdani is also a sock. Could you look into this? Emk9 (talk) 19:56, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Hfhjhu is  Confirmed; Diaz virdani is  Unrelated. @Matanya: Could you please globally lock Hfhjhu? Thanks, Emk9.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:28, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! Emk9 (talk) 19:57, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Peter Joseph Madrigal

Hello there,

recently you deleted Peter Joseph Madrigal. I created it. I apologize if I made errors in my excitement to be a wikipedia editor but please don't delete Peter's page. Most of the other co-stars on the show Vanderpump Rules have a wikipedia page so I said "let me do it"! The show has been number one in the rating for many years so I believe he belongs in the Wiki world.

You can see in my contributions I've been diligently learning wikipedia for the last several days. I love it! I thought I knew what I was doing. I thought I could add the page and make quick edits to update and shape it. I quickly learned that was wrong when I was immediately flagged. I'm sorry I acted a pro when I'm an amateur. Please allow me to quickly learn, understand how I did it wrong and I will make it right. But, if you delete the page already, then I'll never be able to get the name again and what a total loser fail move.

Thank you for taking the time to read this and please allow me to fix and learn to be better and I will. MsSophiaBlack (talk) 22:38, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tilemi

I'm curious why you declined the CU. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:07, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps I underestimate your knowledge. If so, my apologies for not providing an explanation at the SPI. There are only two users, and one is  Stale.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:13, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Ah, I did not notice that Pgk707 was stale. My bad. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:42, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

User Krish!

Hi there, a while back, user Krish! that if he avoided socking for 2 months, I would consider unblocking him. Just before he took the standard offer, he couldn't restrain himself and did a bit of logged-out editing. Is there any way to check whether or not he has engaged in socking in this time? I know that it might be a crapshoot. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:42, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

I floundered around a bit, but I'm not familiar with the user, which makes it tough. You'd be better off asking Berean Hunter to look at it. You'll have to get his permission anyway as it's a CU block.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:19, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

OK, cool, thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:33, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – November 2019

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

Administrator changes

GermanJoe • Girth Summit • Kees08 • Nosebagbear

DESiegel • GB fan • MSGJ • Voice of Clam • WilyD

DeltaQuad • Fang Aili • Pakaran

Bureaucrat changes

DeltaQuad • Pakaran

Interface administrator changes

MSGJ

CheckUser changes

L235 • Mz7 • SQL • ST47

Ivanvector

DeltaQuad

Oversight changes

L235 • Mz7 • ST47 • Stwalkerster • The Blade of the Northern Lights • Xaosflux

DeltaQuad • DGG • Julia W

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC was closed with the consensus that the resysop criteria should be made stricter.

• The follow-up RfC to develop that change is now open at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/2019 Resysop Criteria (2).

• A related RfC is seeking the community's sentiment for a binding desysop procedure.

Arbitration

• Eligible editors may now nominate themselves as candidates for the 2019 Arbitration Committee Elections. The self-nomination period will close November 12, with voting running from November 19 through December 2.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:15, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

TheElitistSavior Block

I received an email request from this user regarding a block and IP range block. I've started a conversation on it on the user's talk page. --WGFinley (talk) 12:57, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

User:Flapjacktastic

Out of curiosity, what is the background that has led to this user getting perma-banned? I ask because of the individuals constructive edits and consensus on two articles we occasionally patrol for vandalism/promotional content. It surprised me just now to see that he was banned in April. As you were the person who blocked them and also one of the last people to interact via their talk page, I was hoping you could shed some light. Cheers. UaMaol (talk) 04:16, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

I see no reason to comment.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:32, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

User deleted notification

Hello, tell me, please, is it permissible to do this? It's about this — Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Wlbw68 and Nicoljaus, WP:Civility, WP:No personal attacks.--Tempus (talk) 14:36, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with an editor removing warnings from their Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:34, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Tracy Von Doom?

Hi. You blocked User:Tracy Von Doom, citing WP:BKFIP. I'm curious about that. Reading the LTA case, I'm not seeing any behavioral connection. Is there anything you can tell me beyond what's already in the public logs? The reason I ask is because I'm looking at Draft:Tungsten Branding, which was created by almost-certainly-UPE User:Jumpcoyote, and then edited by TVD three minutes after creation. This leads me to wonder if Jumpcoyote is related to TVD. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:27, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

TVD is part of a pattern of good sock behavior by BKFIP. TVD edited a lot of new pages, and I would not infer any connection between TVD and the author of the page.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:34, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Other account of User:Levijustus?

Working on unblock requests, I came to your block of Levijustus on October 26. Would you please point me to the other account of Levijustus? I don't have enough info right now to decline the unblock request. Given their contrib history, I suspect it's going to be a decline. Cheers, Mark Ironie (talk) 02:03, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Criticeditor (talk · contribs · count).--Bbb23 (talk) 02:28, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Mark Ironie (talk) 02:35, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Another HughD account

Timelessforyou is almost certainly HughD. Simonm223 (talk) 14:54, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

I am traveling for work and don't have time to do a proper SPI investigation - apologies. Simonm223 (talk) 14:55, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

New User:Booboo the dog Sock

This rant makes it pretty clear. Best, GPL93 (talk) 17:03, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

It does, doesn't it? Blocked. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:56, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Out of retirement guy

Hi there, this guy Sathish5566 popped out of a one-year retirement to create G. K. Vishnu, an article that was A7 speedied twice, including by you. The article was previously created by SachindixitSJD, who I suspect is engaging in paid editing. One thing of note, is that one of the versions of SachindixitSJD's article includes phrasing "His curiosity towards lights" which was lifted directly from the subject's IMDB bio. This version of the recreated article contains the same lifted content. This Sathish guy doesn't have enough current edits for me to draw a behavioural comparison, but there's something stinky here. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:31, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

The two users are  Unrelated.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:08, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Grrrr!!! But thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:43, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Question?

I am in a long-standing editing problem with another editor, who has been slow-motion edit-warring at several articles — despite MOS and other reasons cited for edits. Their persistence is becoming highly disruptive, which they've been blocked for three-times before. What do you suggest I do? livelikemusic talk! 02:14, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Without specifics it's hard to say, but it sounds like you should take them to WP:ANI.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:16, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

See pages like Jack Deveraux, Kristen DiMera and Jennifer Horton for further example. livelikemusic talk! 02:19, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

IP Sock

Hi. Per our previous discussion(s) - 77.16.61.253 Cheers. -- Begoon 23:19, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

+ 77.16.72.136, 77.16.54.108 -- Begoon 23:36, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

...but, as usual, they seem to have stopped after a while, when all their edits were being reverted. -- Begoon 02:17, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

• +77.16.51.230. Cheers. -- Begoon 05:49, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Sirisecure

Hey there, I just indeffed JasonAzq as a ducky sock of Sirisecure. His opening edits were very socklike, then he recreated Amin Aminem verbatim to what had been there before. The last time you dealt with him, he had a few accounts going at the same time, so I thought I'd mention him to ya. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:40, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

A survey to improve the community consultation outreach process

Hello!

The Wikimedia Foundation is seeking to improve the community consultation outreach process for Foundation policies, and we are interested in why you didn't participate in a recent consultation that followed a community discussion you’ve been part of.

Please fill out this short survey to help us improve our community consultation process for the future. It should only take about three minutes.

The privacy policy for this survey is here. This survey is a one-off request from us related to this unique topic.

Thank you for your participation, Kbrown (WMF) 10:44, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Quick opinion on a new user account

Kaltionis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has a three-day old account[27] and has jumped into editing in controversial subjects including restoring edits by InitiateOrwell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) with the summary,"Restoring last known good edit".[28] You had reverted the edits two days before the account was created with the explanation of "sock"[29]. I couldn't locate the master for InitiateOrwell, so I figured I would run this by you to see if you think it is a matter worth pursuing. BiologicalMe (talk) 14:18, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it is the same person. If you look closely at the block log for InitiateOrwell, you'll see that Adrian Fey (talk · contribs · count) is noted as the related account. In the case of Kaltionis, I just went ahead and tagged the userpage normally. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. The kinds of articles Kaltionis edits I don't watch.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:57, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Your're welcome. Uninvolved admin actions are a big plus, in my opinion, so thank you as well. I wish I had caught the obvious detail, the name right at the end of the block summary. BiologicalMe (talk) 17:09, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Keep up the good work! Cheers! CentralTime301 14:04, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

A pie and a WikiPeace for you!

Anyway, I am sorry I have been reporting you on WP:ANI, but let's (separately) make things better, with this pie. Cheers! CentralTime301 14:05, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Cheers! CentralTime301 has given you a dove! Doves promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day happier. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a dove, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past (this fits perfectly) or a good friend. Cheers!

---

Spread the peace of doves by adding {{subst:Peace dove}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

Making a new account?

You explained to me saying that I had made a new account, Spicyeater 2005, as an alternate account of mine and that I was retiring my current account. But that plan failed. So I decided to go Cheers! CentralTime301 14:00, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Responded on your Talk page. Please keep the conversation in one place.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:03, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

I meant to go Cheers! Cheers! CentralTime301 22:09, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

It's me! It's me!

This week has been nutso work-wise, but I have carved out just enough time to ask a favour! I see you've been involved in this SPI. Slogging through some old sandboxes (don't ask!) I came across these contribs where an editor is repeatedly recreating the same cluster of "Ajay Kumar Pande" articles under myriad title variations as the user your blocked here. I could poke around the logs but thought you may be more familiar with their handiwork.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:35, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Your wish is my command: the user appears to be  Unrelated.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:49, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

You're so efficient! I would give you a barnstar but I it looks like you've been spammed with your quota for the day.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 00:08, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Your offer is way better than the ones I've been given.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:12, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

I feel a cold bitter wind from across the waters; I believe it's the physical manifestation of the vacuum forming as your patience drops into negative values.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 00:20, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Rakurai64

Hi Bbb23. When you get a minute... Highly suspicious editing for a new user. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:02, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Already checked by two CUs - no need for me to throw my hat in the ring.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:53, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. At least I know my suspicions were not unreasonable. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:00, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Block Spicyeater2005 indefinitely?

Bbb23, if you blocked Spicyeater2005 for indefinite, I have one condition to say for myself: no make multiple accounts ever again. Sorry. Cheers! CentralTime301 16:01, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Evrdkmkm

I have blocked this editor for socking with user:Delprudensio. It looks pretty ducky to me. But Evrdkmkm is appealing their block and denying any socking. Out of an abundance of caution, when you have a few minutes could you have a look? Thanks... -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:49, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Responded at Evrdkmkm's Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:20, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Kius18

Hi, Bbb23,

I stumbled onto some errant nonsense added by Kius18 whom you blocked (thanks!) as a sockpuppet of Yunongdog.

What concerns me is the possibility that this might be an AI adversary. Some of their other additions look plausible until one reads them critically in context. Do you encounter this kind of thing often? Could you point me to any discussion where they came to your attention? (I tried searching without luck so far.)

Best wishes, Pelagic (talk) 21:14, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't know what you mean by "AI adversary", and I suspect if you explain it, I won't be able to help you, but you're welcome to try.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:40, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Sorry for the jargon, Bbb23. The socks' edits look like they were done by a bot or some kind of automated process. It's the first time I've seen anything like it on WP, but then I'm not active in the anti-vandal area so maybe it's common. That's why I was curious to learn more. I'm feeling a bit paranoid now: what's the chance that the people responsible are monitoring our reactions to fine-tune their methods? *Steps away to look for tin-foil hat.* Jokes aside, the same does apply to human socks and LTAs: to what extent should we openly discuss how their behaviour and methods tipped us off, if that information helps them to evade us next time? Pelagic (talk) 22:42, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

All I can tell you is I didn't come upon the farm because I noticed bot-like editing.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:23, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thankyou for your responses, and extra thanks for laundering all the detritus left by the dirty socks. I've applied a few spots of stain remover here and there. If you want to remove or redact this conversation because Reasons, then I won't be offended. Keep up the great work! —Pelagic (talk) 01:27, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Hey

Bbb, can you check something real quick? I'm sending you an email. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 01:50, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

• Hmm it got a bit quieter, it seems. Drmies (talk) 02:03, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

• Good because I'm about to sit down for dinner and am really too tired to do anything difficult.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:05, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

• You and your time zone. Anyway, have a look at that range when you're in between main course and dessert, please. One IP blocked, likely proxy, lots of accounts including a few that were already blocked for various reasons. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 02:06, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

• Based on the globally locked accounts, looks like one of those LTAs for which I never can tell who the master is. Maybe ST47 knows more. He blocked one. Way too busy a range. In any event, this reply is the best you're gonna get on this one. I only did this much because dinner is "delayed": Thai barbecue chicken with brown rice and coconut milk sauce, accompanied by a lovely Chinese cucumber salad. Who needs dessert?--Bbb23 (talk) 02:11, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

User:Motizun

Hi, I'm looking for more background on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive310#Winterysteppe. Where can I find more on the connection between Motizun and Winterysteppe? (Didn't see in SPI.) czar 01:52, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Socks are blocked all the time outside of SPI, especially with LTAs like Winterysteppe. I don't see why it should be of any interest to you.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:06, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

? I'm simply looking for background on this block and global lock as I haven't found where it would be documented. Motizun, in their unblock request, claims to be someone else who hasn't been linked to Winterysteppe. If the claim is true, it would be odd for the other user to not be linked to Winterysteppe too. I can't assess the pattern if I don't know what it is. czar 03:33, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

I believe I found Motizun while patrolling CSD (Winterysteppe created lots of crappy and some hoax articles). My check confirmed that the account was operated by Winterysteppe. Motizun's claim that he is a sock of CA! is simply a lie. Putting aside the obvious behavioral differences, CA! was created years before W. It is almost impossible that the account would not have been discovered. I'm still not clear why you want to "assess the pattern", but this is a dead end issue as far as I'm concerned.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:02, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I found a lot of overlap while refunding some G13s for CA so wanted to ask. Also Motizun was active May–July, which coincides with CA's break (April–October). Anyway, I've asked CA about it on my talk page and knowing him to be above board, dead end issue sounds right. Thanks again. (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 16:01, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Possible sockdrawer Hlevy2

Not sure what's up with this one. They !voted at EF's RfA, then I saw you'd asked them in July to publicly disclose and link their main account. I see no disclosure, and no link. Kudpung had also asked them in 2016, also with no response. It looks to me like they have multiple SPA accounts, working on the same article. I pinged you at their talk: User talk:Hlevy2#Other account? Since they haven't responded to these requests by multiple admins, should they even be voting in RfA's etc? I think this is a sockdrawer, so... - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 23:10, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

As a CU, there's nothing I'm going to do about it. All the users you listed on Hlevy2's Talk page are very stale.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:20, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Realized the staleness after I posted. Still, you tried talking to them, so pinging seemed appropriate. Best, - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 23:35, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

One sock just re-appeared after 4 years to answer a question directed at the main account. Oh. Looking at EIT, I now think this Hlevey2 drawer is a subset of indeffed sockmaster Racepacket. I'll look into it more tomorrow. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 01:14, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

CorbieVreccan, after checking, Hlevy2 is in precisely the same place as Racepacket.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 02:04, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 19:04, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

@CorbieVreccan: Please undo your block and make it a normal block for socking. You cannot make a checkuser block; only checkusers can. As an aside, Berean Hunter did not confirm the user, he confirmed only the location.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:21, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

OK. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 19:24, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

CorbieVreccan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), Devosdevine is not Hlevy2 at all. She is in a different place (confirmed) and it isn't hard to figure out who she is and why she would edit that article. I really don't think she has anything to do with Hlevy2. I think your use of the {{user5}} template pinged her and she was emailed a notice which is why she responded there. She should be unblocked and let her know that a mistake was made. I'll send Bbb23 details that I can't reveal here. I used the {{user5}} on you above...did it ping you? You may want to use the {{checkuser}} template from now on instead of the user5 template since it doesn't ping.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 19:53, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it pings. On it. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 19:55, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Your Guidance on Harshil169

I came across your profile in reviewing the talk page history for the BAPS article and wanted to seek your guidance as an admin. User:Harshil169 has repeatedly made it difficult for me and other users to collaborate on articles.

In originally authoring Criticism of Swaminarayan Sect, he disregarded WP:POVFORK (here) and ignored the consensus of multiple editors (here) by reverting any changes made to the page (1, 2, 3), initiating a sockpuppeting investigation against me which was proven false (here), seeking input from the NPOV Noticeboard without notifying any of the other editors (here), and ultimately requesting a speedy deletion of the article which was denied (here). Throughout this process, he resorted to uncivil language (1, 2).

After this page was merged with the Swaminarayan Sampraday, he had reposted some of the same material that was initially removed by consensus for lack of encyclopedic value. I removed it (here), but he reverted with an ad hominem attack (here), further uncivil language (here), and a warning to topic ban me (here).

Though his user page features a ‘New User’ userbox, he has been around since 2015 and accumulated 3,000 edits as well as warnings from multiple users about his behavior on other pages (here). His page history will reveal more. I have tried to maintain good faith in this editor's intentions, but this history of contention warrants I seek your guidance on how best to proceed.

Thank you for your time, and if you have any questions or need additional details, please feel free to ask. Moksha88 (talk) 18:23, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, but the only thing I can recommend is to take the editor to ANI if you think there is sufficient evidence for sanctions.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:21, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. Moksha88 (talk) 03:32, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:11, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Fairies and pixies

I really like your comment here. It also reminds me of the time, many years ago, when it was common practice for CheckUsers reporting CU results in SPIs to attach " CheckUser is not magic pixie dust" to their reports, to remind everyone that CU evidence is not definitive, and is just one more piece of evidence to be considered along with behavioural evidence. At some time or other the practice of doing that faded out. JBW (talk) Formerly JamesBWatson 21:43, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Reply

Regarding User:Flapjacktastic and your reply, why do you see no reason to comment? If it's a too long story, are there any links I can follow? Cheers UaMaol (talk) 05:36, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Uamaol: CheckUser blocks are made on the basis of evidence which must be kept confidential. Sometimes some of the evidence can be publicly revealed, but often none of it can. If a CU declines to comment on a CU block, mere mortals such as you and me just have to assume they have good reasons (which I'm confident they usually do). JBW (talk) Formerly JamesBWatson 22:00, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Page Deletion

I wanted to get in touch to see why this page was deleted? "Inspiring Ilango" if there was a problem with the content, you could have pointed it our and i could have fixed it. Is there a way I can recover the contents? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vb123123 (talk • contribs) 07:52, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

If you like, I can move the article to draft space. Let me know.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:50, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion of C.S. O'Cinneide

You have marked my page C.S. O'Cinneide for speedy deletion. I could not find the button for contesting speedy deletion as outlined, so I am writing you here to contest the deletion. I believe the page does meet the criteria for a person of note. This author has been nominated for a literary award (Goodreads Choice Awards) and has been featured in major newspapers (https://www.thestar.com/entertainment/books/2019/07/11/ghost-tales-haunt-the-pages-of-the-summers-best-horror-books.html) and on the CBC news website (https://www.cbc.ca/books/margaret-atwood-louise-penny-s-k-ali-malcolm-gladwell-among-goodreads-2019-best-book-nominees-1.5357631). Her novel, Petra's Ghost has been featured has one of the most anticipated horror novels of 2019 and numerous book lists (see references in article). She has a large body of published works as outlined in the bibliography. Please tell me what further information or references I may provide to support the non-deletion of this page. Many thanks MarcusK0100MarcusK0100 (talk) 12:19, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

I made a draft on an article which was previously deleted and tagged into wp:G5, is that Ok?

Hello there, User:Bbb23 I am basically Nowadays trying to get such wikipedia articles sorted which somehow got deleted and failed to show authenticity without the lack of proper research etc. one such case is Draft:Julian Jewel Jeyaraj, I feel. it does have articles published on reliable sources like Hindustan Times, Entrepreneur (magazine) and CNN-News18 which makes it eligible to pass wp:gng and wp:rs, so I felt like reconstructing its draft version (since I had created the AI research which was created by him) i feel like this dude also passes the notability guideline. so I made a draft on this person which was previously deleted and tagged into wp:G5, is that Ok? and also can u please check the draft version, if its reliable enough to have a stand-alone article!? Bollymine (talk) 12:48, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

I need help regarding continuous harassment.

I am fed up of harassment and attacking by user:Harshil169. He keeps targetting me like some nemesis and always talks in hostile manner. Let me give you a little bit of context.

I was a casual editor. I edit this and that just that. Then this person whom I accused made a wiki page of temple vandalism and tried giving it communal view. I was not very expireanced I removed all his content which seem inappropriate to me. I saw about this temple page on a tweet which was posted by someone else. Then I checked his tweets. He asked for other same ideology people saying"Wikipedia is filled with Mullahs(muslims) and Christians. And we need to take over it." As someone else put that temple page into deletion somehow I was involved with edit war in it about which I had no Idea.

Then I learned, we had a hot debate. He kept tweeting calling for help with his religious fellows. Some already editors and some made new accounts to help him and all of them jumped into the debate with a lot of Islamophobic hate. I tried debate with them in as civilsed manner as I can. A sock puppet investigation was then opened against the accused(probably by me but I dont remember). And at last after a week long debate the editors decided to scrap that wiki page. This case closed.

Then he wrote article on J&K reorganisation bill again with Islamophobic content. I put that article under deletion as it controversial and too soon topic to be made into article. The editors said this article has a significance and I was arguing to put this under a sub section of other article and merge. But then I understand , the Islamophobic contemt was removed and that page was allowed to settle.But I never argued with amyone of them or act hostile.

Then I left editing for some months. But keep doing a bit editing grammer mistakes and all that occasionally.

Then after some time. I again stuck with one of the edits of this person. And I saw he keep silently editing all the liberal wiki pages and adding a little bit defamatory contents in them.We got into argue but still I was as humble as I can. May be I got a little out of league sometimes but still I didn't said anything. Their was no private attack against him as I was calling out what he is doing. But he is like too stubborn to listen anything from me. He made another defamatory titled article for Prophet Jesus. Again arguement and he was still not ready to listen. As I didn't knew most of the rules I remove them as I didn't knew about 3 R rule. So I revert it 3 times. And he used that to block me from the site for 48 hrs.No problem as that was mistake from my side. But he is like using that. Whenever I made a single edit or even add a discussion section point he used to put warning and all that messages on my talk pages. At first they were awkward but later I understand he do that on any edit that I make. He always use canvass with other editors like user:Kautilya3 and they come to his aid. I let that go and I again started editing occasionally.

Then again some days before I stuck on his edits where he did the same things with other editors. He keep removing their edits. No talking and reasoning with them in civil way. Nothing. I was fed up with his behavior as he was constantly attacking me. Selecting my edits and undo them from a very long time(after his temple page got deleted) I dont want to name this but he is blocked from other questioning sites for the same behaviour , Islamophobic views and hate content. And I was really fed up of his behaviour. I opened an investigation but it was closed as I didn't provide diff and I didnt had any idea what diffs are. Whenever he got something edited he puts warning on other user and try to supress them with his alt accounts or friends account.

Once again we got into arguement where he was adding tax evasion section of a liberal media portal of India. I argued that we can't put a section naming it tax evasion on the basis of a raid(raid was during election time and it had political purposes but I don't want to go into that). After he cant reason with me on that he tried to opened a harassment report on me. And then delibirately call Kautilya3 and YamBlanter on their respective talk pages and they both came to the report and put bad comments for me. Someone seeing only the report page will see their views which are obviously biased as they are involved in groupism. But internally he called them from his side. You can check their pages if he didn't remove that. But I took screenshots of that calling for aid.

Now we reason their. We were advised by another uninvolved editor whom I met first time , to stay far away from each as this case is opened. Then after that I stopped having a single conversation with u:Harshil169. Not a little bit. I continued with a page that I wanted from long ago. I published that page and as I was editing. A person with IP address and account made a few minutes ago started disruptive editing. Same person whose account was made 12 mins ago put my article into deletion here. I highly suspect that this is same user:Harshil169.You can see simiarity in the way he uses WP:NOTHERE between this and this. I responded calmly as I can having suspicion that this is the same guy. I continued with my work but then u:Harshil169 (who is blocked here) started his harassment on Wikimedia commons. He delibirately crawl in my contributions (despite of being warned to us to stay away from each other) and put my images under deletion. That image although deleted but I know the intentions were not right behind this. He do this with me intentionally. He discuss with other editor to put my other image in deletion which was soleley made by me. It seems like he is despirately trying to find rules and reason to somehow harass me for whatever reason he has.I reported this to another editor u:DBigXray and he told me that you blocked him here but I was told to not to interact with him so I didn't even care to find the reason . His like there is some case going between him and me and always act hostile with any way possible.

But his harassment dont stop anywhere. His disperation to search my articles, putting them under deletion and discussing with other editors to find rules to somehow delete my images or my contributions show the extent upto which this guy can go to harass other. He is so hostile that he thinks some case he going in between him and me. Compare this and this

I will continue with the work which is my passion but this u:Harshil169 is clearly not good in any behavior either on moral editing background or from professional point of view of editing. I really want you to take action against him,for this continuous harassment.

This is the thing. I don't have any personal issue with the guy. But as a student I understand the value wikipedia and how it has to be remained free. If certain ideologies tries to disrupt the views by silent editing then that will hurt only wikipedia's integrity. Edward Zigma (talk) 09:00, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Bbb23 (talk · contribs) See this is the length at which unknown IP adress is doing this. Just coz I am in dispute with that guy. This is problem of every work you do with him. He cannot even colloborate in one edit. Please do take some action for this. I really request you. Edward Zigma (talk) 14:50, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

AFAIK, these issues have been brought up on the noticeboards, and at this point I have no desire to intervene. Also, in the future, when you post to my Talk page, please use diffs, not refs, and use normal diffs, not mobile diffs, which I can barely understand.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:07, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

References

Sock of Flooded with them hundreds

Hi Bbb23, I could be wrong on this but the use of Twinkle, some of the topics they've edited and the overall general editing pattern of the user I'm not perfect but I'm almost strikes me as a possibility of them being FWTH. Plus the username seems like something they might call themselves. They've also just requested rollback rights, which is something FWTH has done before on alternate accounts. If you get time, would you be able to run a CU on them? Although I'm thinking that if you've done a general CU on any accounts FWTH might have been using since July, then this would probably have come up if they were. Just wanting to be sure, anyway. Thanks. @Ad Orientem: for a second opinion. Ss112 07:03, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

The users are not related.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:08, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Welcome!

Our over-zealous welcomer seems to share quite a few characteristics with this guy. Praxidicae (talk) 18:37, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Maybe but technically no.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:45, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Your comment

Apologies for the misunderstanding, but that was a mistake for which I preemptively apologised. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:ST47#Query

Regards and good day. SVUKnight (talk) 00:39, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:42, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Socking

I have reason to believe that User:CD1965 is a sockpuppet of User:AH999 I presented evidence at the relevant spi but still waiting for now. 86.174.219.167 (talk) 06:59, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

I've undone your edits. You should not be editing archives of SPIs.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:41, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Could you possible look into it for me please?, thanks. 86.174.219.167 (talk) 08:35, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

User:AlliUp345

AlliUp345 is evading block of User:Martimc123 (master sock of VOTxjjdjs12, etc). SLBedit (talk) 23:56, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

In the future, please link to users. Better and easier for me. You are correct: the new account is blocked and tagged. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:21, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

G5 collateral damage

I don't think you meant to delete Signal Corps (United States Army).

Though I'm not sure that the move that left behind the redirect was proper in the first place, it has a few hundred incoming links. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 05:48, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

@Mark Schierbecker: What do you suggest I do to put everything back to the way it was before the sock messed with it?--Bbb23 (talk) 14:10, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Just took care of it. I would advise in the future against using G5s in such cases. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 17:38, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of it, but I can't promise such a thing might not happen again. The sock created a huge number of pages that had to be deleted, and much of it had to be done by hand. To say it is tedious is an understatement.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:11, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

All good :). Mark Schierbecker (talk) 19:56, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Gibby

Were you able to perform a check-user on the sock report I made, or do I need to gather more refs? livelikemusic talk! 02:55, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

CU Barnstar

		The Checkuser's Barnstar
		For your good work in taking care of socks at WP:SPI as well as outside SPI, we are glad to have you using the tools for the benefit of the community. DBigXrayᗙ 12:20, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Regarding my reversal

Hey! I want to seek justification about your recent revert. It included differences in which user has outed me and repeatedly called me as sock!-- Harshil ^{want to talk?} 18:47, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

We know about your claims of outing. We know he thinks you're a sock. The report is not a venue for you and him to fight with each other.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:55, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

I just came here to say that I posted a comment here that you might find helpful. (edit conflict) –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 18:57, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for guidance!-- Harshil ^{want to talk?} 19:01, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Again asking how my edit about person’s accusation to me and on several other editors are irrelevant?— Harshil ^{want to talk?} 01:59, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppet

Hi @Bbb23:, this user account User talk:Reo kwon was created last year(19 September 2018). That was when several accounts were blocked as sockpuppets of User:Rajesh rao kumar. This user made non controversial edits until recently, but of late has started editing caste related topics and is showing similar tendencies to some of those blocked accounts. Some of their edits also have resemblances with the socks of User:ForeverKnowledgeSeeker. They are showing patience by not indulging in edit wars(giving an impression that they learned from past experiences). Since there are plenty of confirmed and suspected socks for those accounts, I am not sure whom this account might belong to. Their username is bizzare(several socks of User:Rajesh rao kumar had bizzare names). Can you please let me know how one can deal such situations. Thanks Sharkslayer87 (talk) 03:10, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Because of the age of the account, it would be best if you reopen the SPI and present evidence of similarities between the user and the master/known socks.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:05, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I will do that. Sharkslayer87 (talk) 17:08, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Did I do right thing?

One user issued warning about my behaviour without any difference and even as far as I understand, I din't attack anyone. I took issue at WP:AN/I. Did I do right thing?-- Harshil ^{want to talk?} 14:32, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Your handling of the issue on your Talk page is fine. However, it's much too small an issue for you to raise it at ANI.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:36, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Actually, several other users Apollo1203, Moksha88 are showing similar type of behaviour with me which resulted into block last time. Don't want to take any chance.-- Harshil ^{want to talk?} 14:45, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Somebody claiming to tell us where his socks are?

Please see these diffs at Commons where an IP claims to reveal the names of their other accounts on en.wiki. Let me know if this proves useful or is just better ignored. —C.Fred (talk) 21:50, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

I think the IP means what he says literally, meaning those accounts should be "tagged". I recognize many of the usernames. If you've gone through them already and found any that are unblocked, let me know. Otherwise, Simulation12 loves attention; better to ignore it.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:54, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Filmography and awards

Hi. When you get a spare couple of minutes sometime, please could you take a look at the revision history for the article Filmography and awards of Louis C.K.

Earlier this year you blocked the user called "The One I Left" for being a sock puppet. The IP address 96.228.28.*** shows a similarity in the removal of filmography and awards content. "The One I Left" also edited on the Filmography and awards of Louis C.K. article in March 2019 before the block.

The IP address 96.228.28.*** earlier this month removed warnings given on his or her talkpage.

There is a similarity in the editing style. However, the IP address 96.228.28.*** may not necessarily be the same blocked user.

Thank you. Regards, Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 02:35, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm afraid there's not much I can do. If there's enough recent disruption, you can file a report at WP:SPI. The oldest account is HungryHippo1984 (talk · contribs · count). However, you may get no action as IP editing generally has the lowest priority for clerk scrutiny, which often means that the IP(s) have stopped editing before the clerks even evaluate the report.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:10, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply Bbb23. I will keep an eye on the IP address for possible further disruptive editing and I will only consider filing a report to WP:SPI if the situation with a lot of new disruptive editing becomes severe. Regards, Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 01:03, 28 November 2019 (UTC)