User talk:Bbb23/Archive 41

You may already be checking

I have an AIV report in on AhmadFauzi. Can you look into it for me? Thanks for any help Tiderolls 13:41, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

• Never mind. Handled. Tiderolls 13:42, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

• Heh, I was about to block the account but I was beaten to it.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:43, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Accounts

This user has two accounts User:Akshayrakate18, User talk:Akshayrakate12. As he has numbered them as 18 and 12, I think maybe there are other accounts. --Marvellous Spider-Man 14:27, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Deletion of Emile Rajaona Page

Hi, I just wanted to know why you deleted the Emile Rajaona page for the reason that it lacks significance despite me reiterating to you that he was one of the most influential figures of Madagascar after the end of the French colonial rule? I even provided public evidence... Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hippolyte Genet (talk • contribs) 03:29, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Until you learn more about Wikipedia, I suggest you use WP:AFC to write articles in draft or your user space so more experienced editors can give you feedback before they are moved to article space.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:45, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Douglas Booth

Hello,

I noticed you reverted my edit about Booth having a relationship with Bel Powley. I even provided this source from the Los Angeles Times, which refers to Booth as Powley's "boyfriend." It might not prove they're in a relationship, but it does prove that they've dated at least. Now the Los Angeles Times is a reliable source, so why did you revert it? Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 02:33, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

If you want to find a reliable source that says they're still in a relationship, that would probably be fine. Otherwise, it's a blip.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:40, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean but it doesn't matter because I'm letting it go. Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 14:59, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Tofder

This new user appears to me to be Special:Contributions/Max_Arosev, could be wrong but using some of the same sources for the same issues and crediting reverting of max arosev's work as "possible vandalism" seems suspicious.18abruce (talk) 21:31, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Blocked. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:51, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Searching SPIs?

Hi again :-)
Can you tell me how can a user search for old SPIs? And is it possible to search by usernames? Recently, (noping) Tyler Durden was blocked who edited few articles that I am interested in. So taking a look at his SPI case will be useful if he comes back again. Thanks a lot. (Kindly ping me when you reply.) —usernamekiran(talk) 22:32, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

@Usernamekiran: You can search at WP:SPI. In this instance, you'll find another SPI that mentions Tyler Durden but not a case for Tyler Durden.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:41, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Straw

Hello Bbb. I have no objection to deleting the whole paragraph (or, for that matter, the whole article), but to leave it as it was is a BLP violation. Regards, Kablammo (talk) 23:11, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Were you okay with my last edit? I can't simply delete the article, and I agree with you that it was a BLP violation the way it was. I'd be inclined to delete the paragraph though as the suspension didn't stick anyway and it's based on a primary source. Your thoughts?--Bbb23 (talk) 23:16, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that's fine. Since the dismissal makes it a non-event, let's delete. Thanks. Kablammo (talk) 23:19, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Another pepe

Save.the.pepe, looks like a candidate for a DUCK block. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:21, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

And Ponyo just got them. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:22, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

SPI harassment

ALPHA BOB strikes again.[1] 10W41 (talk) 00:17, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Deleted contribs as additional evidence

Hey Bb, When you commented here on those accounts, had you seen this page creation by the confirmed account and this page creation by the other? It is a little different but not that much. There is a new thread at ANI which is why I'm looking into this.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 22:48, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

@Berean Hunter: I'm lucky I remember what I did yesterday. If you want me to recheck the account, I can.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:58, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I rechecked. The technical evidence remains consistent and with more of it even more unlikely that PI is related to ShinySquire. However, I did uncover a pretty new account that I believe is a sock of PI, EH1092. Technically, it's obvious, and I think the behavior is close enough to cinch it. I'm inclined to block the sock and indef PI on that basis. Your thoughts?--Bbb23 (talk) 23:37, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Is that account spelled correctly? I'm not seeing EH1092 as registered.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 23:51, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, Eh1092.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:00, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Spot on. Everything seems to be painted with a big controversial POV brush. This editor has an agenda. PI=Eh1092 and I endorse blocking.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 01:25, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Steelgym

Hi there. I see you have been involved in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Steelgym. I wanted to raise some additional developments. While user SteelGym has rightly been blocked for a promotional/shared username violation, it would appear that the related COI may remain unresolved. Since the block a new user, Sobhakarthik, got involved in creating a new new article for SteelGym and editing Kunal Gir. It may be assumed that this is the replacement of user SteelGym. It appears that this new user and the IP addresses are likely related to the blocked user. Now while I agree that there are no concerns here from a username violation perspective, I have a strong suspicion that the editors have an undeclared COI and sockpuppetry concerns may still exist if the new user continues promotional edits around the related topics. I'm also including @There'sNoTime: who administered the original block. Regards, _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 09:04, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

@Jake Brockman: May be worth an SPI for this one, seems rather ducky though. I've deleted the article, and will leave Bbb23 to comment on SPI/CU -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 10:15, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Yemeni Civil War

Quick question no need to argue I thought exemption #1 and #4 of WP:3RRNO allowed me to fix my revert.Chilicheese22 (talk) 15:17, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. Which edit "fixed" your revert?--Bbb23 (talk) 15:22, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Ok first would like to say willing to undo it just trying to understand so I don't make the same mistake again. I made the first revert and then edited are you talking about that one.Chilicheese22 (talk) 15:26, 21 June 2017 (UTC) Bbb23

Please don't respond on both your Talk page and mine. It would have been better to leave it on your Talk page as that's where it began, but we've moved a little further here, so let's keep it here. You need to include diffs when you mention above "first revert" and "then edited" so I understand what precisely you're referring to. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:29, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Ok I apologize for any inconvenience. I am talking about [2] and [3]Chilicheese22 (talk) 15:37, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

I assume you're talking about the later revert as "fixing" the first? How did it not continue the revert rather than "fix" it?--Bbb23 (talk) 15:40, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Well simple I wrote that when I had reverted, one of the edits had been lost and I was simply adding it in. To be precise it was this edit [4] Chilicheese22 (talk) 15:44, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, got it. So that means your first June 20 revert was more than 24 hours before your latest revert. I am not going to block you, but I feel it only fair to warn you that just because you didn't violate 1RR doesn't mean you can't be blocked per the general sanctions on that page. In effect, you're gaming the system. You're not entitled to wait more than 24 hours and then revert; you make your intentions clear in your edit summary. It's still disruptive and still subject to sanctions.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:07, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello Bbb23 and Chilicheese22. When I noticed the edit war about the infobox, finding that the recent disputes are between new users (with well under 500 edits) I've been thinking that Yemeni Civil War (2015–present) might deserve WP:Extended confirmed protection. The fact that the article is covered by WP:GS/ISIL suggests that the community would be open to special effort by admins to tamp down any disruption there. EdJohnston (talk) 16:11, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Once I started digging deeper, I realized that the template wanted by the others was recently created and probably a policy violation. See this discussion.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:14, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, I have no ill intentions, the problem is that user:contravenum is putting factually incorrect information. For example his version has the Supreme Political Council with the houthis flag which is incorrect because that is implying that the Supreme Political Council is only made up of Houthis when in reality there are many political movements included in the Supreme Political Council (i.e. GPC)(Also considered by themselves and many people in Yemen to be the legitimate government). An there is many more corrections that need to be made, this is only one of many and I have no problem debating him on the Talk Page in order not to get in trouble or banned, but he refuses and says a consensus was reached on the template when in reality all debates must be takin to the talk page (Also template page was created only a couple of days ago and I an many people were not aware of this and it did not include no opposing parties). If you could talk to him in order to tell him that he has to bring this matter onto the talk page or face consequences it will be highly appreciated. Thanks for everything Chilicheese22 (talk) 16:26, 21 June 2017 (UTC) Bbb23 @Bbb23: @EdJohnston:

Also one thing about the template is many people would be discouraged to update the infobox and article in general because they have to go that extra step just to update it and the article is already in dire need of being updated. Chilicheese22 (talk) 16:52, 21 June 2017 (UTC) @Bbb23: @EdJohnston:

(talk page watcher)@Chilicheese22: If I can just butt in. CC22, firstly, there is no need whatsoever to ping Bbb23 on their own talk. They get a message every time you post (which, incidentally, is four times in the last half hour). Secondly, this isn't the place to rehash the disputed content (AKA which government you are all supporting, or otherwise). Instead of 'he has to bring this matter onto the talk page or face consequences', why don't you have the conversation you are having here, there? Where it should be. Happy editing, in any case. — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 16:58, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: I apologize about the "ping" part as I did not know about that I just wanted to make sure my message was reaching them. Furthermore I have made numerous attempts to take it to the talk page, but they continually shoot down the idea. Also if you don't mind me giving my input as I have been researching the matter of the template creation I think it is a violation of WP:T3. Chilicheese22 (talk) 17:41, 21 June 2017 (UTC) @EdJohnston: @Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi:

Good one chilicheese. Actually what you mean by having 'made numerous attempts to take it to the talk page', is that actually the TP hasn't been edited for nine days, and that you 'think it is a violation of WP:T3'... because you have just seen JJMC89 tag it so :D — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 17:51, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Actually if you look back at the edit history, I wrote numerous times instead of having any edit war lets talk about it in the TP and as for the TP not being edited its because the topic has been up there since May 12th I believe, but they're not willing to debate it with me and try to come to a consensus. Furthermore, I've never said that I didn't see JJMC89 tag I simply said I searched and tried to understand what the violation is.Chilicheese22 (talk) 18:00, 21 June 2017 (UTC) @Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi:

Infobox

Hi user:Bbb23 I just wanted to bring to your attention that user:contrvenum has reverted the infobox today back to the disputed information that was currently there yesterday. An I didn't want to revert or do anything to the article before coming and consulting with you, just to avoid any unforeseen consequences. I feel that he is abusing the 24 hour revert rule because he waited as he did yesterday 24 hours and just changed it back, not wanting to talk this out on the talk page. Here are the links to his reverts. [5] [6] Chilicheese22 (talk) 21:52, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Well, you kinda gave him the idea in that edit summary of yours. In any event, I discovered he'd never even been notified of the general sanctions, so I've notified him.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:39, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Appreciate you getting back to me and addressing my concern, I just wanted to notify you and make you aware before making the revert. Furthermore, if you look at the edit summary I did warn him that if he continues it is a clear violation of WP:DISRUPTSIGNS. Anyhow, I'm sure that you will be monitoring the situation. Chilicheese22 (talk) 23:10, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Also just wanted to bring to your attention that he's already been blocked for a period of 24 hours for situations like these in which an administrator said that his next block would result in an indefinite block. Not only that, but user:contravenum goes on to respond to the administrator with obscene language then literarily has a meltdown and says he is never going to edit again and that Wikipedia is a "corrupt" place so I don't understand why he's contributing and wasting his time on a "corrupt" place. Take a look. [7] Chilicheese22 (talk) 23:41, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Max Arosev's talk page

Just wanted to know the policy behind the edit on this [| diff page in question]. A [| help page] entry from years ago states:

Edits made by a banned editor prior to their ban are not reverted merely because the user has been banned, but this may happen if there is a good reason for doing so (edits are disruptive, dubious verifiability, POV etc), it is then for the reverting editor to justify their revert. SpinningSpark 13:33, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Would this policy (if it is a policy) apply to editors who delete concerns from other editors off of their own talk pages prior to their being banned? Or does this not apply to talk pages? My justification would be that it benefits the community being able to see what other editors are bringing to this person's page, even more so after admin makes a determination that they did indeed commit ban-able actions. I know that this information is always available in the diffs, but assembling it back onto the page makes the transparency already built into Wikipedia more easily accessible to editors. A link from you to the answer for me to read on my own is perfectly fine. Thanks — Spintendo^Talk 09:56, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

UPDATE:I believe I've found the policy in question:

*When referencing other people's contributions or edits, using "diffs"— the advantage of diffs in referring to a comment is that the diff will always remain the same, even when a talk page gets archived or a comment gets changed.

So if I understand correctly the policy prefers that I use diffs when accessing other editor's deleted comments while leaving the talk page unaltered. Please advise if that's incorrect... thanks again for your time — Spintendo^Talk 11:36, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

The user has not been banned but blocked. None of what you say is relevant to events here. Generally, any user, including one who is blocked, is entitled to remove material from their Talk page. The only exception for a blocked user is declined unblock requests.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:24, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

(talk page gnome) @Spintendo: This is a mistake most of us did once (see WP:BLANKING). When I recently did, I was told of {{ow}} which can be useful to include when adding new warnings on a user's talk page, in case it can be useful. —PaleoNeonate - 14:47, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

@PaleoNeonate: Thank you both for your answers. The first step towards wisdom is for me to admit that I know nothing, and your insight helps me to rectify a lot of what I didn't know about talk page protocol. Explanations from more knowledgeable others is über-Vygotskian — which means a heck of a lot to me — more useful than "Don't do this again" which felt a little like WP:BITE, so I honestly appreciate your guys input here. cheers ♥ Spintendo^Talk 01:37, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Could you add sockpuppet tags to some already blocked accounts?

Hello, Bbb23. Could you add sockpuppet tags on to these four account's pages? The four accounts are: User:Kitfoxxe, User:BayShrimp, User:Thoughtmonkey, and the last one is User:Skylark777. All have been blocked as socks of Borock (and one was an alternate account of Borock) but just for the sake of consistency, could you add tags to all four accounts? 92.30.178.11 (talk) 17:53, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

I looked at only two of the accounts you listed. Both were KrakatoaKatie's blocks. It's her decision whether to tag them, not mine. Tagging isn't required. It's a matter of discretion.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:03, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

104.163.153.14

Not all these user's edits are problematic. On the contrary, for an IP that recently stated editing profusely, the quality of some of the edits (mostly maintenance) and edit summaries demonstrate an extraordinary knowledge of procedures, policies, and guidelines that even surpass that of many admins. The obvious concern is one of block evasion. This justifies a CU search and if positive, a discrete block, and of any other accounts or sleepers. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:55, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Accounts disrupting Steep Hill Lab

I just recently noticed that you blocked a whole bunch of accounts disrupting the Steep Hill Lab article. Recently, Shjess (talk · contribs) just showed up, too. Would you mind checking to see if this account is related to all the rest? Thank you. 223.207.244.30 (talk) 06:19, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Request

Can you put some kind of protection on Squirrel-sponsored cyberterrorism? I should have known the vandalism was going to happen but at least we can save the trouble of blocking new editors that are tempted to make changes. Thank you. Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 18:48, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

The two disruptive editors have been blocked. Let's see how it goes.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:06, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello?

Bbb23, could you please check my sockpuppet investigation casepage of Giddyonyx? I am waiting for the CheckUser to either endorse or decline it. Unlike two casepages i did request to CU, this one is not stale, so you might be even endorse it. Though, i'll give you a free decision to decline it. I hope you would come to that casepage and probably either endorsing it or declining it since i waited long for this. It made me afraid to go into Giddyonyx's target pages too, so i hoped you would make a go for it. Thank you, --SMB99thx XD (contribs) 10:20, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Forgot, i want to tell you there that also there's a sockpuppet investigation of Lrednuas Senoroc that isn't closed yet but in that casepage there is some user that said it should close now. Could you close it?--SMB99thx XD (contribs) 10:25, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for blocking without using CheckUser powers :)--SMB99thx XD (contribs) 22:37, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Deleted article Slim Chickens

Hi, could you restore this and move it to Draft:Slim Chickens? I don't know the contents of the deleted article, but I'd like to work on it and create a valid, well-sourced article. —Guanaco 01:08, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

If you don't know the content, why in the world would you want me to restore it?--Bbb23 (talk) 02:10, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

In case there's something actually sourced and worth including. If not I can start from scratch. —Guanaco 02:18, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Start from scratch. I have no idea if you even know what it is, but knock yourself out.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:21, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

TPG

Rather than reverting my comments, why not actually try to help the person asking for help. Also, WP:TPG.- MrX 18:35, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm surprised at you. The Committee is a place of last resort. You would never tell any editor, particularly an IP, to go there unless you're satisfied they've tried other measures. Did you look at the contribution history of this IP? They've been blocked twice by two different administrators. No doubt they want to complain about the blocks. This is a troll, which is why I ignored them, but you "forced" me into responding as if they weren't.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:38, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Well, no, Arbcom is the only resort now isn't it? If the IP is a troll, you should have deleted their post, not just mine. If you disagreed with my response, you could have explained your disagreement on the talk page rather than edit warring.- MrX 18:50, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Did the Committee override WP:ADMINABUSE?--Bbb23 (talk) 18:58, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

I assume that if someone says they want to report admin abuse, that they have already exhausted the usual channels for resolving such issues. I'm straining to recall an example of of the Administrators' noticeboard ever resolving admin abuse. I have no problem recalling my attempts to report admin abuse to the abusing admin. In one case I was told to drop the stick and blocked a few days later; in the other case, the abusive admin suddenly became unavailable. Both ended up at Arbcom and are no longer admins .- MrX 19:31, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Skxsxijr (FMA Drabsi Jimmy) + Delaykiller

Sorry to revive the dead horse, but are we treating these two cases as the same master or different? Just wanted to know before dealing with the former case. Thanks, GAB^gab 13:49, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Links to each case would have been helpful. My memory is separate.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:57, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Ah, right. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Skxsxijr is the one currently open, while Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Delaykiller is closed. GAB^gab 14:02, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, my memory is right for a change.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:04, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Appreciated - I wanted to double-check before tagging. GAB^gab 20:24, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Also, thanks for taking care of RodolfoTramani (talk · contribs · count) - I had my suspicions... GAB^gab 20:58, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Mafia Don in Prison at 95 years old

Bbb23 did you notice he is the oldest living Mafia Don in the USA prison system and no one has done an article on him or who he is or who he was unless the US Prison System is putting out fake news. Thank you for your help. Orangecones (talk) 05:52, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

More sockpuppets of Novonium

I spotted a couple of characteristic poorly-formatted biographical stubs while Stub-sorting - see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Novonium. PamD 07:22, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

What do you think of these links?

42.80.200.244/24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)天津小外杨连洲 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Incorporation_of_Tibet_into_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China&diff=prev&oldid=787419093
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Incorporation_of_Tibet_into_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China&diff=prev&oldid=781621561

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Born_A/Archive--delete the content

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Incorporation_of_Tibet_into_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China&type=revision&diff=783743966&oldid=783743404
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Incorporation_of_Tibet_into_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China&type=revision&diff=768990627&oldid=768491455
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Incorporation_of_Tibet_into_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China&diff=prev&oldid=768386870
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Incorporation_of_Tibet_into_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China&type=revision&diff=763625680&oldid=763393798
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Incorporation_of_Tibet_into_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China&diff=prev&oldid=760024234

Pbsavon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)--move the page

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Incorporation_of_Tibet_into_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China&type=revision&diff=673302439&oldid=673264752
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=50&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=Pbsavon&namespace=&tagfilter=&newOnly=1&start=&end=
• https://fr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=50&title=Sp%C3%A9cial%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=Pbsavon&namespace=&tagfilter=&newOnly=1&start=&end=
• https://tools.wmflabs.org/guc/?user=Pbsavon

In Sino-Nepalese War,we can confirm that he will use multiple accounts and China IP. May use these IPs.59.167.222.122 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)49.197.24.74 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)2600:387:6:805::9f (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) You can see this link and this link.--O1lI0 (talk) 07:02, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Protection needed

Constant edit warring by IPs https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nam_Joo-hyuk&action=history — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.243.213.111 (talk) 02:19, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

(talk page gnome) @180.243.213.111: — Special:Contributions/180.243.213.111 — Contacting multiple administrators at a time could be considered administrator shopping (WP:ADMINSHOP). We have page to make article protection requests at a central place, in case the admin(s) you contacted cannot respond (WP:RPP). Because this is a biography of a living person (WP:BLP), asking at the related noticeboard also could help (WP:BLPN). I see that the page was already protected, though. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate - 02:52, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Clean start

Hi. I am a user at fawiki. User:Callofworld has requested me to help him continue editing at enwiki. But it seems he isn't welcomed by some users (maybe specially one). He is trying to have a clean start and has shown his good faith (I guess) by stop making more sucks in recent months. Now I want you please guide him how to make back to contributing at english wikipedia. Thanks and sorry for poor english :( Mahdy Saffar 09:14, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @Mandy Saffar: Couple of things. i) That account was olny a sock of a (User:Rowingasia) main account, and ii) WP:CLEANSTART expressly tells us that Any user who has active bans, blocks or sanctions... may not have a clean start. Hope this helps. Feel free to pass the information on :) — fortunavelut luna 13:10, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I knew what is the main account, but he edits using Callofworld now. And when will this ban be expired? Isn't it indefinite? Mahdy Saffar 16:09, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

And so I'm not Mandy! Mahdy Saffar 16:10, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes (to your question), and Rowingasia's comments coming through one of his sock accounts are worthless.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:13, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

So would you mean there is no chance of a clean start for him and he has not any right or permission to contribute at wikipedia for ever?! Mahdy Saffar 15:37, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

As you were already told, there's no such thing as a clean start for socks. Supposedly no block is "permanent", but in some cases it's highly unlikely the person will ever be unblocked. In any event, if he wants to be unblocked, he needs to log into en-wiki as Rowingasia, not as Callofworld, and make an unblock request. This is my last comment to you on this issue. I'm not dealing with a prolific sockmaster through his "representative".--Bbb23 (talk) 17:09, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I will describe him and wait to see what will be done. Mahdy Saffar 18:15, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Sockpuppet comments

Hello. Just wanted to say that the reason I opened a new investigation here is because it mainly involved two users and not an older case. Do you think I should have added it to the older investigation? Just figured that since the other user was blocked and that this appears to be a separate user, a new investigation could have been opened.--ZiaLater (talk) 01:34, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

You should always reopen the existing case. Please don't fix it now. A clerk will do it.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:39, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Ok, thank you for your prompt response. I only thought that there may be a small chance of the blocked user being related to the new users, but I know now for future reference. Thanks!--ZiaLater (talk) 01:42, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Two more

Can you block the last two? They've been sitting at aiv. Jezebel Ponyo caused major HEADCRASH on Oshwankr laptop | World's BEST ChkUser is Drmies - he is Arturo's friend. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 15:52, 1 July 2017 (UTC) Nvm, they got Widr'd.

Your recent doubt

Hi again. This might answer your doubt a little. —usernamekiran(talk) 21:04, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Suspected Lysvincent sockpuppet

Hi Bbb23. I understand you're busy, but I sent this to Materialscientist, who told me I should contact the CU who handled Lysvincent, who appears to have been you. I have a suspicion that the user JustofiedT147AG is a sockpuppet of the banned and confirmed sockpuppeteer Lysvincent (talk · contribs) (who also used "Lysvincent 2nd"). I was not sure whether this was warranted to go through a long drawn-out SPI case, and thought it may be unique as Lysvincent edited quite a few months ago. I am quite sure they are both from Hong Kong; Justofied first registered on zh.wikipedia.org, where Lysvincent also created a page. They share many of the same edit summaries and topics (EDM artists, music charts, discography edits), some of the user page markup is the same (Lysvincent created at least two accounts that he used the Picture of the Day template on). Their edit summaries are also quite similar: one of their habits of "added single" and the like in lower case letters (see here and here). One of their common topics was Weak (AJR song); Lysvincent created the page here, Justofied has edited and uploaded the cover art). Furthermore, Lysvincent created at least one account to update charts; Justofied has already set about doing this so soon after registering. Lysvincent also said one of their favourite artists was Imagine Dragons; Justofied has edited their discography quite a bit as well: here and here). Same with Axwell and Ingrosso, another of their favourites ([8] and [9]), and Adam Lambert (here and here). If you think I should file an SPI, would you please be able to look into it soon if this is not enough? I think if it is (or isn't), it should be fairly open-and-shut. Thanks. Ss112 10:59, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

@Ss112: I had virtually nothing to do with that case. I just noted that the accounts had already been blocked and closed it. From looking a bit at the history, the administrator who is probably most familiar with it is Yamla. Unless he wants to take some action, you'd have to reopen the case at SPI and it would be handled by a clerk. I don't believe there's anything a CheckUser can help you with. Good luck.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:44, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm all but certain it's the same user. For one thing, the overlap in editing is pretty compelling. And they are still running across a number of the same problems that lead to the original block; unsourced content, etc. Plus, similarities in user pages, at least early on. I'm willing to block on this basis, but value Bbb23's opinion so will refrain from doing so until Bbb23 has had a chance to weigh in. I'll be out of town for much of today. --Yamla (talk) 12:57, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Oh, I suppose I should clarify what I'm asking Bbb23 to weigh in on. Bbb23, given that I'm all but certain and do not believe an SPI is necessary for the block here, do you have any concerns with me blocking? --Yamla (talk) 12:58, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

(Random guy sneaking in) Their use of emojis in edit summaries ([1] and [2]) is also a dead giveaway. Hayman30 (talk) 13:18, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

@Hayman30: You're not just some random guy; you're the guy who filed the case. Yamla, I have no concerns with your blocking the account, but not because I've personally analyzed the behavior, but because any administrator can block for socking based on behavior, and in this case you're in a much better position to do so than someone else because you know more.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:25, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Just in addition, looks like Lysvincent/Justofied was using the IP they used to request an unblock for Lysvincent semi-regularly up until May, just before Justofied was registered. Ss112 01:28, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Peterquiel

Hi Bbb23, thank you for checking MorpheusZ. There is another suspicious editor Peterquiel who is much newer[10] than MorpheusZ but started making similar contentious edits[11] on the page. Can you please check if he is another sock or not? Jionakeli (talk) 16:49, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

RevDel request

Can I get a revdel on this? Thanks. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:27, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Contest speedy deletion for Vitaly Tennant

Good day, I do not see the link nor the button to contest speedy deletion for my article on Vitaly Tennant, could you point me to the right direction, also references are directly linked, although they may not be of proper format, but article itself shouldn't be deleted. Thank you kindly Animatictv (talk) 17:49, 3 July 2017 (UTC)animatictv

Kingdom of Catan (micronation)

As I mentioned in the talk page of the above article - how was the Article a blatant hoax? Please describe clearly how and where hoaxes or pure vandalism was made? Indeed, as I also mentioned I would accept under-referenced however hoax no. Two of the 10 references on the Article were links to letters wrote by two powerful world leaders. Please explain Johnthemicro (talk) 17:53, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Give me a reliable source, not the Catan website, that Donald Trump recognized the "Kingdom of Catan".--Bbb23 (talk) 18:14, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

The reliable source is the letter. I would of thought that a signed letter would be proof. Johnthemicro (talk) 18:24, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

A letter is a document, not a source. The source you provided was the the Catan website, which is hardly reliable. Give me a real source like the New York Times or the Washington Post or some other reputable periodical.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:26, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Un-deletion request

Hi, can I get Jordan Daley and eRa Eternity restored as drafts please. Thanks.--Prisencolin (talk) 18:16, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Here's Draft:Jordan Daley. I didn't delete the other article.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:12, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Yemeni Civil War

Hello Bbb23 (talk · contribs) I hope your doing well. Unfortunately as soon as your full protection finished today user:contravenum has already violated the one revert policy. [12] [13] [14] As you can see he has reverted 3 times which is a violation that you have already warned him in his talk page and I hope that you can either talk to him or penalize him for his lack of cooperation with other editors. Anyways I will not revert or touch the article to avoid any consequences and I hope that you can look into matter. Thanks. Chilicheese22 (talk) 01:01, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

I apologize for any inconvenience that I have caused you but should I take it to the administrators noticeboard. Chilicheese22 (talk) 01:48, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

No need. I blocked him for 48 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:10, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for getting back to me, did you revert what he did or should I do it? Chilicheese22 (talk) 02:13, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

It's not my role to take a position in the dispute. If you revert, you will probably be blocked for violating 1RR. I wouldn't touch the article if I were you and would work on WP:DR.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:14, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I won't touch the article I am trying to work on a resolution as you can see on the talk page [15] with him, but as you already know he isn't one of the easiest editors to work with. Wish me the best of luck Chilicheese22 (talk) 02:23, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Hey Bbb23 (talk · contribs) I apologize for bothering you again, but I wanted to know whether you could do something or if you could lead me to the correct page about user:ContraVenum who has launched personal attacks on my talk page [16] and on the dispute resolution board. [17] I am hoping this is the last straw for him in receiving an indefinite block as he not only overstepped his boundaries by calling me a "piece of filth" "an absolute degenerate" and "a trash human.",but refuses to apologize and no longer cares in what happens to his account. Appreciate any help. Chilicheese22 (talk) 22:12, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Yea, just cry to your master when things ain't going your way. You've managed to fuck up the Yemeni Civil War article, I thought you would be celebrating. hooray!! because you're this retarded. --ContraVentum (talk) 22:15, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Notification for Bbb23: To understand my strange response, see the prerunning discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#WP:BATTLEGROUND_behavior_and_personal_attacks_from_ContraVentum. Now you know. You banning me or not, I couldn't care less. Especially after my horrid experience with this Chilicheese guy. --ContraVentum (talk) 22:20, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi, can I get Erich Al Amin page restored please

Hello my name is Erich Al Amin. I'm a noted fashion and celebrity stylist based in Jakarta, Indonesia. You can see and review my portfolios on my official website www.erichalamin.com and https://magazine.brandoutlet.co.id/like-celebrity-fashion-stylist/ or simply google my name.

I hope you don't mind that I have my own English version of Wikipedia because it truly means a lot for people like me who works in the fashion industry.

Here's a link to my google business site http://erich-al-amin.business.site/ and my official Instagram is https://www.instagram.com/erichalamin/

Thank you so much. Looking forward to your reply! :)

Erichalamin (talk) 16:54, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @Erichalamin: Indeed, you may well be notable according to wikipedia guidelines ([18]) But it appears that you are creating an autobiography, however 'Writing articles about yourself is strongly discouraged', and it has been suggested that 'If your life and achievements are verifiable and genuinely notable, someone else will probably create an article about you sooner or later.' This is because one almost inherently has a conflict of interest when writing about oneself, and it is almost impossible to maintain the neutral tone required of an encyclopaedia by doing so. Further, if, by creating such an article, the intention is to promote oneself or one's business, then it could very much be said that this could be, by receiving goods, cash, services, or repuation, remunerated editing, which is actually in breach of Wikipedia's terms of use. In any case, creating one's CV or profile on Wikipedia for the purpose of promoting the subject is also against policy, and anything that misuses WP as a webhosting service or advertising may be deleted immediately, as of course has unfortunately been the case. Perhaps have a look at some alternative outlets for this piece? All that being said, good luck and happy editing! — fortunavelut luna 17:46, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation against Matttoms

An IP made an edit request to move their investigation into the Project space from the Talk page, to which I complied. Is there a way the original text can be recovered so a proper investigation can commence? jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) 16:58, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm sure you were trying to help, but it was missing certain header information. The case has to be created correctly, or a clerk has to fix it. I suggest you let someone else do it.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:07, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

I went ahead and did it.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:12, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Can you take action for this case? Because I may not be here following days and I want to be able to know if the case is going to be endorsed or declined. 216.189.148.184 (talk) 13:06, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Possible Sock Puppet Of Tiseptiko

Hey Bbb23 I think that User Tiseptiko has created a new account called Southrevol2007 because this account was founded only a couple of days after you had blocked Ilisiapedia and if you go and compare the two accounts, the edits they're doing is on the same pages. They also have the same editing style and continually spam edit the same pages. For example this page [19] right here after 5 days of Ilisiapedia being blocked, SouthRevol2007 shows up out of nowhere and spam edits just like Ilisiapedia, but what I think really made me suspicious of this new user is he cites the same references (Please note that this citation is of a twitter user that is not verified nor does he even have 1,500 followers) as Ilisiapedia (Ilisiapedia uses the reference at the battle of aden page to justify one of his edits here [20]) at the Abyan Conflict here [21]. I think that just reasonable suspicion is enough to connect him to User Tiseptiko if not you can always do a check user (if you need me to fill out a form for a sock puppet investigation just ask). Anyways I will continue to look into the matter and if there is anything else I will update you. Chilicheese22 (talk) 21:12, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

 Confirmed, blocked, and tagged.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:07, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Great, at least I wasn't being paranoid. Couldn't you just do wide range ip block since he is a repeat offender? Chilicheese22 (talk) 22:15, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Problem about creating new article

Hello dear admin

I have 2 accounts on Wikipedia,one in my iphone and one in my laptop. I was created new article about one famous Turkish businessesman.but after creating, the article moved to my sandboxe by an admin and after Several days me and other users improved that,I moved it to article and after 24 hours it was deleted because at before on blocked user was created that and my acc on my laptop was blocked.

since at before a blocked user was created it, now I can't create it.

I took a lot of trouble to write that's source code.about 10 days Im working on it and I can't ignore creating that.

I don't know what should I do.Please help me and guide me to create this article.

Best regards Hamedbensari (talk) 22:03, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

I need to at least know the name of the article. You have no deleted articles under this account name.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:09, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

No by my this user account: User:erhan_ali Title of article : Sedat Sönmez(Businessman)

Hamedbensari (talk) 22:13, 5 July 2017 (UTC) Hamedbensari (talk) 22:13, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Please help me and guide me

I'm waiting for your answering

Best regards Hamedbensari (talk) 23:05, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Re: RFA

I appreciate your support regarding a run for adminship; I've outlined my work record, rationale for running, answers to questions, and other pertinent bits on my talkpage. An ORCP a few months ago was favorable, but I wanted to wait a bit longer until my schedule cleared up and I was in the right mindset.

As of now, I'm very grateful for the offers of two admins - Dweller and Ritchie333 - to serve as noms. Admin abilities would remove a layer of bureaucracy by precluding my need of the "requesting admin action" status. This would greatly facilitate my ability to clerk cases.

Since we've worked together extensively at SPI, I was wondering if you might be willing to put in a few good words as a co-nom. If you are cautious about having too many co-noms, I fully understand. I am only asking because I believe that you have been in a unique position to review my SPI work. I would say that my best SPI work has probably been OfficialPankajPatidar/Ashishchopra778, Motivação, and Xdeluna. Please tell me if you disagree - I'd be glad to know.

Thanks again, and I hope you've had a happy 4th.

GAB^gab 23:17, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

That would mean you get two firsts from me. The first clerk I trained, and the first editor I (co)nominated for RfA. You're trying to broaden my horizons. A few questions. Can you link to the ORCP discussion? Are Dweller and Ritchie333 okay with my being a co-nominator (if they are, I'd like to be the third co-nom listed as I assume they will write more comprehensive nominating statements than I)? When are you thinking about doing it (hint: when would I have to write my statement?)? Just so it's clear, I would be pleased to do it if it works out that way.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:52, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Heh, I try. ORCP is here. Dweller has invited me to ask anyone as a co-nom (I had mentioned your name specifically, as I thought asking a CU was vital). The exact timeframe is unclear - I'll have to wait to hear back from Ritchie333 and Dweller. Moreover, as Dweller requested, I have reached out to a couple of editors who had opposed my previous RFA, so I'll want to hear from them, too. My best guess is in a week, +/- 2 days. I wouldn't want to rush this. Once again, thanks for your help. GAB^gab 00:02, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

I have created Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/GeneralizationsAreBad 2. I've gone over the content and deletion side of things, and I'm happy with that, but could really do with a co-nominator to talk up the SPI activities, which is something I don't know much about and can only trust what other people tell me. Imagine you're on Dragon's Den, only there are 150 Dragons in front of you and your job is to "sell" GAB as the perfect administrator to all of them - write something like that. The RfA is in "draft" mode at the moment; it'll probably stay there for a week or so while nominations and the standard questions are finalised, so there's no rush. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:22, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Looks like timing was accelerated and it's live. Good luck.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:33, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

What happened to Dweller?--Bbb23 (talk) 15:37, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/The Purplebackpack89 UCLA Stanford Terminator

When you said, "not a big deal if it's not moved", where did you want it moved to? pbp 17:10, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't "want" it moved.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:12, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

I feel like something is being implied that you're thinking but I'm not getting. Are you saying that because the addresses are all blocked and it's pretty obvious who they are connected to, it's no biggie? Or are you saying something else. pbp 17:31, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – July 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2017).

Administrator changes

Happyme22 • Dragons flight

Zad68

Guideline and policy news

• The RFC discussion regarding WP:OUTING and WMF essay about paid editing and outing (see more at the ArbCom noticeboard archives) is now archived. Milieus #3 and #4 received support; so did concrete proposal #1.

Technical news

• Fuzzy search will soon be added to Special:Undelete, allowing administrators to search for deleted page titles with results similar to the search query. You can test this by adding ?fuzzy=1 to the URL, as with Special:Undelete?fuzzy=1. Currently the search only finds pages that exactly match the search term.
• A new bot will automatically revision delete unused file versions from files in Category:Non-free files with orphaned versions more than 7 days old.

Miscellaneous

• A newly revamped database report can help identify users who may be eligible to be autopatrolled.
• A potentially compromised account from 2001–2002 attempted to request resysop. Please practice appropriate account security by using a unique password for Wikipedia, and consider enabling two-factor authentication. Currently around 17% of admins have enabled 2FA, up from 16% in February 2017.
• Did you know: On 29 June 2017, there were 1,261 administrators on the English Wikipedia – the exact number of administrators as there were ten years ago on 29 June 2007. Since that time, the English Wikipedia has grown from 1.85 million articles to over 5.43 million.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Deletion of Jon Kieran page

Hi Reddogsix, A page I created was deleted under A7: Article about a real person, which does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject. The page is Jon Kieran

URL: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jon_Kieran

I don't remember what exactly was written there but likely content was indeed missing with more details that would explain the importance and significance of the subject. Sorry, my mistake. But, that's not to say that the subject is not important - the article certainly belongs on Wikipedia, with some revisions to flush out the importance etc.

Jon Kieran has been nominated as a political candidate in the riding of Don Valley West, in the Province of Ontario, Canada to run against the Premier of Ontario in her own riding. This is significant to many people living in Ontario, and to voters researching the candidates in the upcoming Ontario election.

I would request that you please restore this page, at which point I will make sure to add the required content to indicate "the importance or significance of the subject."

Thanks,

Evank28 (talk) 21:57, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm not Reddogsix. They tagged the article. I deleted it. A nominee for a political post, without more, is not normally notable.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:04, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Sorry Bbb23. He's not just a nominee for a political post, he's already a candidate and he's running in a highly contested riding. In the same riding as the premier. He's also written numerous articles in the National Post, a major Canadian Newspaper.

He's also the former chair of the board of directors of the Canadian Solar Industry association, http://www.cansia.ca/ And former VP of Development at EDF EN - http://www.edf-en.ca/

More info:

http://www.zoominfo.com/p/Jon-Kieran/1984785941

I urge you to reconsider. Many people, voters in Ontario, would benefit from free, objective information posted on the easy to find Wikipedia.

Evank28 (talk) 00:14, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Evank28, please read WP:NPOLITICIAN. Unelected candidates do not usually get articles unless they were already WP:Notable for some other reason. The additional information you offer - has written articles in the newspaper, chair of the board of directors of an industry association - are not enough to meet the notability standard, which is found at WP:BIO or WP:GNG. --MelanieN (talk) 03:45, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Please advise on the delete of Service-Learning Asia Network (SLAN)

It came to my attention that the article, Service-Learning Asia Network (SLAN) did not "credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject". Please advise, I would like to learn from my mistake. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loststeak (talk • contribs) 14:38, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Asking for insight

Hello Bbb23, long time no talk! I have a bit of an issue that I'm not sure how to handle. For the past couple of weeks a user has been reverting many of my edits (I get the notifications), only to reinstate my changes into their own edits. A good example (there are many more like this) is here: I made this minor edit [22], which was reverted by the user [23]. They then reinstated my change into their very next edit here [24]. I politely asked the user what they were doing and why [25], and they reverted my question with the edit summary "Okay, I'm trying to start all over and see if I can make more improvements than you did" [26]. I have no clue if this is a tacit understanding for them to stop or if they are simply trying to tell me what their (misguided) mission is. I know this user has been editing frequently for some time, and this is the first time I've had any run-ins with them - I'm not sure if this is a regular issue or not, or how to handle this - but it is certainly getting annoying signing on every day to find 3 notifications of reverts only to find that my edits were good and reinstated by the user into the page...seems fishy... Thanks for any comments or help. Garchy (talk) 17:32, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

No request made to delete Roman Catholic Diocese of Highveld

Dear Administrator, please kindly remove the tag placed on the Roman Catholic diocese of Highveld for removal from Wikipedia. No such request was made by the owners of the page nor by its associates.

Thank you for your understanding. Bishopseraphim (talk) 07:08, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

(talk page gnome) @Bishopseraphim: Deletion tags can be put by anyone who considers it appropriate according to WP:CSD. In this case the article has no source (WP:RS) to indicate notability or to verify (WP:V) any of the claims. There is also no credible claim of significance (please carefully read the deletion tag message). Thanks, —PaleoNeonate - 07:53, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Acceptable user page?

Hello again. I just fell on Menj's user page and am wondering if it's acceptable, considering that it looks like a linkedin profile with external links, or a WP:FAKEARTICLE? If not, where/how should I report these, should I CSD them and let the processing admin determine? Should I alternatively request on the user's talk page that links be removed or the page blanked? I doubt that this is a case for WikiProject Spam, although interestingly I found one reference to that guy's blog at Uzair, accessed via Google cache, which I just removed. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate - 14:03, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

You would normally tag it as WP:CSD#U5, but we'll just say you did. I've deleted it.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:06, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

I remember CSDing user pages once or twice although they were not personal profiles but really company promotional tracts; thanks for confirming that promotional personal user bios are also eligible. —PaleoNeonate - 14:11, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm a moron

Sigh... just see the Marvello123 SPI. I apologize for accidentally writing over some of your CU blocks. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:04, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

I think your closure was wrong.

WP:SOCK states that "If you believe someone is using sock puppets or meat puppets, you should create a report at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations." There is strong evidence that account is a sockpuppet of a master account based on the provided link. There is also ample precedence for WP:SPI investigating instances of paid editing where socks are involved. Just because the master is unknown doesn't mean there aren't two accounts at play here.--v/r - TP 01:55, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

@TParis: Your quote is a generalized statement and doesn't envision an SPI being opened with only one puppet in search of a master. "An investigation can only be opened if your evidence clearly shows, from suspicious Wikipedia edits and/or log entries, that two or more accounts (or different IP editors) seem likely to have the same operator and to be breaching our sock-puppetry policy" (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Guide to filing cases). It is standard for single-account SPIs to be rejected. Whether it's allegations of paid editing or other misconduct is irrelevant. I have two related alternatives to suggest. First, you could contact a CheckUser privately, and they might be willing to run a check without an SPI. Second, you could post the problem at WP:ANI, which has the advantage of possibly attracting the attention of more than one CU who might then run a check. (Although I would have rejected the SPI anyway, I don't understand why you didn't request a CU. Did you expect a clerk to find another account based purely on behavior?)--Bbb23 (talk) 11:36, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

No, I didn't expect a Clerk to find another account, I'm just unfamiliar with the process.--v/r - TP 13:58, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

• The account was literally created five minutes before the article was created with proper wikitext, infobox, formatted refs, etc. -- this could not scream "sockpuppet to hide paid editing" louder even if it was named User:PaidEditingSock. Violations of the TOU must be investigated. If not at SPI with a CU check, Bbb23, what other venue do you believe the community wants these to be investigated at? Additionally, Noam Javits is the name of a well-known Israeli entrepreneur and online marketer covered by some media articles (TechCrunch news) so I'm worried this could be an impersonation/joe job attempt? ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 02:29, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
• I very much share the concerns expressed by other editors here. There are so many obvious behavioral clues here that there can be no doubt that we are dealing with a multi-account effort to be seriously disruptive to the project. Nobody is asking clerks to do searches. The request is for a checkuser examination. I think I understand the rules, and if an individual checkuser does not agree with the request, it can still be reasonable for another checkuser to decide otherwise. One way to get to that is to start contacting other checkusers individually, or to post at ANI. But another would simply be to leave the existing SPI for another checkuser to provide a second opinion, and in this specific case that seems to me to be a reasonable approach to adopt. Here is a good example of where judgment trumps strict but superficial adherence to the rules: [27]. I'm hoping that you will reconsider strict rule interpretation here. Thank you. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:19, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I will put this here, because I don't think I would be permitted to put it at the SPI page, but I think that I am seeing a possible sockmaster. Neptune's Trident showed up at the AfD for the Foundr page to argue for keep [28], and has been making many very rapid edits to the page itself to add more sources. That of course doesn't prove anything, but then they also made this edit: [29]. The edit removes a "multiple issues" template from a BLP, without fixing any of those issues, and the BLP is about an entrepreneur, just as the Foundr page is about an entrepreneurial startup. The user's talk page history shows a gigantic number of notifications about pages nominated for deletion, with each notification quickly reverted by the user. Taken together, this looks to me like a pattern that would be consistent with a user who might also be making sock accounts to create pages for undisclosed pay. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:55, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
    • To be fair, Neptune's Trident has been around for a long time and seems to write mainly on popular culture. It is possible, I imagine. I'm not sure I disagree with BBB23 here, except that the alternatives (privately contacting a checkuser or going to a drama board) don't seem very appealing. It is preferable to allow requests at SPI when a sockpuppet is publicly acknowledged, and I think that perhaps what's needed is to tweak the rules to allow SPI cases to be commenced when there is no obvious sockmaster. However, there would have to be safeguards to prevent "joe jobs" or rivals/competitiors alleging sockpuppeting by third parties, none of which appears to apply here. Also I have seen situations in which SPAs have been blocked for "abusing multiple accounts" based on purely behavioral evidence, without resorting to CU, which does present privacy concerns.Coretheapple (talk) 13:59, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
      • Although there is clear evidence that Neptune's Trident has been promoting JC Maçek III for a very long time, I am assuming that this is a personal effort rather than a paid one. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 03:12, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

I want also to continue what I said just above – about both the immediate issue with the SPI, but also reminding you of the past incident with Sizeofint – by drawing your attention as well to the discussion that, in part, involves you, at Wikipedia talk:Harassment#Linking to public advertisements to recruit paid Wikipedia editors. I am concerned that there may be a pattern here, and I hope that you will understand my concerns as good-faith. It's important not to regard the use of the checkuser permission as a rigid, algorithmic decision-making process. There are also matters of human judgment and working with a community, including a willingness to listen to community concerns. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:31, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

• Bbb23 would you please reconsider your close of the SPI? I understand the instinct and Prime Directive to protect privacy, but this is a rare case where we have very clear evidence of a recent throwaway sock account (as noted by Salvidrim -- which should be entered into the SPI case) and this person probably will continue to do the same... and I ~think~ it is recent enough that a CU could find other accounts. If you don't want to use your CU privileges to run the CU that is your judgement, but please do leave it open so that someone else can do. It is best that this is done in public and SPI is the most appropriate venue to protect against wild claims being raised. Please do reconsider. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 01:30, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Please Un-Delete Album article Relentless Mutation

Hello, Bbb23, I received an alert that you deleted the music album page I'd created for the upcoming Archspire release Relentless Mutation. The following was given as a reason for the speedy deletion: (A9: Article about a musical recording or list of musical recordings where no articles exist for the artists, which does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject) based on Wiki's Criteria for speedy deletion. I can't argue with that reason - Archspire didn't have a wiki page at the time - however, I just created one for them, and it is quite extensive and well sourced. I believe it suits wiki guidelines at the moment and I plan to build it out more. As a result, could you please un-delete my article for Relentless Mutation? Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by EmperorQuingus (talk • contribs) 18:23, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

@Drmies: I was waiting for you to come back. Could you please look at Archspire, the band article created by EQ, and tell me if you think it's notable? Technically, I should restore the album article as long as the band article exists, but, practically, it'd be nice to know if it's going to stick around. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:02, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

• After breakfast, dear Bbb. Drmies (talk) 13:17, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
• Well, that's hard to say. Strictly speaking it's a no--the sourcing is all chatty and metalziny, and they have only one album on a notable label. But at AfD you'll have someone argue that Blabbermouth is notable and therefore the press releases issued via Blabbermouth count as reliable secondary sourcing, and blah blah, so there's no telling how that might go; it should go toward delete but you never know. I will go and prune that article of chit chat. Thanks Bbb, and good luck with it, Drmies (talk) 20:56, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks, Drmies. I'll probably wait to see if the author asks again for me to restore the album. The fact that it hasn't even been released yet is a factor in my reluctance to restore it, although that's really a reason for AfD, not for A9.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:23, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

• Yep. Restoring it should be followed by an AfD nomination for TOOSOON or something like that--and given the kind of sourcing the band has attracted, a redirect per NBAND is the best they can expect. Mind you, be careful when it comes out, since it will RIP your FUCKING face OFF. Or so I'm told. Who writes shit like that? Drmies (talk) 21:29, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
• Yeah OK that's why I don't listen to metal anymore. My face is still where it is, mind you. Drmies (talk) 21:32, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

• You're not one of those two-faced administrators around here?--Bbb23 (talk) 21:35, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

• Doc's face is so handsome that if he had two of them the world would stop rotating on its axis. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:43, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

• Hi Bbb23, I would still like the article page restored! I only put it up "too soon" because I wanted to be the one to create the article. I wanted first dibs, if you will. Drmies honest, serious question - is my sourcing too "metalziny"? Those are all (relatively) respected sources in the world of metal music coverage. Unfortunately metal music terminology often references the ripping-off of faces and the crushing of various body parts. It's just industry terminology, I suppose. Also - Archspire are a legitimate band. I'm willing to guess their upcoming album, Relentless Mutation will chart on the Billboard 200, which kind of certifies them as legit, right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by EmperorQuingus (talk • contribs) 13:16, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Sock question

Has there been a checkuser involved with this huge array of socks that you've been blocking? [30] Odd to see so many accounts especially when the article wasn't even semi-protected. Enigma^msg 04:03, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

It's been a long time since I've run checks on these accounts as they are so patently obvious, so I just block them without tags per WP:DENY. I have a reason why I've not semi-protected the article, but I can certainly understand why you or another admin would do so.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:02, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't really understand the reason. If some kind of rangeblock is not implemented to prevent this user from continually creating new accounts, the target articles require protection. I'm just surprised there isn't some kind of sockpuppet category considering this user must have created 20+ socks. Enigma^msg 19:26, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Did you read the wikilink on my word "reason"? There is a master, and there is an SPI. I didn't tag the accounts per WP:DENY. I really don't have anything more I want to say about this.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:32, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Query

Hi Bbb23. I currently have the longest-standing open SPI report at WP:SPI, which is coming up on a month since I raised it. Could I have lodged the SPI report incorrectly in any way, or is it just the luck of when someone gets around to it? Just looking to understand whether I need to take any other action. Aspirex (talk) 09:53, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Actually, you have one of the oldest, not the oldest, but that's probably little consolation. I don't see that you did anything wrong. I wouldn't call it "luck". It's just whether a clerk decides to take it.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:04, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the assurance. I'll be patient. Aspirex (talk) 06:55, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

JbanksBTM

In answer to your question, "If you think there's sock puppetry, open an SPI. If you don't, then what is the purpose of a CU?", there's no time overlap in editing so no SPI offence.

PayTechGuy created the material in his sandbox, User:PayTechGuy/sandbox. JbanksBTM copied it to live, PayTech of Things.

Either PayTechGuy saw the COI/UAA problems with his username, switched to the JbanksBTM account and moved his own material to mainspace, which merits a {{uw-agf-sock}} caution, and a gentle admonishment not to use his old account again;

or they're two different people, in which case JbanksBTM is robbing PayTechGuy of credit for his work, which merits a whole different set of c&p responses.

I thought that was a sufficient reason to ask if they were the same person - obviously I was wrong. I'll leave the whole issue in your hands to deal with as you will. Cabayi (talk) 14:42, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

IP block exemption check

Hi Bbb23! I was wondering if you could help me out with something - I have a student with WikiEd (Umbereenbmirza) who is editing out of Turkey via a VPN. I helped her set up an account, but she hasn't been able to edit since her IP address is blocked. It wasn't for anything that she did, it just happens to be part of Redstation Limited, a web host provider or colocation provider. (If I understand all of that correctly.) She needs to have an IP block exemption, but I've never done one of those before and since I work with WikiEd (as Shalor (Wiki Ed)), I didn't know if it would be inappropriate for me to do this myself. I saw that one of the things that is recommended is to get a CheckUser to verify the need, so I thought I'd ask if you could help with this.

I didn't know if I would be able to do the IP block exemption thing myself since I work with WikiEd, as I wasn't sure if that would be a conflict of interest here. I don't think it would be super common and WikiEd deals predominantly with students located in the United States. We do have some students outside of the US, but they're in the minority for the most part so it wouldn't be something I would do more than a couple times a year, if that. My inclination is to allow others to do it, though - just so it's all on the up and up. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 21:45, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

• I figured that you'd be a good person to ask since you're an admin and a checkuser. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 21:47, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

  @Tokyogirl79: If I understand properly what I'm looking at, Umbereenbmirza, Shalor, and a large number of students are all using the same webhost (not Redstation Limited). They're using one IP in a range that is indeed blocked (globally by a steward), but it is soft-blocked, meaning she has been able to edit through it. So, I'm assuming it's a different IP she's talking about. Has she told you the address? It's not going to pop up on my check because attempts to use a hard-blocked IP aren't displayed unless she edits her own Talk page. Indeed, if you ask her to make a test edit to her Talk page, I should be able to see it.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:38, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

• I was able to get her an IP exemption, so hopefully it won't affect her too much. I'm not sure if she's editing under any other IP - she sent us an image and that IP was the one that came up. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:58, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Request for protection

Recently concluded TV series with persistent removal of reliably sourced content by IPs and newly-created accounts. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Emperor:_Owner_of_the_Mask&action=history 203.250.88.126 (talk) 02:25, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Accopulocrat sock

I found a static IPsock of this guy that has edited since July 4 without a block - what general block duration would you advise? Thanks! GAB^gab 21:41, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

@GeneralizationsAreBad: A week or 10 days, whichever you prefer.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:43, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

 Done - thanks. GAB^gab 21:46, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Also nabbed 107.77.165.1 (talk · contribs · count). GAB^gab 14:09, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Knock yourself out. It's always a bit harder for me to block IPs.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:14, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

41.138.78.0/24

I just revoked talk page access from this range due to one of the IP's leaving a legal threat. Just wanted to let you know since you're the blocking checkuser. Cheers -- ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:22, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

@Oshwah: Gosh, if he prevails at court, I'll have only $9B left. Globally locked several minutes after you revoked Talk page access. It's probably a nice sunny day where they are. Why can't they just go outside and play?--Bbb23 (talk) 18:35, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

That's a lot of $ - wish I had $10B to play with (lol)! Someone needs to invent Wikipedia NLT insurance for us poor folk! Cool deal; I figured you wouldn't care but I wanted to leave you a message and give you a heads-up nonetheless, especially given that the block is a checkuser block. I obviously try not to touch those unless it's needed, and even so - I let them know ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:45, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Right off a block, on ANI

Would you mind taking a look at this discussion on ANI since the editor under discussion is fresh off a block you issued? Thanks. Toddst1 (talk) 06:48, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

New user HeyMate29

Hi there; I have found a newly-created page Lists of LGBT political office-holders in the United Kingdom, which is a very large page for a newbie to have created. Its content seems rather familiar; investigating my deleted contribs I have turned up LGBT politicians in the United Kingdom. The latter was created by BlobBlob98 who you blocked in March 2017 as a sock of Marquis de la Eirron, and deleted their pages (this one included) under WP:CSD#G5. A number of their deleted edits were to pages having the pattern of "Category:Fooian politicians convicted of crimes".

Lists of LGBT political office-holders in the United Kingdom was created yesterday by HeyMate29, an account which was created the previous day: 21:03, 12 July 2017 (UTC). Their very first edit was to create Category:Zambian politicians convicted of crimes, a page which has not previously existed, but whose name fits the pattern of "Category:Fooian politicians convicted of crimes". Similarly for their next two page creations.

Do you have an opinion on this new user? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:38, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

@Redrose64: Yup:  Confirmed, blocked, and tagged. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:14, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:05, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Original Research Query

Hi, can you please provide guidance on the List of countries by median wage page. I am alleging that there is clear OR being done but author disagrees. Lneal001 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:11, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't know why you're asking me (or at least one other administrator).--Bbb23 (talk) 18:17, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi again. The user on the page agreed to delete the content if it was deemed OR. Since it now has been deemed as such (on the No Original Research Noticeboard), Could you please allow me to modify the page and to merge it to a legitimate one? Right now the page is blocked from any modifications. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard Lneal001 (talk) 14:39, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't see one editor's opinion at the noticeboard as "deemed OR". If the other edit warrior, Jeine091, now accepts your wish to modify the article, I will unprotect it.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:32, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

We now have 2 additional editors on the Talk part of the article's page who are saying it is also OR. What more do we need to merge or delete the page? Lneal001 (talk) 16:39, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

July 2017

Hi mate, how do you deal with guys who put Sockpuppet tags [31] [32] on userpages without evidence? --Saqib (talk) 07:28, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't know if Bbb knows this SPI but I'm guessing Ponyo's come across this one before, I just looked at a couple of places and couldn't find the link though. —SpacemanSpiff 07:36, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Which SPI? anyways thanks for removing the tags.. --Saqib (talk) 07:42, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

This SPI, Saqib. Your tagger is most likely from there. I was wrong, Bbb23 has blocked this farm too. —SpacemanSpiff 08:01, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Indeed. Thanks, folks.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:02, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

And just blocked another sock.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:49, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Your deletion of comments to unblock request

You again deleted my comment about the unblock request for User:Moltenflesh on their talkpage. As WP:BLOCK clearly and simply states that Any user may comment on an unblock request, I believe there was no reason to remove my comment. As the comment I made is allowable under WP:BLOCK (as any user may comment on an unblock request), and was not disruptive, but was in all good faith criticism of the block, then there is no basis for removal. You have mistaken criticism for disruption, however recall that editors are free to criticize administrator action. To try and resolve this though, rather than reverting you deletion (which I believe I have every right to do) can you please explain why you didn't note that it wasn't a slam dunk in either the block log or the user page. Or why you didn't make an entry at all in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Perfect Orange Sphere? Thanks! Nfitz (talk) 15:57, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't normally tutor users on how CheckUsers do their work, but with the hope that you'll understand my actions better and put these issues to rest, I'll make an exception. Generally, when there's a suspected sock, someone opens or reopens an SPI, and the report is evaluated. If I decide a CU is warranted, I run a check and post my findings. Those findings are along a spectrum of more certain to less certain. For example, the most certain is  Technically indistinguishable, then slightly less to  Confirmed, less to  Likely, and so on down to  Unrelated. If I believe a block is warranted, I block and it's my decision whether to make it a checkuseraccount block. The finding doesn't have to be confirmed or even likely for me to do so. If the blocked account is tagged (not all socks should be tagged, but that's a separate topic), the tag would normally reflect my finding. Thus, I wouldn't normally tag a sock as CU-confirmed unless my finding was confirmed or tallyho, although there are occasionally exceptions.

Once a master has a case, not all socks go through the SPI process. I and all CheckUsers can block a sock outside of the SPI and not record it at the SPI. It's standard practice. We do it all the time. We may also choose to tag or not at our discretion. However, because such blocks have no SPI finding, unless the tag is very clear, other editors won't necessarily know the degree of certainty, but no one marks that in the block log.

My comment at Moltenflesh's Talk page was intended to let the user know that they might be unblocked and to let other CheckUsers know that I would like their input before I make a final decision. Although casually couched ("slam dunk"), the purpose was to help the user. It's rare for me to comment on a sock-blocked Talk page, but in this case I thought it would be constructive.

I didn't remove your comment because it was critical of me. I removed it because it betrayed your ignorance (no offense) of how the whole process works and because it distracted from the process of re-evaluating my block. I hope that addresses your concerns.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:48, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation and the transparency. I see now what you were doing, and I apologize for getting in the way of it. I'll try and avoid shooting first in the future. Nfitz (talk) 07:06, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Do you have trouble on Commons?

We have a strange request here. Thanks for taking a peek. --Hedwig in Washington ^(TALK) 00:54, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

@Hedwig in Washington: The IP who posted at Commons is a sock. What they say strikes me as incoherent, but perhaps you understand what they mean by "cyborbot/help".--Bbb23 (talk) 01:17, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

I thought so. But before I block an IP that could be a fellow sysop, I rather ask. Had a feeling you didn't move to Botswana. Thanks for your fast reply! --Hedwig in Washington ^(TALK) 01:20, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Is cyberbot the same as wikibot? —SpacemanSpiff 03:57, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

I think he meant cyborgbot, or there's always the much older bebopbot.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:26, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

User talk:Mattmclaren#Account Blocked

I am inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt but to do that I need your agreement or checkuserblock removed. What are your thoughts, please? Just Chilling (talk) 22:50, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

@Just Chilling: You can see my comments at his Talk page. Sorry.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:37, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

NP and thx for looking at the situation. Just Chilling (talk) 23:17, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Cooper edits

All the information I cited was from the primary source. You may not have agreed with it but it's indisputible that Fletcher accuses Huff of deliberately sabotaging the hearings, and that Rymer went out of her way to ridicule Fletcher. All the other incidents (The fact that Roger Lang admitted the knife could have been different, the fact that the shoes weren't unique) were all matters of record. Making mention of it is entirely fair; declaring it impermissible seems a bit like a cowardly dodge unless there's something I'm missing — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.75.61.201 (talk) 03:35, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

WP:PRIMARY prohibits an editor from using primary sources that require interpretation. Legal decisions fall into that category. Therefore, a reliable secondary source that interprets the decision must be used.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:33, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Incivility from Freshacconci

Hi. I seem to having some difficulty with a user that I see you have previously dealt with.

My discussion with him is here, though Freshacconci removed the last message, with the edit summary:

"'Please learn these policies if you wish to continue editing here'? Who are you? Fuck you."

If you could inform/remind him of WP:CIV, it would be appreciated. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 23:40, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Blocking a sock in an EW report against Freshacconci is hardly having dealings with them. Unfortunately, too many editors say "fuck you" on Wikipedia with impunity. I'm not going to single this particular one out. Also, I've always interpreted WP:CIRCULAR to apply to references, not wikilinks.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:15, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Just so you know, User:Humanweb is User:Utbindas

You might want to compare Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Humanweb/Archive to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Utbindas/Archive. I was keeping an eye on Humanweb, and it's the same "concerned with images and fashion, Indian topics, nudity or sexual topics, and see alsos" matter. Now, if you want to keep the cases separate because the Utbindas account is stale, that is your decision.

Also pinging Mabalu, Mike V, Vanjagenije, Berean Hunter, DeltaQuad and Grayfell from the previous investigation in case they care. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:34, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping Flyer22 Reborn! On a quick scan through, it does look like the same editing style and patterns. I had actually been wondering about Utbindas because coincidentally, an anonymous ISP popped up on Talk:Miniskirt only yesterday to try and get the lede changed again, with a very Utbindas-esque focus on butt and bottom. Now, I know it could be a random drive-by anonymous comment, I didn't think "oh, that's definitely Utbindas" but it's interesting that you should mention them and that they'd possibly been back to their games again the very next day. Hmm. Probably coincidence, but interesting that this alleged Utbindas reincarnation has largely stayed away from articles I edit after I pretty much nailed him down the last time. Mabalu (talk) 15:29, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

What a SURPRISE. The anonymous ISP is an Indian ISP. The coincidence increases, along with the similarities to Utbindas. Mabalu (talk) 15:49, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

It also seems like another ISP from the same range was just sniffing around the Dress and Miniskirt articles, both articles that Utbindas was very fond of. Thanks for the heads-up. I'll keep an eye out for Utbindas-esque activity now I know they may be back. Mabalu (talk) 16:00, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Non- technical SPI

I saw your comment at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Perfect Orange Sphere and I appreciate you stepping in to do a checkuser (and find another one). I don't doubt your conclusions wrt Moltenflesh, but I also don't doubt that it is, in fact, the same person. I've seen where IPs from a wide variety of real-world places seem to be making the same exact edits, and I presume this editor is using a selection of devices and proxies to obscure themselves from a technical standpoint. Hell, anyone can buy access to a botnet if they look hard enough. So my question to you is, is the SPI wrt Moltenflesh going to be closed due to the technical evidence, or is there some process for moving forward based on the behavioral evidence? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:16, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

I didn't close the case, allowing another administrator to block the account if they wish, but I'm now out of it.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:06, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Okay. I wasn't sure if it would be archived or not, since you marked the checkuser done. Thanks. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 04:26, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

The block of User:AcademicHistorian

That explains quite a bit. I have a fair bit of experience with User:Ontario Teacher BFA BEd but I didn't twig to this one. Live and learn. Meters (talk) 05:21, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Declined SPI

Hi there. Can I ask why @Greenbörg: 's SPI request was denied? Given how those accounts are being coordinated right now on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Wise Way and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ehsan Sehgal (3nd nomination), it feels quite pertinent and not 'stale' particularly. Best, Landscape repton (talk) 16:32, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

You're a new user. Do you know what stale means in the context of a CU request?--Bbb23 (talk) 16:53, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

I do not, I had a look around but couldn't see a definition, where should I have been looking?Landscape repton (talk) 16:56, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Somewhere other than Wikipedia. CU data is retained for 90 days. Stale means older than 90 days. Normally, when a check is run, it compares two or more accounts. At least two compared accounts must have data for it to work. Thus, in this instance, one account is not stale, but all others are.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:08, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Ah, I see, thank you for the explanation. And does this mean that anons can't be factored in to the checks? Because the four anons listed have all been operating in the past week (and only the past week, not earlier than that). Landscape repton (talk) 17:11, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

CheckUsers don't publicly disclose the IP(s) of named accounts per policy.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:13, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

I see. Just to be clear that I'm understanding the relevance of that to this case, what you're saying is that SPI can never be used to see if a logged in user is also editing as an un-logged-in anonymous user, because confirming so would publicly confirm their IP address? And SPI is limited in its methods purely to checking IP addresses? Thank you for taking the time to help me understand. Best, Landscape repton (talk) 12:25, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't understand your last question: "And SPI is limited in its methods purely to checking IP addresses?" The preceding part is correct.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:28, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

OK, don't worry about the other question, I figured it out. Thank you again. Landscape repton (talk) 12:30, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Possible sock

Hi, can you please check if user 122.108.141.214 is a sock of a blocked user. Im suspiscious because over the past 2 months or so they've made gradual requests for about five AFDs to be started on the Articles for Deletion talkpage which they were but they don't want to sign up and do it themselves, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 21:38, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Rowingasia

Can I trouble you to have a look at the recent unblock request? Their claims to not have socked at all are a bit humorous if I can say so. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:28, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

@RickinBaltimore: Sure. I revoked Talk page access. We have better ways of spending our time.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:42, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

@RickinBaltimore: He evidently decided to resume socking. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rowingasia. GAB^gab 21:55, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:12 Monkeys#"doesn't need refs"

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:12 Monkeys#"doesn't need refs". Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:16, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Mandyada Sri Shiradi Sai Baba Mandira

Could I get you to re-evaluate this? It pretty clearly is Mandyadashiradisaibaba (talk · contribs) who has created this article several times under a couple of different titles. (See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mandyadashiradisaibaba/Archive). Thanks. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:55, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

At least you've now identified the master, but it still is ineligible for g5 as the accounts were blocked at the same time.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:00, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't understand. Mandyadashiradisaibaba was blocked at 01:46 on 21 July 2017. Praneethrao12 created the article about a day-and-a-half later at 13:35 on 22 July 2017. That looks like clear cut block evasion to me. What am I missing here? Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:05, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

My fault, I was looking at the wrong puppet. And, actually, the master was blocked even earlier than that on June 16. The June 21 block changed it to a CU block. Deleted. My apologies.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:10, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Oh good, I'm not completely losing it then. Thanks. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:12, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Heh, I know the feeling. I'm tired and going off-wiki to rest before going to bed. G'night.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:18, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Hidden Tempo (talk) 07:41, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Dan Wagner - Block Evasion

Hi, I believe User: 185.69.145.158 is block evading. It is another Vodafone IP address and has expressed the same POV as those previously blocked on Dan Wagner#Talk. I suspect it's the same as User:85.255.232.175 whom you blocked earlier in the week. 94.193.159.223 (talk) 11:46, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Scalia

Hi, Bbb23. You're a valued colleague and I normally would not have reverted an edit you made, but your edit summary indicated you were unaware that the date change was made without discussion by an anon IP without explanation or consensus, and had gone unnoticed till now. This was at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Antonin_Scalia&diff=779596204&oldid=778513538. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:39, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Actually, the official Supreme Court bio had gotten updated in the interim. The anon IP either didn't know or didn't cite that, but after talk-page discussion, I've added that Supreme Court cite for the date of your edit. The cites supporting the date discrepancy have now gone into a footnote. All good! Thanks for your patience. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:06, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

The Supreme Court bio says February 13. Not sure what you're looking at.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:27, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Deletion of page

Hello, why did you delete this page? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treemerge.io Knowledgeorg (talk) 22:35, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Knowledgeorg: I recommend you look at our criteria for speedy deletion, particularly the "No indication of importance" criterium. The latter is the reason your page was deleted. For some guidance on article creation, see this. Regards, GAB^gab 23:04, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

@Knowledgeorg: It was deleted as noted under the CSD#A7 criteria. I marked it for deletion, and explained why on your talk page, along with instructions about how to proceed past its deletion. I invite you to read those comments. See your talk page. Thanks, --Hammersoft (talk) 23:52, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

CFC-Youth for Christ

You speedied this yesterday under multiple criteria, and it's back today. I believe the article creator is the same but I see no notices on his page so I can't be certain. Meters (talk) 19:04, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

I redirected it to the parent organization. Meters (talk) 19:17, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Trolleybus Museum Solingen

Hello why did you delete the pageTrolleybus Museum Solingen 1832 Heritage (talk) 01:38, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

• (talk page stalker) It was deleted under WP:CSD#A7 for failure to provide any credibly claim of the importance or significance of the museum. See Wikipedia:Credible claim of significance. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:50, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Do you have the section I translated? If so I would like a copy of it so can improve upon it. 1832 Heritage (talk) 03:32, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Translated from what?--Bbb23 (talk) 19:02, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

• I think he's asking for a WP:REFUND (perhaps best to draft). --Hammersoft (talk) 19:58, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

I'd expect he'd xlated the German article. Anmccaff (talk) 20:04, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks everyone. Here it is: User:1832 Heritage/Trolleybus Museum Solingen.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:40, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigations/Deucalionite

Hi, I opened a sockpuppet investigation [33]. It was my first time to do so and maybe I made an mistake. I wrote the reason why the case needs a Checkuser but I suspect I forgot to change checkuser=no option to checkuser=yes. Ktrimi991 (talk) 13:00, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

 Done.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:29, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Bbb23, perhaps we could use this as a test case? What did this investigation have that made you to decide to undertake a Checkuser that the one against MjolnirPants lacks? Whatever it is, I'm sure that I could find and add an equivalent to the current case Moltenflesh (talk) 00:50, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

@Moltenflesh: First, you don't need to ping Bbb23 on his own talk page. Stop that. Second, I'm the one who ran CheckUser in that SPI. Deucalionite is a long-term sockmaster and in my opinion the behavioral evidence was compelling enough to use the tool. I haven't looked into your filing against MjolnirPants but you really need to drop the stick and stop admin shopping. If you don't, I'll block you myself for disruption. Katie^talk 00:59, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Page Deletion from 2012

Hello Bbb23,

I've noticed you deleted a page titled "QASymphony" back in 2012. Just wanted to inquiry into why it was deleted and any steps I can take to reinstate.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Southeastwriter (talk • contribs)

I'm not Bbb23 but I fill in when he has more important things to do, like serving as a judge in a hog-warming contest. It's possible to view the deletion log by going to Special:Logs and selecting 'Deletion log' in the pulldown box. Then type QASymphony in the Target box and hit the Show button. The original 2012 deletion was for 'Unambiguous advertising or promotion.' Assuming the version at speedydeletion.wikia.com is faithful to the original we see gems such as 'a software company built to revolutionize how software is tested, adopted, and supported' so, yeah. The log shows a more recent deletion barely a month ago; see discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/QASymphony (2nd nomination). Do what you will, but be advised that re-creating an article shortly after it was deleted in this way is viewed very skeptically indeed. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:14, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

New account created by a sock of SpaceInfinite

I had some doubts about user:Ynoss being a sock of user:Space_Infinite but in any case user:BeyonderYnoss4471 is certainly a new account by the same blocked user. Editing by user:BeyonderYnoss4471 in the last 2-3 days is constructive. I'll trust your judgement on what should be done. Lithopsian (talk) 13:10, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Blocked. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:20, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Whoa!

Seriously? We're eligible for these? I'm always last to the party. Tiderolls 17:43, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

I got you beat - I don't even go to parties.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:44, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

I go to parties, much to the chagrin of other attendees... GAB^gab 01:41, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Just tell him that you are from a higher order of knighthood than those silly little TLAs that he is throwing about.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 10:33, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	For your excellent work on that recent SPI and doing the checks on multiple groups of accounts, even when I unintentionally made the work harder for you. Your tireless efforts at SPI are noticed and appreciated. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:44, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Pageturner237

Hi, I have reason to suspect that the user is Hercules123!/Musicalnote1/Bball 123 sock puppet. Before opening an SPI. In the few days since Pageturner237 account was created. The user has repeatedly been making the same reversions: 1, 2, has also made the same reversion as Musicalnote1 (3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9) and Bball 123 (10, 11, 12). 183.171.180.233 (talk) 05:35, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Now eventually blocked by JamesBWatson. 183.171.180.233 (talk) 08:32, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Sockpuppet

Hi, new user Walokia could be a sockpuppet of banned sock 68.151.25.115 who is a sock of Curb Chain (talk · contribs) as they both prod European heavy metal bands and their albums with the rationale of not enough WP:RS or not enough WP:rs, ( Walokia has only prodded articles with no other edits) thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 20:40, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

You'll have to reopen Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Curb Chain.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:13, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

upon your return

As one who does the largest volume of SPIs, wondering if you have a rough idea regarding what proportion of connected account relate to paid editing? Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:34, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – August 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2017).

Administrator changes

Anarchyte • GeneralizationsAreBad • Cullen328 ^{(first RfA to reach WP:300)}

Cprompt • Rockpocket • Rambo's Revenge • Animum • TexasAndroid • Chuck SMITH • MikeLynch • Crazytales • Ad Orientem

Guideline and policy news

• Following a series of discussions around new pages patrol, the WMF is helping implement a controlled autoconfirmed article creation trial as a research experiment, similar to the one proposed in 2011. You can learn more about the research plan at meta:Research:Autoconfirmed article creation trial. The exact start date of the experiment has yet to be determined.
• A new speedy deletion criterion, regarding articles created as a result undisclosed paid editing, is currently being discussed (permalink).
• An RfC (permalink) is currently open that proposes expanding WP:G13 to include all drafts, even if they weren't submitted through Articles for Creation.

Technical news

• LoginNotify should soon be deployed to the English Wikipedia. This will notify users when there are suspicious login attempts on their account.
• The new version of XTools is nearing an official release. This suite of tools includes administrator statistics, an improved edit counter, among other tools that may benefit administrators. You can report issues on Phabricator and provide general feedback at mw:Talk:XTools.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:11, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Not banned but still suspected?

Hi, could you please take a look at PakZibad who is suspected of being a sock on his talk page. However, this notice was added by an IP back in 2012. Thanks.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 07:32, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Cpt.a.haddock: That account hasn't edited in over 5 years so a) there is nothing that can be looked at, and b) there is no point in taking any action on it. SmartSE (talk) 08:39, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

@Smartse: That account appears in categories such as this one and can be misleading. If this is a mistake, I can revert the talk page edit that resulted in the error. Will that be fine? Thanks.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 08:46, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

@Cpt.a.haddock: I don't see what is confusing - they were suspected as a sock, but it was not confirmed by CU hence neing in the suspected sock category. SmartSE (talk) 09:19, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Having blocked many of MrP's socks, I don't think this is one of his. The ip on the other hand is a sock. That said, I don't know why it matters now. —SpacemanSpiff 09:27, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

@Smartse: What is confusing is that they were suspected of being a sock, but no apparent action has been taken against them. I don't see any mention of this user in Mrpontiac's CU page. This is besides the fact that the suspicion of being a sock was added by an IP who is apparently a sock himself. And I personally don't see why users should be categorised as being a suspected sock for 5 years without any resolution. At the very least, some housecleaning needs to be done here.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 09:38, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

@SpacemanSpiff: This is related to a manipulated Maratha map being used in more than a dozen articles across Wikipedias. The map was created by a MrP sock on Commons and I was trying to see if there are other files over there which have been similarly photoshopped. I was looking for a list of MrP's socks over here to include in a CU request on Commons when I came across this lone unblocked account in the category.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 09:41, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Bbb23. You have new messages at SahabAliwadia's talk page.
Message added 11:29, 3 August 2017 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Vanjagenije (talk) 11:29, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	Thank you for all your service at SPI. Mkdw talk 17:08, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	What that person above me said. Drmies (talk) 21:11, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

+1 to the above two. Your efforts at SPI are much appreciated. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:56, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

User:PerfectlyIrrational

You may remember this editor, whom you blocked for sockpuppeting back on June 21.

Now comes Don1182 (talk · contribs), created June 30, who's plowing exactly the same fields as PerfectlyIrrational (talk · contribs). Am I right to be suspicious? --Calton | Talk 19:15, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Cause for concern?

Hi B, this guy causes me some concern.

• Brand new user circa August 2nd
• First edit was user page creation (has the hint of typical sock redlink avoidance)
• Has created a few articles already, with fully-fleshed Cite web references, suggesting familiarity with Wikipedia.
• Some of the articles seem a bit promotional of potentially non-notable subjects, suggesting marketing ring member.
• Suddenly he starts using Twinkle
• And in the last 24 hours he's gone on a speedy-delete nomination spree.

The general shape of this feels funky to me. Not sure if it's enough for you to start poking around, but I'd be remiss if I didn't share with someone. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:05, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I just looked him over and he uses twinkle and has articles after only ten days? I'm new but it took me 2 months to figure out how to do that myself! As for the twinkle and all that; isn't he a bit new to be suggesting this? I'm not implying that newcomers don't know anything about Wikipedia but I've never seen that kind of speed before. Dinah In Wonderland 14:15, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb: I think Bbb is out for a bit, but this looks to me like AwardPunjabi (but could also be any of the other Mohali based PR agencies that I've blocked), paging GSS-1987 to check on this. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 14:20, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

@SpacemanSpiff: Thanks mate. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:58, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Did a quick review of the 4 articles they've created and basically they're all probably strong candidates for deletion. Poor sources in all of them, a couple had sources that weren't even remotely connected (an article about a US based furniture company?!?!), suggesting some quick google searching with no effort to verify the results. Proded some, others can probably go as well. Ravensfire (talk) 17:00, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

He reminds me of WorldBoy (talk · contribs) a socpuppet of Singer Jethu Sisodiya who's behaviour and English was very similar to this user (please see contributions). He's definitely not a new user, registered 10 days back, made his first edit on 2nd August and already know how to ping multiple users and how to use Twinkle on both English and Hindi Wikipedia. GSS (talk|c|em) 10:08, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Quite agree. Amazing how well they are at using Iwinkle and CSD. Sent White Hill Music (record label) to WP:Articles for deletion/White Hill Music (record label). Time to start cleaning up this undeclared paid editor's articles. Ravensfire (talk) 01:04, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks GSS, after seeing the history of the various socks, there's no doubt in my mind that this is one of the group and I've blocked as such. I'm inclined to just G5 all the new stuff, but I'll ping GeneralizationsAreBad to just confirm that my suspicions are right before doing that. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 01:50, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Return of the ghost

Hello @Bbb23:

Following the advice you gave me a few months ago, as same problem seems to be = is arising with a certain editor I suspect is the ghost of [34] and its numberless socks: same tactics, same obsession with weight, size etc. used in article on her sons as were used on Marie Antoinette's article, then forcing & using the revert method in order to start an edit war. If you have time, please check the following:

• Impact[35] at Louis Joseph, Dauphin of France article[36], with problem beginning here[37]and also discussion [38]
• same at Louis XVII of France article beginning in March 2017 [39] then discussion page[40]

The end result is that, in order to avoid an edit war, these articles remain with details that belong to gossip magazines & end up blocked, held hostages by one disruptive editor.

Best regards,--Blue Indigo (talk) 13:57, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

UTRS appeal #18996

A user you have blocked has opened UTRS appeal #18996 on the Unblock Ticket Request System. The reviewing administrator, Just Chilling (talk · contribs), has requested your input:

B dash (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Time: Aug 15, 2017 12:12:56

Message: Are you OK if I restore talk page access to enable a SO appeal be made?

Notes:

• If you do not have an account on UTRS, you may create one at the administrator registration interface.
• Alternatively, you can respond here and indicate whether you are supportive or opposed to an unblock for this user and your rationale, if applicable.

--UTRSBot (talk) 12:12, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @Just Chilling: Bbb23 is on hiatus. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:09, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Request talk/user page protection

Hi Bbb23, you previously protected my talk/user page because of IP vandalism/posts by banned user Sayerslle. Would you mind please protecting my user/talk page again, perhaps for 1-3 months? Sorry I'm not writing more: I'm traveling for work now and can't really address this. All best , Darouet (talk) 21:17, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2017).

Administrator changes

Nakon • Scott

Sverdrup • Thespian • Elockid • James086 • Ffirehorse • Celestianpower • Boing! said Zebedee

Guideline and policy news

• ACTRIAL, a research experiment that restricts article creation to autoconfirmed users, will begin on September 7. It will run for six months. You can learn more about the research specifics at meta:Research:Autoconfirmed article creation trial, while Wikipedia talk:Autoconfirmed article creation trial is probably the best venue for general discussion.
• Following an RfC, WP:G13 speedy deletion criterion now applies to any page in the draftspace that has not been edited in six months. There is a bot-generated report, updated daily, to help identify potentially qualifying drafts that have not been submitted through articles for creation.

Technical news

• You will now get a notification when someone tries to log in to your account and fails. If they try from a device that has logged into your account before, you will be notified after five failed attempts. You can also set in your preferences to get an email when someone logs in to your account from a new device or IP address, which may be encouraged for admins and accounts with sensitive permissions.
• Syntax highlighting is now available as a beta feature (more info). This may assist administrators and template editors when dealing with intricate syntax of high-risk templates and system messages.
• In your notification preferences, you can now block specific users from pinging you. This functionality will soon be available for Special:EmailUser as well.

Arbitration

• Applications for CheckUser and Oversight are being accepted by the Arbitration Committee until September 12. Community discussion of the candidates will begin on September 18.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:35, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

I just learned...

...that you are talking an extended break. I hope that, whatever reason you are doing so, it does the trick for you, but that you return to us as soon as you are ready. For what it's worth, I consider you to be one of the best admins on Wikipedia, and your work as a CU has been exemplary and very valuable to the community. My very best to you, Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:03, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Agree with BMK. Even though we sometimes disagree you do VERY important work. Thus hope to see your speedy return. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:26, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

I also agree with BMK's comments and wanted to let you know how much you are appreciated and missed. Wishing you well,
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 12:55, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Chiming in to say that I also hope you'll return. You've been an invaluable resource. Doug Weller talk 14:20, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

"Bbb23 did this," "Bbb23 did that," "Bbb23 would know what to do in this situation"...is what we are all thinking. My head's still attached to my body, but I do feel a little lost without you here. I don't think you realized just how many people you've helped over the years. I'm trying to remember the last time I showed you appreciation; I don't think I ever did, and that's just unacceptable. So here's an extremely belated thank you. I hope you're doing okay. Sro23 (talk) 00:33, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

A little ditty for you

Sung to the tune of Be Our Guest:

<clears throat>

You are missed!

You are missed!

We've got our knickers in a twist

No time for nappin socks to check, chéri

I hope you can't resist!

<collapses in exhaustion from the sheer effort of being so creative before my morning tea>--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:03, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

I won't be able to top Ponyo's work, but you might enjoy this lovely piece of prose from a blocked Amirshahat sock. GAB^gab 22:09, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Good to see you back.

 Anmccaff (talk) 20:58, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

BugMenn sock

I realize you are on break, so any administrator is free to respond to this. Last year, you blocked and tagged User:Pindel4567802 as a sockpuppet of BugMenn. A few weeks later, the master applied {{db-u1}} to the sock's userpage, but he substituted it so it didn't show up anywhere. I think the tag should be removed, but perhaps you should be the one to do it... – Train2104 (t • c) 02:33, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

The troll is back (again and again)

Hi, Few months ago you blocked an contributor for vandalism and racist comments. You asked me to warn you if he was doing it again. Well as usual he is back on the same pages, with the same edits, with the same obsession. He is now using two different ip, but the location is the same, the topics are the same, and the problem is that he is destroying numerous articles by introducing wrong redirection by creating new names to try to bypass the existing ones that he considers too French... Here are the two different IP: 92.5.84.89 and 79.71.20.28 And now he is saying that I am a French nationalist just by trying to keep the article the way they were before his edits... I can't afford to sept all my time on wiki just to rectify the the wrong done by him/her on the articles. Thanks for your intervention --Gabriel HM (talk) 20:26, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Sanford Litvack (September 10)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Whispering was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Sanford Litvack and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Whispering 20:35, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello! Bbb23, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Whispering 20:35, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

New HailesG's sockpuppet

I'm suspecting this ip (92.104.0.220) to be HailesG's sockpuppet. As shown through the same behaviors, interests and location (Switzerland). Regards -Aṭlas (talk) 17:02, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Suspected Orwellianlocksmith sockpuppet

A user known as Nairncrosstrees, who I suspect to be a sockpuppet for Orwellianlocksmith has been performing edits to David Toscano. The first edit was an identical copy of the edits attacking David Toscano that Orwellianlocksmith. Since the primary, they've simply stated the margin and the opponent's name. That gets to a second concern about neutrality and the user's identity. The user is also focused only on David Toscano. I've dealt with other edit issues in my past experience with Wikipedia over the years, but user behavior and administrative policy is an area where I've had no experience. Any assistance would be appreciated. Artsygeek (talk) 18:38, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – October 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2017).

Administrator changes

Boing! said Zebedee • Ansh666 • Ad Orientem

Tonywalton • AmiDaniel • Silence • BanyanTree • Magioladitis • Vanamonde93 • Mr.Z-man • Jdavidb • Jakec • Ram-Man • Yelyos • Kurt Shaped Box

Guideline and policy news

• Following a successful proposal to create it, a new user right called "edit filter helper" is now assignable and revocable by administrators. The right allows non-administrators to view the details of private edit filters, but not to edit them.
• Following a discussion about mass-application of ECP and how the need for logging and other details of an evolving consensus may have been missed by some administrators, a rough guide to extended confirmed protection has been written. This information page describes how the extended-confirmed aspects of the protection policy are currently being applied by administrators.

Technical news

• You can now search for IP ranges at Special:Contributions. Some log pages and Special:DeletedContributions are not yet supported. Wildcards (e.g. 192.168.0.*) are also not supported, but the popular contribsrange gadget will continue to work.

Arbitration

• Community consultation on the 2017 candidates for CheckUser and Oversight has concluded. The Arbitration Committee will appoint successful candidates by October 11.
• A request for comment is open regarding the structure, rules, and procedures of the December 2017 Arbitration Committee election, and how to resolve any issues not covered by existing rules.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:23, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation

Hi Bbb23. I see that you have indef blocked User:Gaditano23 because he has "has abusively used multiple accounts". I have an SPI open here which I think is redundant now. Is there a way I can close it myself? Alternatively, is there a place I can ask for it to be closed? Thanks. Scolaire (talk) 12:20, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Scolaire: change the {{SPI case status}} to {{SPI case status|close}} and add a note about the user being blocked and the clerks will take care of it. SmartSE (talk) 12:39, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Smartse, only checkusers, clerks including those in training and admins may change the case status to close. The patrolling admin duties are defined here. I've closed the case.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:10, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Oh woops. My bad. Thanks for enlightening me! SmartSE (talk) 14:36, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

And thanks for closing. Scolaire (talk) 16:35, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Austrian economics enforcement

Template:Austrian economics enforcement has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:34, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Invitation to discuss the soon to built, Interaction Timeline

Hi Checkusers and Checkuser clerks,

The Anti-Harassment Tools team is seeking input about building the Interaction Timeline feature.

We’re inviting you to join the discussion because you use similar tools such as the Editor Interaction Analyser and User compare report during sockpuppet investigations.

You can leave comments on the on wiki discussion page or send an email to the Anti-Harassment Tools team.

For the Anti-Harassment Tools team SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 19:39, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Please let us know if you wish to opt-out of all massmessage mailings from the Anti-harassment tools team.

Flowers for you!

Hi Bbb23, I hope you are well and happy and enjoying yourself, and doing everything you need to to take care of yourself. This is just a note of thanks for all you have done on Wikipedia. If or when you see fit to return to active participation on Wikipedia, that would be awesome. But until such time, please be good to yourself and get some well-deserved rest. Softlavender (talk) 05:39, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Active editor displaying "Retired" template

Hi Bbb23. Just wondering about the fact that this editor puts up a template claiming to be retired, six months after signing up and has been editing for 18 months since putting up the template. Yes, for full transparency, 1) I see that you were the closing admin on a sock investigation of the editor; 2) I have just proposed for deletion an article initiated by this editor. Thanks. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 14:47, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Sonic N800

Hey Bbb23. You blocked N800 back in January after they began socking while blocked for their other disruptive behaviors. I've been trying to deal with several of the IPs today and the past week. I'm not sure anything can be done but wanted to see if you had any advice that might help. I've tied him behaviorally to the following IPs since July (Not in order): 176.17.86.217, 176.47.124.81, 176.47.73.105, 95.185.3.102, 62.120.98.166, 37.217.11.42, 37.125.192.205, 5.41.223.111 - As you can see its a bit all over. They tend to return to past stomping grounds though so connecting them is easy. It's a mess though because almost every edit needs reverted, bad disamb edits, redirect retargets, and other biased/fan edits to articles. -- ferret (talk) 17:20, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Have come to realize these all Geolocate to the same place, Saudi Arabia mobile carriers. Still don't think much is possible, but another one today: 109.83.174.221 -- ferret (talk) 14:04, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

False statements on user talkpage

Your warning placed on the user talkpage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Stephanielquick is false, especially this sentence

You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words.

Please, familiarise yourself with the US copyright law.--109.92.171.142 (talk) 12:24, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Please familiarise yourself with WP:COPYRIGHT and WP:FAIRUSE. Bbb23's warning was correct. More than that, it was a standard warning, one of the approved warnings we use to warn editors about inappropriate activity here. --Yamla (talk) 12:28, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

No it's not so. The Bbb23 sentence above is a nonsense and cannot be justified by WP:COPYRIGHT and WP:FAIRUSE. The only valid text of the law is here https://www.copyright.gov/title17/title17.pdf. --109.92.171.142 (talk) 12:33, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

You are mistaken. What's relevant here is Wikipedia's policy. If you'd like to change the policy, you are welcome to attempt to do so. --Yamla (talk) 12:39, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

You are wrong again. Wikipedia policy is not based on arbitrary warnings and claims as those coming from you and your friend Bbb23. Moreover, where in the Wikipedia policy you see justification for the Bbb23's "...such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words."? --109.92.171.142 (talk) 13:26, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

It's where it should be, i.e. in Wikipedia's policy regarding copyright. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 13:40, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

No, it's not there. Nowhere in Wikipedia's policy regarding copyright you could read something like "...such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words." --109.92.171.142 (talk) 14:28, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

@109.92.171.142: Please read WP:PARAPHRASE, which complements WP:C, and then stop banging this particular drum will you? Therer's a good chap. — fortunavelut luna 14:34, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Also at Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources, among others. General Ization ^Talk 14:40, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

@IP Maybe you should look again, and read the text yourself instead of doing a text search for exactly the same character sequence, with punctuation and all. The policy I linked to says "... reformulate the concepts in your own words, and submit it to Wikipedia, so long as you do not follow the source too closely", and also says you can't use copyrighted images... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 14:54, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

...and if the advice of your fellow editors still doesn't convince you then I suggest that you post to Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems and ask for input there.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 16:09, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

All above is a nonsense which has nothing to do with copyright. The copyright notion is a legal term while the plagiarism not. The whole rant above is just demonstration of plain ignorance, WP:PARAPHRASE is a nonsense complementing nothing. The US Copyright Law is above any Wikipedia policy and cannot be frivolously interpreted by some Wikipedia policy and guidance.--109.92.171.142 (talk) 18:27, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

IP, you'd better quit while you're ahead before you are blocked from editing and your registered account is banned from Wikipedia for lack of competence and not being here to build an encyclopedia. -- Softlavender (talk) 07:17, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Ok so. I've been looking at all sides and you are all (it appears, please correct me if I'm wrong) partially correct AND partially wrong. YES the law DOES outweigh Wikipedia's policy, BUT Wikipedia copyright policy quotes and cites those laws numerous times throughout the copyright problem/ infringement description. That being said- with permission, and proof of given permission as well as credit to the original owner of the text- you can directly use the original text as directed by the original owner, but to an extent. You can't copy the owner's work word for word without citing the text correctly. Also to be duly noted- The Wikipedia policy does state that copyright policy will be assumed of all text entered into the Wikipedia. There's no need to say anyone has a lack of competence, and the fact that you-@Softlavender - said that @IP isn't working for the betterment of Wikipedia is hypocritical. You saying that and threatening to have someone's account taken down puts you as the obstruction of betterment. Doesn't it? By logical reasoning? Again if I'm wrong any of this please correct me. Thank you for your time. John191473 (talk) 09:29, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Excuse me, I made a typo on the last sentence. I meant to say "Again if I'm wrong (on) any of this please correct me." John191473 (talk) 09:32, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Please unblock Algebra2Trig

Hello, I would like to request an unblock for Algebra2Trig that was falsely accused of a sockpuppet account several months ago. We happened to be in the same location (hence same IP) but we were operating under different computers. I am not the same user as Diabedia and my intentions are nothing like that user’s. Furthermore, my interests are in mathematics and computer science, while Diabedia’s interests do not match mine. I clearly made a new account because I lost the ability to edit under Algebra2Trig, which I am requesting to unblock.

If anybody sees this, thank you in advance. I am also quite new to Wikipedia and am quite unsure where the best place to request an unblock.

Matriculator (talk) 17:37, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

SPI

Hello. Can I submit a SPI case for an user who is using IP-hopping for edit warring and evading 3RR? By reporting main account and used IPs. --Wario-Man (talk) 08:22, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – November 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2017).

Administrator changes

Longhair • Megalibrarygirl • TonyBallioni • Vanamonde93

Allen3 • Eluchil404 • Arthur Rubin • Bencherlite

Technical news

• The Wikimedia Foundation's Anti-Harassment Tools team is creating an "Interaction Timeline" tool that intends to assist administrators in resolving user conduct disputes. Feedback on the concept may be posted on the talk page.
• A new function is now available to edit filter managers that will make it easier to look for multiple strings containing spoofed text.

Arbitration

• Eligible editors will be invited to submit candidate statements for the 2017 Arbitration Committee Elections starting on November 12 until November 21. Voting will begin on November 27 and last until December 10.
• Following a request for comment, Ritchie333, Yunshui and Ymblanter will serve as the Electoral Commission for the 2017 ArbCom Elections.

Obituaries

• The Wikipedia community has recently learned that Allen3 (William Allen Peckham) passed away on December 30, 2016, the same day as JohnCD. Allen began editing in 2005 and became an administrator that same year.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:49, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

UTRS appeal #19675

A user you have blocked has opened UTRS appeal #19675 on the Unblock Ticket Request System. The reviewing administrator, 5 albert square (talk · contribs), has requested your input:

SportsEdits1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Time: Nov 04, 2017 23:12:37

Message: Hey! Would you be OK with me offering the standard offer here?

Notes:

• If you do not have an account on UTRS, you may create one at the administrator registration interface.
• Alternatively, you can respond here and indicate whether you are supportive or opposed to an unblock for this user and your rationale, if applicable.

--UTRSBot (talk) 23:12, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

ThreeTwentyTwo

Hi, I've noticed that you blocked User:ThreeTwentyTwo. There are currently two sockpuppet investigations involving this user, one with User:NineTimes falsely accusing it of being my sockpuppet, and the other with me suspecting both NineTimes and ThreeTwentyTwo of being suckpuppets of banned User:Barthateslisa/User:SoniaKovind. Since you have banned ThreeTwentyTwo, does that mean you have identified if ThreeTwentyTwo is a sockpuppet of another user, or was it for another reason? It would be helpful to both investigations to have some idea about ThreeTwentyTwo. Thanks. Maestro2016 (talk) 20:16, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for taking action. Maestro2016 (talk) 00:54, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

By the way, I've added a sockpuppetry tag to User:NineTimes. Can you check if it's the right tag? Thanks again. Maestro2016 (talk) 00:58, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Maestro2016: I'd appreciate if you didn't tag socks/masters. Regards, GAB^gab 01:02, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Apologies. I wasn't sure, so that's why I was asking. I'll revert the edit. Maestro2016 (talk) 01:04, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Some stroopwafels for you!

Dutch treat. Drmies (talk) 02:24, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Dutch treat?? You mean Bbb23 has to pay for it? Softlavender (talk) 06:06, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Isn't Going Dutch like Going Commando? ;) — fortunavelut luna^{Rarely receiving pings. Bizarre.} 06:15, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

I will contribute whipped cream and fresh berries. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:30, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

None of y'all have a clue. No, this is just Bbb and me, walking down the street toward the market on a Saturday, getting a fresh-baked waffle with the syrup still warm. Drmies (talk) 15:30, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Happy Thanksgiving

	Happy Thanksgiving
	A little early, but still... Wishing you a day of celebration, relaxation, and happiness. If you don't celebrate, pass this on to someone who does! -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:03, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Another Marquis de la Eirron sockpuppet?

I've just found Draft:LGBT holders of political office in the United Kingdom. This is a near-verbatim recreation of Lists of LGBT political office-holders in the United Kingdom, except that it lacks about fifty references that the previous one included. This makes me suspicious that SouthAfricannn19876 (talk · contribs) might be another Marquis de la Eirron (talk · contribs) sockpuppet, see User talk:Bbb23/Archive 41#New user HeyMate29. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 00:46, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Redrose64 Bbb23 is currently on a Wikibreak. I would consider raising an SPI for this or speak to another CU 5 albert square (talk) 04:20, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Whoeverer / Whaterss

You blocked the sock account (Whoeverer), but not the account you listed as master (Whaterss). Did you intend to? You may wish to post results at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Whoeverer after looking at this. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 14:55, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Richard Daft

Thanks for doing the CU and for your help with this individual in the past. Could you please block User:Ontario Railway now because, take my word for it, he is definitely Daft. The IP is probably gone anyway. Thanks again. Jack | ^{talk page} 19:12, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

I normally leave the behavioral analysis to a clerk. I should also point out that you've provided no evidence implicating Ontario Railway other than to simply declare that it's a duck. That's insufficient. If I were you, I'd add some evidence in the form of diffs. Otherwise, the report may be closed without action.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:24, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, okay. Jack | ^{talk page} 19:29, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Hmmm

• 190.226.154.234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• Noellesch9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

You say technically Unlikely. Fair enough, but reading the edit summaries I find the quacking near-deafening. What do you think? Guy (Help!) 19:52, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

No way of knowing, but my instincts in this case are they are separate people. Of course, they might know each other or know the professor. Is the guy really notable? It's a pretty nothing article.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:57, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

It's only a nothing article after the puffery was removed, but yes, I agree. Guy (Help!) 22:07, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Winner winner chicken dinner!

I knew you couldn't break up with us forever . --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:36, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Too many of my recent edits to talk pages have been "welcome back" or similar - can people please stop taking these breaks but indeed, good to see you're back -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 22:39, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Yeah good to see you back :)--5 albert square (talk) 22:41, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes. Very happy to see you back :) TonyBallioni (talk) 00:31, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks folks. How are you cooking the chicken, Ponyo?--Bbb23 (talk) 01:37, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

I left the chicken for another night and whipped up a lovely baked gnocchi with kale, mushrooms and tomatoes. It was divine! --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:49, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm now confused. Did I win the dinner or did you? Although I do like chicken, the gnocchi sound really great. And I wasn't invited because ...?--Bbb23 (talk) 19:01, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

There's a water-sealed package of leftovers merrily floating its way to you as we speak.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:44, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Better than a sealed package of leftover water, one supposes. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:13, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm hardly the first to say it, but it's great to see you around again. GAB^gab 17:09, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

@GeneralizationsAreBad: My former trainee who became a big shot about two weeks before I went on break. You were great at SPI as a non-admin clerk. Your work there since becoming an admin has been even better. It's not just because you can take administrative actions on your own. You seem to have gained a greater degree of confidence and become more assertive. Sure helps out the lowly CUs like me and Miss Chicken Dinner.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:01, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

↑Truth↑ --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:45, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

ANI Experiences survey

The Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative (led by the Safety and Support and Anti-Harassment Tools team) is conducting a survey for en.wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with the Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works - which problems it deals with well, and which problems it struggles with.

The survey should take 10-20 minutes to answer, and your individual responses will not be made public. The survey is delivered through Google Forms. The privacy policy for the survey describes how and when Wikimedia collects, uses, and shares the information we receive from survey participants and can be found here:

• https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/2017_AN/Incidents_Survey_Privacy_Statement

If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be mailed to you via Special:Emailuser.

• Sign up here to receive a link to a survey

Thank you on behalf of the Support & Safety and Anti-Harassment Tools Teams, Patrick Earley (WMF) talk 18:24, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Bbb23. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry/Rochelimit

Thanks for letting me now of this--Rochelimit (talk) 00:13, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

• Bbb23 this accusation is a new territory for me. Normally I edit slowly, but during the 2017 Wikipedia Asian Month challenge, my talk page began to receive spams and accusations, perhaps because I am one of the highest contributors in the score. I ignored the spams, keeping them as a history on my talk page as I normally would do, but some accusation is a bit too much for me. I actually don't feel very comfortable editing in Wikipedia because of these. Unfortunately, this continues after the event, hence I'm kinda worried about what will happen after this one. Is it normal to be worried? Please help me on how to deal with this, if I need help I will ask your guidance, if it's okay.--Rochelimit (talk) 11:46, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

To be clear, the above is at least as disturbing to me as the SPI should be to Rochelimit, especially now that I have directly stated that I think a joe-job (which still merits a check, given that multiple accounts are apparently being operated by the same user). Bbb23, I'm pretty sure you can still see the deleted version of this page, so ... well, I know what I'm talking about.

RL, please do not make bogus conflations (my talk page began to receive spams and accusations) of my "ask_someone_else_to_do_it" telling you that you should not remove maintenance templates without fixing the problems with this kind of remark. Heck, even if you don't like the SPI, you should not equate a normal Wikipedia process (which was endorsed by a clerk, who had nothing whatsoever to do with WAM) to blatant racist trolling, as you did above with I ignored the spams, keeping them as a history on my talk page as I normally would do, (diff) and this continues after the event (which could only refer to the current SPI). It's not clear why you are badmouthing me like this on an admin's talk page, but you really should stop it. (And while it's completely unrelated, normally if someone blanks an outrageously offensive remark that has no place anywhere on Wikipedia, even on your talk page, you should not reinstate it even if you want to "keep a record". I'm reiterating this here because you appear to have ignored my previous message on the topic.)

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:33, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

ok ok I delete the black part, sheesh.--Rochelimit (talk) 13:13, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Now I'm receiving legal threats

Bbb23, you may not be willing to perform a CU to find out who this guy is. I have legitimately never heard of Wikipedia "invit[ing people] to edit ... article[s] with possible typographical errors"; it may refer to the text of the template message I added, but that but that is only visible to people who happen to be reading the article, which is on an obscure enough topic that we didn't have an article on it until last month, and the editor claims not to be Indonesian themselves.

But would you mind blocking the account until it retracts the bit about how I ... feel that [the SPI] goes against my first amendment rights against libel (which is a legit crime) and have grounds for a suit. I've really had enough of this whole mess; I don't even feel comfortable blanking the offending message because I suspect (per the above) that Rochelimit will just restore it without explanation.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:59, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

The inviting language was bizarre. As for the libel stuff, it's borderline. I would probably just chalk it up to being angry because he was "unjustly" accused, sort of the way editors sometimes rant when they're blocked. However, I have no problem with your bringing it to ANI to see what other administrators think. In the meantime, I'll try to find out what he means by the inviting, but I have a feeling he won't answer.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:25, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

No, if I open an ANI thread in the near future it'll be about yet another string of weird SPAs at showed up after I tagged some articles on Indian topics that had nothing to do with Rochelimit.[41] At this point it's almost enough to make me think someone is specifically trolling me, rather than trying to set Rochelimit or whoever up... Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:46, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Removal

What did I do that was such a mess? Were they technical errors? I put a lot of work into finding all those diffs and would like to at least copy them. ^{Atsme📞📧} 14:51, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

You never open an SPI with an IP as the master if there are named accounts. You open it with the oldest-created named account and list the IP "master" as one of the suspected puppets. In this instance, Kingshowman (talk · contribs · count) is a notorious sockmaster, and you should have reopened his case with your report. Also, on all the named accounts, you included "User" in the checkuser template, which screws it up; you should just use the username. You also listed a named account twice. All the named accounts were already blocked anyway, so your only real complaint was about the IP whom you named as the master as all the other IP edits were too old. So, in essence it was a simple reopen of Kingshowman listing one IP only and NOT requesting a CU because we don't publicly disclose the IP(s) of named accounts.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:58, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Oh, ok - pardon me, I'm new to the sock game so please try to exercise a little patience. Where are the instructions for reopening a case, and is there a way I can simply recover the diffs I provided? ^{Atsme📞📧} 15:04, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

@Atsme: You asked what you did that was wrong. I listed everything. It wasn't meant to be offensive, just a factual response. Even my speedy delete was polite - at least I thought so. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 15:53, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

- thank you for helping. It is much appreciated. ^{Atsme📞📧} 16:02, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

User:User409220

This user, subject of this SPI, is continuing to create TV episode lists in their user space. Since you closed the SPI I thought you might want to know. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 18:36, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm an idiot. This is actually another user (User409229) that I should add to that SPI. Sorry. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 18:41, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

@Uncle Milty: You don't have to reopen the SPI. I've taken care of the new account. Wonder why they skipped 26-28.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:19, 7 December 2017 (UTC)