User talk:Bbb23

Unless otherwise requested, I will respond on this page. Please include links to pertinent page(s). Click New section on the top right to start a new topic.

CloudOver

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

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

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

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

Another possible sock?

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

Requesting your thoughts regarding a teahouse edit

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

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

More socks?

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

9/11 Wiki

Hi, I wish that you undo your speedy deletion and let the community decide on the matter. This article is documenting part of Wikipedia history. This Wiki used to be linked from Wikipedia's front page as any of the sisters' projects. I ask that you have a look at Brian C. Keegan, High Tempo Knowledge Collaboration in Wikipedia’s Coverage of Breaking News Events, Northwestern university, 2012, pp.80-90. [1] I understand that few sources are available, but at least the decision should be made through a deletion discussion processes. Best regards.--Kimdime (talk) 07:33, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

question

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

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

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

jeunesse global deletion

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

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

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

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

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

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

Traderagency

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Follow-up

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

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

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

Regarding a recent unblock request you received Comment

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

Sockpuppetry at an AfD

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

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

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

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

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

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

Block evading IP sock from User:Itaykaufman12

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

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

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

Advice needed

Hi Bbb23,

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

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

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

Proxies

Hi Bbb23. Do you check for open proxies? If you check the recent history of this user page you'll see various IP's and one registered user defacing it (all blocked now). The registered user claims to be using a proxy. [2] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:12, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Yung Trace

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

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