User talk:Bbb23

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Blocked user Kingcutie under new sockpuppet HDClear

It appears that user Kingcutie is once again vandalizing his brother's wikipedia page under sockpuppet HDClear, for which he was previously banned by you.

It's not entirely clear to me how to proceed with bringing attention to this.

WIKI PAGE: Har Mar Superstar

OLD USER: User:Kingcutie

NEW USER: User talk:HDClear

Antonio Ferrara (criminal)

Hi, I'm just writing as I did the NPP review for this page before it was deleted per WP:G5. I remember it being a well written and sourced page. I'm just wondering, is there any way the page can be brought back? I checked WP:REVDEL but it seems the process does not apply here. Broc (talk) 08:40, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

REVDEL is irrelevant to page deletion - it addresses deletion of individual edits. The policy closest to this situation is WP:BANREVERT, meaning generally if an editor asks that a G5-deleted page be restored, usually it is. In this instance, my view is the article is reasonably written and sourced, but I'm not sure the person is sufficiently notable. There isn't much to it, really. He's a criminal...he escaped from prison. What about my restoring it to draft space? It looks like it could be beefed up based on the article at the French wikipedia: fr:Antonio Ferrara.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:40, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for replying. While the page was rather short, I saw the French Wikipedia entry and was convinced of the notability of the subject. I would agree to restoring it to draft space, I could expand it a little based on the French article. Broc (talk) 07:45, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
Just a note to say thank you for all you have done for Wikipedia. Magnolia677 (talk) 15:27, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]


3RR

I admit having unintentionally provoked User:M S Hassan while trying to remind him of the three-revert rule which had got him blocked. But maybe you could have used WP:PROVOKE as a reason for reverting my edit. I probably wanted to show whether I was well-versed in the rules of Wikipedia or not. Apologies. We are the Great (talk) 20:04, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kind reminder

First of all, thanks for responding on my talk page when I couldn't on my behalf. I really appreciate it. However, when you do, I politely ask that you use {{tpw}} or {{tps}} when you do, so other users can discern when I am responding and when someone else is responding on my behalf. (I have updated my editnotice too with a reminder to use these templates.) Thank you, though. — thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 21:24, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to remember, but I don't make any promises. It's really not necessary: I sign my posts.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:28, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No worries! Thanks for responding anyway. — thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 00:18, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Frivolous" Reports

Interesting to note you said "many of these reports you file are frivolous", and yet when I clicked on every report I made to AIV/UAA on the first and second page of my contribution history as a sample, only one was not blocked because it became stale (the one you declined was subsequently blocked by another admin). I then expanded my history to randomly click on reports and detected no obvious issues with my reporting.

I might have taken your comment if you had said it should have gone to UAA instead of AIV (although this has also been debated with many admins in the past). We can agree to disagree on that one report but respectfully your accusation does not quite standup to my editing history. Unless I am mistaken, I am also not aware of you bringing any concerns to my attention either on my or your talk page in the past.

The amount of spamming on this site (esp. stealth spamming as opposed to blatant spamming) has exploded exponentially over the past few years and yet good faith reports like mine appears to be read as I am the one that's the problem, which is rather bewildering. Admins like yourself are the reason why many long time editors are abandoning the project, and I am on the verge of retiring myself. Cahk (talk) 21:26, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apparent block evasion

Bbb23, can you please deal with 93.40.209.94, which is apparently being used to evade a recent block you applied to User:Arbe21 21? Their problematic edits in Epirus and Dorians are identical to those of the aforementioned user. Thanks in advance for your time. Demetrios1993 (talk) 07:04, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Besides 93.40.209.94, now there is also User:Rakovic123hamzi, who was created less than an hour ago, just to restore the same problematic changes that were formerly attempted by User:Arbe21_21 and 93.40.209.94. Some form of page protection might also be warranted at this point. Demetrios1993 (talk) 08:20, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've blocked and tagged the named account as a sock. I've blocked the IP for one week for block evasion. Now they are blocked, I'm not comfortable protecting Epirus because I don't know if the edits by other IPs are disruptive. You can always request protection, though, at WP:RFPP. Dorians is a no-brainer; no protection is needed at this point.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:52, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for dealing with this. I should have elaborated that I was referring to Epirus when I suggested for page protection; indeed, Dorians hasn't suffered a similar scale of disruption. If it continuous, I will heed your advice and make a formal request via WP:RFPP. Epirus was actually a mess, following a mix of disruptive and constructive edits. I also don't know what to make of 46.99.251.6, who restored the same problematic versions (both in Epirus and Dorians), but geolocates to a different country than the blocked 93.40.209.94. Demetrios1993 (talk) 18:13, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Catanzaro Cosenza 4 a 0

Hi, why was this sockpuppet case deleted with no merging? I see someone mentioned the accounts were blocked at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/14 novembre, but I'm surprised that the content of the investigation itself wasn't merged, as I suggested on the page. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 21:29, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was simpler. It didn't make sense to merge.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:18, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Advice

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&diff=prev&oldid=1225921480: so what should I do now? I have never reported users on their discussion pages if I remember correctly. What should I do now? Undo his edit and send him a warning? And, more importantly, what warning should I send to him? JacktheBrown (talk) 14:53, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The user's edits don't strike me as vandalism. Are they unreliably sourced? You already have a discussion on the article Talk page, but although Sapsby has responded, you haven't continued to discuss the dispute. And unless you're willing to go to SPI, drop the allegations of socking.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:11, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What I think is wrong is the imposition: these two users edited these two pages without first reaching a consensus, which is not correct for Wikipedia. Thank you for your reply. JacktheBrown (talk) 15:18, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Satish Awasthi

Hey!Bbb23, Hi there, I don't think the article Satish Awasthi are notable and this article is only created for conflict of interest and advertising on Wikipedia? what do you think about that? Happy editing ᗩvírαm7 • [@píng mє] 17:24, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's at AfD now.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:15, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Sir @Bbb23 I am just trying to only contribute but there are some contributors put some allegations on my Reletion with @Pecific0001
and I clearly certified that I don’t have any relation if my edit is Wrong please take Significant Action. Why they are blaming ? Metaxtech (talk) 18:34, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Query

Hello, Bbb23,

I just wanted your opinion on a new editor, User:Zenon.Lach. I came across an article they PROD'd and I don't think they've been editing long enough to understand Wikipedia policy though they've racked up quite a lot of edits in a couple of weeks. But it's the comment on their User page that gave me pause, that made me think that they were a returning blocked editor. I know you don't have CU goggles but I hope you can offer me your spidey sense. Thanks for any opinion you can offer. Liz Read! Talk! 00:36, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Boy, that's an LTA I haven't thought about in a while.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:56, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you identify them? I'm just curious. Thanks for the swift action. Liz Read! Talk! 01:10, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see you tagged their User page, nevermind. Weren't they once an editor in good standing that went rogue? Liz Read! Talk! 01:11, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not exactly, they were a prolific editor with a tortured history. One of the more deceitful LTAs I've had the pleasure of knowing.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:33, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

you deleted "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenny_Maidana"

Why did you delete this article? I needed this for my verified Spotify artist profile. My YouTube channel is also verified. You don't need to delete my biography. I am an independent artist! Lennyonwiki (talk) 02:21, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He didn't delete it, it's been put in the draftspace, as seen here. Also, I can see that the draft is not in English. If you want to write a draft in another language, then check to see if you can find a Wikipedia in your language. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 02:23, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@NoobThreePointOh It was A7 speedied. -- ferret (talk) 02:28, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ferret Ah, yes. Right. Forgot about that. Thanks. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 02:31, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Precious anniversary

Precious
Three years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:54, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bbb23&oldid=1226042419"