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.

ThomasMatt22 et al

I have a suspicion that this user is back in the form of Special:Contributions/JayMehta1995 and probably Special:Contributions/CollingwoodFC1980 & Special:Contributions/SteveHA. The previous incarnation had a technique of edit warring with himself, so possibly also some other accounts that already have been blocked, a couple of them you can see here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Soccer_in_Australia&action=history. I suspect 1.39.8.40 involved there is him as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.217.48.63 (talk) 22:44, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks much.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:31, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

And again it seems, Special:Contributions/JayKM22 with presumably a new IP Special:Contributions/1.39.47.82 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.132.233 (talk) 06:45, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matheus Soares

Another sockpuppet closed the Afd even though it was clearly going toward delete.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 06:23, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

HarveyCarter

Seems obvious that Hoohahhah is another HC sock. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:08, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

• Nevermind, Favonian blocked him. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:09, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Getter Saar

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

There were at least three contributions to this article (one, and the most voluminous (facts/refs filled), by etwi admin Andres), so, we made the article into article, to be in the row with other badminton players; besides that, started with deleting all copyright violation related text (resulted basically in one sentence, "X is a Y", plus infobox). Do please undo your action, thanks!—Pietadè (talk) 17:55, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Or else, I like badminton, prhps not the only 1...—Pietadè (talk)

I agree, too much paranoia is not good for Wikipedia. Florentyna (talk) 18:38, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Here is much too much paranoia in the game. I invested a lot of time into the articles of this author to make from the stubs a little bit better stubs. This is not a way good for Wikipedia like it went here. You are blocking the user and then you are wondering when he creates articles (no vandalism!!!) under a new name??? Seems that he is not an English native, so poor English can be expected. Teaching users, not penalting! Florentyna (talk) 18:46, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Enough. The article was restored.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:56, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

What was his illegitimate behaviour in the first place? Why was he blocked? I think we should restore all his stubs and unblock him. If something is to be deleted then perhaps not deletedly. Andres (talk) 19:10, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree. Too much work was deleted without consensus. Florentyna (talk) 19:14, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

66.87.77.21

Hi Bbb23,

I just wanted to inform you that this IP who you blocked has made an unblock request. I was the IP that they were claiming had edit warred. Thank you. 2607:FB90:815F:8DAD:0:0:27A:7B01 (talk) 22:19, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up and your vigilance at the RfA.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:27, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

One of the badmittion player pages made by the banned user that was not deleted

Here Getter Saar-someone deleted the speedy also (which I did restore) Wgolf (talk) 22:42, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

I declined the G5. If you look at the closed discussion about this article not too far above this section on my Talk page, you should be able to follow why. If you have any further questions, let me know. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:57, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Would you please tell me where I could continue the closed discussion? Andres (talk) 07:34, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

If I understand you properly, you want the sock master unblocked and any articles deleted per G5 restored. An unblock request should come from the blocked person. There's nothing to do without that. The master made an unblock request through UTRS, which was rejected. Why he went through UTRS rather than a normal unblock request is a mystery, but he has access to his Talk page and he can still request an unblock if he wishes. As for the deleted pages, you can restore articles if you think they are appropriate per Wikipedia's guidelines. You don't need my permission to do that.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:36, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for advice!

For a newcomer it is difficult to find the proper way, so I don't think it's a mystery that he doesn't know how to proceed. Andres (talk) 13:57, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

CheckUser enquiry

Bbb23, sorry to contact you in this way. However, I have come across a rather unusual case in which as user as stated the phrase "please do not block me again!", yet their logs show they have never been blocked before. Furthermore, a second comment by the same user states that their next block would be for a period of 1-month. How can they know that length of time if they have never been blocked before, unless they are evading a block and editing under a sock account. Any advice would be truly appreciated. Wes Mouse  ^T@lk 22:49, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Please provide diffs.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:12, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

This is when the user has said "Don't block me again". The Blocklog for "RVFan1930" contains no blocks. At that point I assumed good faith that the term "again" was a typo error. However, moments later they say their next block would be for "one-month". Solo edit from Rvfan101 (talk · contribs) to Red Velvet (band) (an Asian girl band). And what triggers a possible connection is this with a list of Asia-related "role-play" list - although I could be grasping straws on that connection. But it is the talk page comments and the clean-sheet block record, and the similarities in user name that just doesn't add up. Wes Mouse  ^T@lk 01:01, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

I can't check the two accounts because Rvfan101 is  Stale.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:45, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Hmmm, stale account. I'm guessing that is due to the lack of edits. Do you not find the comments a bit peculiar though? To say tell one person not to block them again, and then to tell another that their next block would be for 1-month as if they have already been warned the duration of their next block. Yet neither of those RV accounts have ever been blocked. I find it rather strange. Ah well, I'll let it pass I suppose. You know what they say, give 'em enough rope and they'll hang themselves. I'm sure they will slip up and the name of their blocked account will come out eventually. They have to be one crafty sock to be evading scrutiny. Thanks for checking anyway, really appreciated. Wes Mouse  ^T@lk 04:17, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Bbb23, the user RVFan1930 is now becoming a bit of a problematic user. 6 warnings in the last 5 days about adding content without providing any citations. And after checking their changes, even I could not find sources to back-up their claims. I'm wondering if a soft-block is in order as a preventative measure, as they are clearly not taking heed of the warnings. Wes Mouse ^Talk 09:36, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Question

Have you checked in on this situation yet? Particularly since the battleground mentality, dramatics, and invented conflicts with others – all issues which this user has a deep history of, chronicled at ANI – are returning. Chase (talk | contributions) 06:05, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Chase is a hound. You, as an admin, should know better not to follow a troll's advice.--MaranoFan (talk) 06:08, 19 October 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MaranoBoy (talk • contribs)

In addition to the unfounded "hound" accusation above (and in a series of recent reverts), Bbb23, please also note the personal attacks here, incivility here, and a suspicious set of anonymous user page vandalisms detailed here. Chase (talk | contributions) 06:14, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Also, the editor in question has access to their main account again, fwiw, where the disruption and incivility have continued. Chase (talk | contributions) 07:03, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Note to Bbb23, If you don't hat and archive this discussion now, the troll will make heaps and bounds of walls of text on here that mean absolutely nothing.--MaranoFan (talk) 07:14, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

OMG I found his sockpuppet..--MaranoFan (talk) 07:20, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

That's the best laugh I've had all morning. Even I can tell the difference between a legitimate alternative account (which is allowed on Wikipedia) and a sock account (which are not allowed). Perhaps brushing up on the differences first would be better than trying to play spot the difference whilst wearing a blindfold. Wes Mouse  ^T@lk 07:49, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

MaranoBoy is a legitimate alternative account, used to edit Wikipedia on public computers to maintain security. There's your explanation, Bbb23, bwahaha..--MaranoFan (talk) 08:11, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

And even I can see through that as a lie. One is your true account. The other is a sock account, because your main one was blocked. That is the definition of a WP:SOCK and quite a wiffy one at that. When was the last time they got put through the washing machine? Wes Mouse  ^T@lk 08:17, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Are you dumb or just mildly idiotic? I wasn't blocked at all. I haven't been for almost half a year.--MaranoFan (talk) 09:14, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Aquila Records

Hello, you deleted my article Aquila Records, even after I made the corrections necessary. I was still adding information to the page. I believe it was deleted due to the lack of importance of the company. Aquila records is a record label in Nigeria that houses three major music artists under its umbrella. I was going to add more information to the page, but at this point I cannot access the article. Could you please restore the page, and I will add on to the article outlining the labels importance, please. I would appreciate your assistance in this matter. Snzeakor (talk) 06:39, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

You shouldn't create an article in main space unless it is ready. If you wish to work on the article some more, I can WP:USERFY it for you and you can then submit it through WP:AFC to get feedback from other editors as to whether it meets Wikipedia guidelines. Let me know if that's you want me to do.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:40, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes could you please do that. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snzeakor (talk • contribs) 07:59, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

I just noticed that you already have a draft of this article. Why do you need another one then?--Bbb23 (talk) 12:22, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sevcohaha

Hi Bbb23. Would you mind taking a look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sevcohaha when you have the time? I believe you were the admin who issued the original block against the master. The editor seems to be contributing more positively than before and is even asking to granted autopatrolled rights at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Autopatrolled. Although I think they are sincere, they still are engaging in socking and block evasion and probably would be best to request an unblock of their master account. Perhaps there are special circumstances that will allow you to consider unblocking them or you can advise them on what they need to do to be unblocked? -- Marchjuly (talk)

Question for: Ivanvector + BBB23 - This user is a valued contributor. What needs to happen in order for the editor to be able to further contribute? cc: Marchjuly Hmlarson (talk) 20:20, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

@Marchjuly and Hmlarson: why should this be considered "special circumstances"? They were blocked for flagrant personal attacks, and continued making those attacks with sockpuppet accounts after they were blocked. The user was advised of the standard offer; had they any interest in being a "valued contributor" they would have taken it. Instead they flipped the bird at our rules and edited around their block anyway, even going so far as to request advanced permissions with a sockpuppet account, a flagrant and egregious abuse of trust. I would not support an unblock request from this editor. But do feel free to ask again in six months, I give a lot of credit to users who take the standard offer seriously. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 00:19, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: Which account was blocked for flagrant personal attacks? Hmlarson (talk) 00:22, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

@Hmlarson: see [1] and [2]. The user is blocked; it matters not which of their multiple accounts they are logged in with at the time. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 00:27, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: The first link you share is the only one to mention "flagrant personal attacks" from a 9/20/15 edit war where both users were blocked for 2 weeks. Your second link is a duplicate of what's already in 1. Per Marchjuly's original message and my inquiry, it seems appropriate in this case to advise the editor on what they need to do to be unblocked. Hmlarson (talk) 00:44, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

No, it doesn't, and this discussion is closed.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:46, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Then seems the cycle will continue endlessly. Not my cup of tea - but good day to you, sir. Hmlarson (talk) 00:52, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Just to clarify things, I was trying to play the role of devil's advocate above and find out if there were any other options available to this editor in order to provide them with accurate information on how they might be able to get unblocked. My experiences with this editor have been less than amicable, and I have added a number of their socks to the SPI. Personally, I think they should have just accepted the standard offer made by Vanjagenije, waited the required time period, and then requested that their original account (whichever one that is) be unblocked via UTRS. Unfortunately, they chose to try and circumvent the process by creating new accounts, perhaps hoping nobody would notice. I think that even now if they were to accept the standard offer and abide by it, then the community might be willing to reconsider things and give them a second chance. Sorry Bbb23 if my original post brought some unwanted drama to your talk page. I was just asking in good faith. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:01, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Ana Rute Serra

Ana Rute Serra (talk · contribs) is evading block at João Vale e Azevedo, with second sock puppet of Jose Enes (talk · contribs). User also vandalized Luís Filipe Vieira. SLBedit (talk) 18:14, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Blocked, thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:27, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Z07x10

I note that you have declined the CU as the master (I assume this is Z07x10) is stale. Please forgive my ignorance of the SPI process, but as Z07x10 is indefinitely blocked he/she won't have made any recent edits, however I am sure that the alleged socks I listed are socks of Z07x10. If the master hasn't made recent edits (because they're blocked) how are we supposed to link the socks back to them? Do I need to start this process again with the oldest alleged sock as the master? If so how can this be linked back to Z07x10 whose disruptive and abusive editting I wish to protect against? regards Mztourist (talk) 16:08, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

The matter will be decided based on behavioral evidence.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:40, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

OK, but I would have thought checkuser would be a much faster method. regards Mztourist (talk) 17:14, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

To obtain a technical finding between two accounts, you compare the CU data of one against the other. If one of them is "stale", that means there is no data for that account. Data is retained for 90 days. The alleged master hasn't edited in well over 90 days.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:18, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Mass deletion of pages by Mom393

Hi! There are some articles by Mom393 that I already edited, and I think it shouldn't be deleted like Chiang Mei-hui, Lee Chia-hsin, and Teo Ee Yi. --Stvbastian (talk) 17:17, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

@Stvbastian: The more important question is do you think the articles satisfy Wikipedia's guidelines for inclusion? If so, I'll restore them.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:21, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, and if there are any shortage i will try to fix it. Thanks --Stvbastian (talk) 17:48, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

 Done --Bbb23 (talk) 17:55, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks--Stvbastian (talk) 20:38, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi! Please restore Stefka Hargiono and Tessy Aulner articles because they are meet WP:NBADMINTON and I already edit this artilces.--Stvbastian (talk) 14:02, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

SPI

Wasn't aware of the rule that I can't change a close status of an SPI investigation, which I can't find written anywhere. What is the right way to have someone look at the link between the accounts that wasn't provable until after the checkuser was done? agtx 01:02, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Best thing is to comment as you did and ping someone, me or a clerk.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:36, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

In any event, I put the case on hold so I can review it later. That way it won't archive until after it's closed again.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:41, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Revoking talk access

I have no problem with that. It was going nowhere. I've been experimenting with this for a couple of years. It's not worth the effort now, but I hope to be able to boilerplate them one day and turn the time investment into minutes and be successful with a higher percentage. Right now I'm at about 12%, no so good. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 18:54, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Anna, I've watched you implement your system. Maybe you should patent it. :-) I think 12% is pretty good myself. Do you know I was running a check against her and found several other accounts to block. A few were using the same range with the same technical data as she was. Some people are just a waste of time. Best.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:49, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, I'd better get it to work a little better before I patent it. :) As for who is who, it was clear to me the whole time, of course. My aim was simply to help her understand what an utter, utter waste of her precious life this has been. I sure hope she tries Wikia. Best wishes, my friend. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:23, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Nairspecht

Hi B, I'm curious about the Nairspecht case. Could I trouble you to please comment on his page to clarify what generally you found that led to his block? And does his explanation that he might have edited at work make a difference in terms of plausibility? I do notice the intersecting articles, but I also notice that Vini2611 marked all his edits as minor and didn't use edit summaries while XFLRG6174 used copious edit summaries and not too many minor edits. Any info is appreciated. Thanks mate, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:00, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't comment.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:03, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

OK. Thanks for responding. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:05, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb: I can say one thing. Of the five socks, three were the most obvious behaviorally. You picked out one of them (XFLRG6174); the other two were Sonixgirl and Sportonion555. Sonixgirl and Nairspecht even edited the same AfD. I don't think you can expect that all the voicing details will be the same. That's often so in many socking cases. Indeed, in one instance here one sock reverted another sock. I actually found that more persuasive in support of socking.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:27, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Sock

Hello. An impersonator (Thosam.W (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) has just been blocked, showing all the usual signs of being an Evlekis sock (check the contributions), so there might be more of the same. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk

Tonight's "block count" is now three. So far... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk

17th Satellite Awards

Would you be willing to redact the recent edit summaries at 17th Satellite Awards, per WP:CRD #2? I left the editor who wrote them a very firm talk page message, so hopefully they will stop. Thank you very much. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:44, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

That really is very odd. Done.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:18, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

TheMagnificentist

Dear @Bbb23:, would you please unblock @TheMagnificentist:. If he's starting edit wars, I'm not condoning it, but he can stop. TheMagnificentist is a GREAT Wikipedian. I wouldn't be advocating for him if he was really a reckless user. Please acknowledge and consider my request and reply soon. Thank you. Infopage100 (talk) 02:48, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Except in unusual circumstances, I never unblock someone who hasn't made an unblock request. This user was already going over the edge. He was sternly warned about his conduct by another administrator. He then proceeded to go over the edge, at which I point I blocked him. Edit-warring wasn't the immediate trigger for the block.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:21, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

@Bbb23:, ... Why not give him one last chance? He obviously does and has done a lot of bad things, but he also has done a lot of good things too. Has he requested an unblock? .... Infopage100 (talk) 17:44, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	Good block here by the way.[3] Thanks for all you do. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:12, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Jim.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:22, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Hugh Jackman sockfarm

Since you edit the article and are familiar with the case, I thought I'd cut out the middleman of SPI and post here. We have another rather obvious sock of Roarkp, the editor who endlessly tries to post the "Sexiest Man Alive" thing on the Jackman article, is obsessed with Wolverine, etc. Eyesweetsugarcandy started with some diversionary edits, but the bulk of his editing has been on Hugh Jackman, his first being this "succession box" for "Sexiest Man Alive", which appears on no other article at all: [4]. Edit-wars on Hugh Jackman over trivial irrelevancies he has added. Created Broadway To Oz, which stars Jackman, edits the Wolverine articles, etc. Softlavender (talk) 06:34, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

@Softlavender: Good catch. I'd noticed him around, particularly because of the username, but it's been so long since the last sock I didn't make the connection. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:56, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Just dropping a note

Hope this is okay! :) --QEDK (T ☕ C) 08:51, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Can you refresh my memory? I don't see when you went from active to inactive.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:57, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm not aware of who made that change either. --QEDK (T ☕ C) 15:52, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Ah, it was you. I have high school on top of work and co-curricular so I tend to take frequent breaks, that time (May) must've been when you moved my name. --QEDK (T ☕ C) 15:55, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

I think you said something about being inactive on the training group work page, which probably has been deleted. Anyway, good to see you back. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:15, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Ahh, that was in January-Feb-March, when I was having my first standard exams (we have 2). But I worked quite diligently for a while after that. It was the break after that which got me moved, I guess. Anyway, the current pace (which is almost nothing compared to real actives) is what I intend to continue since I can't afford any more time on this project. --QEDK (T ☕ C) 16:20, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

You deleted my message.

Why did you delete the "good luck" message I sent to @TheMagnificentist:???? Really??? What the FaCK??? And yes, I meant to say, FaCK. You can't just randomly delete someone else's messages. Delete your own. Not mine. Infopage100 (talk) 14:27, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

I reverted it again. Please don't re-add it. It has nothing to do with the good luck part but for privacy reasons. I suggest you use the Wikipedia interface to send the other editor an e-mail.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:42, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

• Reply - Then can you submit a link of the Wikipedia interface via this talk page?

Infopage100 (talk) 14:57, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

• Go to the user's userpage. On the left under Tools, you should see a link "Email this user". Click on that. This will work for any editor who has registered an e-mail with Wikipedia.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:03, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Reply - I can't find the tools. Is that something exclusive to the desktop version?Infopage100 (talk) 17:41, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Maybe this will help to fit your situation: WP:EMAIL.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:46, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Reply - Hey @Bbb23:, sorry for being a DuCK. I know now why you kept deleting my messages. Next time I won't be such a DuCK about awkward situations like this one. Hope you're not mad. A sincere apology from Infopage100 (talk) 01:19, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Nope, not mad. I'm glad you understand now.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:24, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Reply - I feel like a JoCKarS. Thank you for not being mad at me and also for correcting my JoCKarSEDNESS.Infopage100 (talk) 01:45, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Abdu Kiba-a page on the new page feed that links to a sock puppet report

Here Abdu Kiba, I'm not sure though if this is made by a previously banned user or not-figured you can go check this though! Wgolf (talk) 22:03, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

It was, thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:53, 24 October 2016 (UTC)