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.

Regarding this SPI

Hey Bbb23,

Someone else randomly just closed this SPI even though absolutely no evaluation has been made yet by any moderator or any SPI staff. Is it going to be done anytime soon? I can guarantee for 110% that those accounts are linked together, if only someone would read through the extensive evidence provided. Therefore I would like to ask for it to be re-opened until someone at least can look at it for once. I was waiting all the time for SPI staff to evaluate it, and now it just got closed without any evaluation or any comment on the material or whatsoever. Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 09:39, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

• (talk page stalker) Richwales has been an SPI clerk for longer than even I was aware that SPI was a thing. You could probably ask him about the close and inquire as to whether he'd like to reopen to case or evaluate the evidence. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 09:52, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

• @Salvidrim!: How dare you call SPI a "thing"? Everyone know it's a thingamajigger. Thanks for helping out.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:35, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

@Salvidrim:, hey, thanks for your recommendation; I just did. :-) If only someone would read through it...especially those parts where I put his diffs right next to those of the previously CU blocked socks and the master himself. If Krzyhorse22 is not another sock of Lagoo sab, then all the previously CU blocked socks mentioned on the page should be unblocked, basically. Just to show how immensely compelling the evidence is. - LouisAragon (talk) 09:56, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

I closed this SPI because no one had done anything to it in over a month. If another SPI clerk wants to reopen and re-evaluate it, I certainly have no objection. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 02:36, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

@Richwales:, the thing is; it (the evidence) has never been evaluated, so it can't be "re-evaluated" in every sense of the word.. Or course no one commented on it anymore as we had done our part and it only needed SPI evaluation, something which never happened. Yet it got closed. What else does the SPI staff expect me to further comment on it? Place another 50 diffs while no single comment has been regarding the earlier 50 diffs? Just to keep the "convo" alive? Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 19:30, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

If some SPI clerk wants to take a look at this SPI, with a view toward reopening it, I will not be offended. @Bbb23:, @Vanjagenije:, @Mike V:, @Salvidrim!:, what do you think? Is there some reason (not obvious to me) why no one wanted to touch this case? — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 19:56, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

@Richwales: Fixing a ping to a previous post will not notify anyone. Salvidrim!, consider yourself pinged.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:58, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Wanted to add; it's as if everyone is just evading it, to just get the material not evaluated. I mean, so much time has passed ever since I completed filing all evidence there. Sure, it's some reading (aka "effort"), I won't deny, but still. Kinda unfair regarding the time and effort I put in it to just to close it without any action. Especially as the sock for 100% passed the behavioral duck test, as seen in the provided evidence. - LouisAragon (talk) 19:50, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Speaking for myself, I rarely do full-scale behavioral evaluations since I've become a CheckUser, and the evidence in this particular SPI is long. It wouldn't suprise me if its length (as LouisAragorn says "effort") isn't playing a role in its being untouched (we are human after all). Also, it's not necessarily true that no one has evaluated it. Someone may have done a partial evaluation and not been able to make a determination they were comfortable with. That would happen in the background, and no one except the evaluator would know it.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:44, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Most likely Bbb23. Many options are possible. Another one could be that perhaps I should've put the dead giveaway diffs more at the top, instead of all the way down, or towards the way down. Its some 50 diffs after all, and some of them are of rather top quality, while others are more of the "generic" material that clearly links all accounts together. For example, these diffs listed down here, are some of the more neat ones, and they are listed pretty much all the way down. (I'm just linking them here once again if you don't mind, as they might spark some further interest from other SPI staff)

 Removed

- LouisAragon (talk) 21:32, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I reviewed the case and wrote my comment. I agree with the closure. Vanjagenije (talk) 17:34, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Vanja, I've archived the case.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:21, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

If the SPI staff for sure thinks that the provided evidence is not strong enough, then obviously I won't dispute that. Idk, especially regarding the diffs I placed here on Bbb23's page, I don't think I've ever seen anyone before on Wiki literally reinstating such specific comments by a well known master without actually being a sock him/herself. And not even mentioning the very specific type of slurs as seen in the case, amongst others. That's why I also said that basically Fareed30 and Mohd Rfus should be unblocked, if Krzyhorse22 would be supposedly unrelated to Lagoo sab, as in my opinion there is simply too much overlap on multiple fronts. Furthermore, it's not the first time the user in question gets linked to Lagoo. I believe this was the third time. Oh well, I would like to thanks everyone for the effort. As the saying goes, sooner or later they all get caught anyway. Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 19:30, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Could you point me an admin who specialized in neologism?

There's an person, user:NearEMPTiness, who has a sideline in making up words, adulatory COI auto-(and family)-biographies, and hyperspecialized usages, who has again put a neologism as the title of a new article, Trolleyboat.

As even a casual glance will show, this isn't a standard English word, and the few uses found are for something else entirely, a morphodite half-breed of a DUKW and a streetcar. Anmccaff (talk) 18:06, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I haven't a clue.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:53, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Me neither. Is there someone who specializes in wp:OR? That's the underlying problem, in Wiki-ish. Anmccaff (talk) 01:06, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

50.29.199.144

Hey B, what do you make of this guy? I saw that you reverted at least one of his edits a few days ago. It looks to me like he's going around flagging sock accounts as globally locked. I notice some gravedancing in his past. I suppose stuff like this could be helpful, but a very weird area of interest. Any thoughts? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 07:39, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb: I didn't just revert him. I blocked him and then based on his promise to behave unblocked him. I've just blocked him again for two weeks, and I'm not going to unblock him this time.

Do you have any success with mass rollback? The last time I used it, which was quite some time ago, it was awful. I'd like to rollback all of his tagging regardless of the merit of it. Examining each edit is a waste of time. Can you do that?--Bbb23 (talk) 13:57, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Rolled it all back. One remains--he created a talk page related to a sock investigation. I'll just leave it. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:31, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb: Oops, I didn't mean you to roll back all of his edits, only the ones related to sock puppetry. Ah well, not the end of the world. I deleted the Talk page because it related to the tagging issue. Also, I had already rolled back one by one the tagging ones after I replied here because I got annoyed when I learned more about him. BTW, what do you use to do the mass rollback, and do you find it works well? Can you do it selectively?--Bbb23 (talk) 18:37, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

LOL—Ahh, communication. :) I've inadvertently just caused another editor, Yankees10 the extra work of reverting my reverts, presumably because some of the edits made by the IP were sound. Sorry Yankees10! Just so we're on the same page, I used User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/massRollback.js. Before I became an admin it was useless to me. I'd click it and then have to click through each edit individually. It does work OK now, although sometimes it doesn't rollback everything. Sometimes that's because an editor might change X to Y in one edit, then Y back to X in the second edit, (no net difference) but sometimes it's because the tool jams. No selectivity, unfortunately, and I really wish it prompted me for an edit summary, so I could clarify, "Mass rollback of disruptive IP's edits" or some such thang. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:49, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Opinion

Hey, I'm bothering you again. I previously asked for a CU to link user WillShowU to WikiBriefed. I'm no longer convinced that they're the same person. However, based on some editing patterns, I now think that the master for WikiBriefed could be AniceMathew. (Both seem really chatty and condescending in edit summaries, both tend to issue edicts about references, their edit summary typography is similar [excessive and misuse of ellipses] and so forth.) The question is whether or not the most recently identified AniceMathew sock, RameshNambiath edited recently enough (August 2015) for there to still be enough data to make the link? I'm also going to look further into the Ambeinghari accounts to see if there's a link. WikiBriefed's behavior is peculiar enough that I feel like he's a sock of someone, it's just a matter of getting through the soup. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:51, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

RameshNambiath is stale, but Ponyo blocked based on a combination of the checkuser log and behavior. But don't leave a post for Ponyo until she's back on-wiki.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:08, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Barlondo

You don't like the citation? It's a quote from her, it's insufficient? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.7.5.208 (talk) 16:40, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't see a quote. I see an outrageous description by you that is a clear WP:BLP violation. Also, Facebook is not a reliable source. If you persist, you risk being blocked as has been made clear on your Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:44, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Take a look, she said it: https://www.facebook.com/mohammad.hamad.75/posts/1028656247193421?comment_id=1028672027191843&comment_tracking={%22tn%22%3A%22R9%22} — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.7.5.208 (talk) 17:00, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Dfunk006

Hi Bbb23, could you take a look at and provide your view at User_talk:Dfunk006? @Kuru: says you've expressed other concerns so your input would be good as the blocking admin, especially since it's a checkuser block. only (talk) 23:26, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Anhinhhhd SPI

The phone number 1 800 235 6302 appears to be connected with http://windowsithelp.com/ - would it be an idea to add them (and the UK number 0-800-086-9133 too) to the filters? The name Lalit Singh also comes up with them, but there might be more of that name that aren't involved. This is widely spammed. Peridon (talk) 16:17, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

@Peridon: Sorry for the belated reply. I don't know much about edit filters. Probably better to ask someone else.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:05, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

And there was me thinking you knew it all... I did something to a blacklist once, but what and how I can't remember. I'll try JBW - he probably knows a man who can if he can't. Peridon (talk) 11:12, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Question

Hello. How can I reopen a sockpuppet investigation? I want to reopen this. Thanks. --Bleckter (talk) 00:56, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Go to WP:SPI. Follow the instructions for opening a report. When you enter the master's name, it will automatically reopen it for you. You just fill in the rest as required (alleged puppet or puppets, evidence, etc.).--Bbb23 (talk) 01:08, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Deletion review for Love & Devotion (Michael Bow song)

User:VegasCasinoKid has asked for a deletion review of Love & Devotion (Michael Bow song). Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. —Cryptic 04:24, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Z Naik

You reverted an edit by an IP editor. The change made by the IP editor was as follows:

• (Original) Naik preaches that the dissemination of other religions within an Islamic state must be forbidden because (he believes) other faiths are incorrect, so their propagation is as wrong as it would be for an arithmetic teacher to teach that 2+2=3 or 5 instead of 2+2=4.
• (Changed) Naik preaches that the dissemination of other religions within an Islamic state must be forbidden because (he believes) other faiths are incorrect, so their propagation is as wrong as it would be for an arithmetic teacher to teach that 2+2=3 or 6 instead of 2+2=4.

The source cited says:

I ask the non-Muslims, suppose you are the principal of a school and you intend to select a mathematics teacher. Three candidates come and you ask them, what's the total of 2 plus 2? The first replies: 2 plus 2 equals 3. The second answers: 2 plus 2 equals 4. And the third one answers that 2 plus 2 equals 6. Now, I ask these non-Muslims, will you allow the candidate to teach in your school who says that 2 plus 2 equals 3 or that 2 plus 2 equals 6?

In my opinion the IP editor made a good edit.-- Toddy1 (talk) 19:50, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

No problem. It's about as trivial as it could be, but we should hew to the source. I didn't go to the trouble you did.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:33, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Userfy?

Hey, can you userfy this for me in my userspace? I'd like to see if I can work it into something. Thanks! Montanabw^(talk) 04:06, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

 Done. See User:Montanabw/Karuna Hospice.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:40, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

The latest Rolandi sock

Hi Bbb23, can you check the following account: Lostrigot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) created Dec 31st [1], created just three days after the most recent Rolandi sock was blocked [2]. Edits similar articles, e.g. Panagiotis Kone [3] [4]. The new account's name, Lostrigot, sounds very similar to the Laestrygones, creatures from the Odyssey, a subject Rolandi had shown an interest in [5]. Thanks in advance. Athenean (talk) 21:38, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

@Athenean: That was a lot of work. The account is  Confirmed to Rolandi+, along with a few others, but in deleting the newly created pages of the socks, I came across another sock of another master (they share certain things in common behaviorally), and I had to deal with that as well. I gotta go rest. Regards.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:55, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your hard work. Btw, is there anything that can be done to prevent new socks from this guy, like a rangeblock or something? He just keeps creating new ones all the time. Athenean (talk) 01:03, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Repeat of the game

Hello Bbb23!

On 18 October of last year, you intervened on my talk page [6], and I believe you may be able to help in the situation developing, I am suspecting, with the same individual, at the Louis XVI of France article. Please check last edits of yesterday from here [7] to here [8]. Method, style, English, plus an obsession of pushing importance of overbearing details on physical appearance lead me to believe this is the person dealt with last August [9].

Please note that I did not revert or continue to edit the Louis XVI article, as I do not want to reproduce the situation we were caught in at the Marie Antoinette article, which lasted for months, with unending discussions on the talk page[10] as the article was being held hostage: one of the reasons I am declining to go to the Louis XVI talk page & get caught in same situation with same individual: I refuse to enter his game.

Note also that same individual signs in with a new name & works only on one article, quickly turning it into a battlefield. His notes on my talk page (Marie Antoinette & Chartres) plus the one you removed show what he is capable of.

Best regards, --Blue Indigo (talk) 08:51, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

@Blue Indigo: You were correct to come here rather than to continue the edit war. You're also right about Michelbassil (talk · contribs · count), which is  Confirmed to Aubmn (talk · contribs · count). Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:51, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Glad that, thanks to you & other administrators, I learned how to handle such situations. Thank you again & best wishes for 2016. --Blue Indigo (talk) 18:10, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Alexiulian

Hi, just checking to see if this is true? Did you give permission or is it a new sock of Alexiulian25 (talk · contribs)? Qed237 (talk) 19:51, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Heh, there sure is a lot of commotion over there.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:43, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

UTRS appeal from User:M.srihari

Hi - this was the next in the queue, so I took it and thought I'd run it by you as the blocking admin. He seems to have given you a couple of gray hairs. ;-) I'm not impressed with the appeal, but I'm open to the standard offer if he agrees to not sock and to conform with copyright policy. Let me know your thoughts. Katie^talk 22:28, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

@KrakatoaKatie: Heh, they were a bit contentious on their talk page, weren't they? I agree that they can request an unblock in six months with the limitations you expressed and with my doing as much of a check as I can at that time regarding continued socking. I don't think we should promise an unblock, just that it wouldn't even be considered until six months have elapsed. When should the six months start in your view, and how would they request it (their Talk page access is revoked currently as you no doubt know)?--Bbb23 (talk) 23:50, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Why are you removing other's comments from my talk page?

Who are you to removing comments from my talk page?

Please don't remove comments from my talk page. It's not your talk page. Why did you remove them? 88.212.206.110 (talk) 14:16, 20 January 2016 (UTC)