Jump to content

User talk:Bbb23/Archive 52

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 45←Archive 50Archive 51Archive 52Archive 53Archive 54Archive 55

Disruptive Editing?

Hi Bbb23. I commented in the talk page an article up for AfD (Sheléa). You previously deleted an article by the "same" name but it did not contain an accent mark over the second e in the name (Shelea).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Log?page=Shelea - 03:45, 14 May 2013 Bbb23 talk contribs deleted page Shelea (A7: No explanation of significance (real person/animal/organization/web content/organized event))


Logs for deleted pages are provided on the red link of the deleted page and are full of useful information. User:Chubbles recreated the page you deleted then set a redirect to the currently contested page here - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheléa. This was done after I referenced the deletion on the user talk page for discussion. The user's actions don't seem to be in good faith and I believe hinders discussions. The creation of a page previously deleted for just cause while a page referencing the same person is up for AfD also seems like bad faith editing because it interferes with civil and productive discussion. Because of these actions the link I posted on the talk page is being misrepresented as it no longer links to the content it was originally pointed to.

Do you think a warning for User:Chubbles is a good course of action? If so would you be willing to issue one for the actions I've noted?

Thank You very much and I really would like to hear your opinions or advice with this concern. 66.185.168.19 (talk) 10:15, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Allow me to chime in, as I'm more familiar with the issue. Shelea (without the accent mark) was appropriately speedy deleted in 2013, as the barely one-sentence article at that time met the A7 criteria. Sheléa was created in 2016, quite possibly by a different user, with enough sourcing to make it ineligible for speedy deletion criteria. Though I initially prodded that article, Chubble de-prodded it and supplied some additional sources, which was enough to convince me that the subject has sufficient notability to meet WP:BIO criteria. There was nothing inappropriate about Chubbles' recreation of the old article for a redirect to a new article with substantially more content and sourcing than the origin 2013 version. User:66.185.168.19 has created an orphaned AFD at Sheléa; I'm not sure what they expect to happen if the AFD process is not completed. OhNoitsJamie Talk 13:15, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
The IP has not followed the appropriate steps at WP:AFDHOWTO, and their position is that there is no "time limit" on completing the process. That's silly. I will remove the tag from the article. They're welcome to AfD it as long as they do it properly. If not, I'll either block them or semi-protect the article to prevent further disruption. I'll leave a message on their Talk page to this effect.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:33, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Sock of Tbone49/Thatboi99

Hi Bbb23. I've just found the user Tomboi89 editing the same articles as Tbone49/Thatboi99 and I'm confident a CU will turn up a positive result for being a sock of that user. The account was also registered not too long after the others were blocked, which, along with the similar name, is also a WP:DUCK sign. Ss112 11:45, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

 Done.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:22, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Blocking of Ear-phone

Hey Bbb23!

This discussion at AN really appears to have stalled now. They have come across as genuine in their unblock request, would you consent to them being unblocked?

Hope you're well -- 5 albert square (talk) 23:16, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Do I have to (whining)? You just posted there. Maybe that will attract some attention so we have a reasonable community decision.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:53, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
Nah, I just undid the bot because it archived everything which I really didn't want yet. I've been told as it's a CU block then a CU needs to either remove the block or authorise a non-CU to remove it.
Whining haha!-- 5 albert square (talk) 01:56, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
No, no, Oshwah doesn't know the background. It's true that only a CU can unblock Ear-phone or give permission to a non-CU to do so, but I already did that. The only condition I put on it was that the community decide, so there is a point to continuing the discussion.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:01, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
Ah, then what I said has already taken place - permission granted, so the community can decide. ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 03:08, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of CAIT Climate Data Explorer

CAIT is a not only a website but a collection of tools to visualise climate change data from various sources and is often referenced by other sources. Wouldn't this be enough for the significance demanded in A7? I would suggest to revert the deletion. Hedgehoque (talk) 23:50, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Pl advice

Jp7311 are continuously pinging me and harassing me. They are not even understanding difference between vandalism and good faith edits and calling me vandal at BLPN repeatedly. I tried to let them understand but they’re intractable. Here they called vandal. Here again they sought explanation for my edit summary but it was based on content. not understanding consensus and still seeking answer by pinging me. Here they’re alleging I blocked someone on Wikipedia but you know, I’m not admin. Please advise how can I handle or what can be done to them? I can’t AGF more. Harshil want to talk? 00:44, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Based on a glance at BLPN, the user's conduct appears to be appalling. However, I think it would be better if you took this to WP:ANI. I'm reluctant to handle it unilaterally.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:40, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. -- Harshil want to talk? 04:10, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – February 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2020).

Guideline and policy news

  • Following a request for comment, partial blocks are now enabled on the English Wikipedia. This functionality allows administrators to block users from editing specific pages or namespaces rather than the entire site. A draft policy is being workshopped at Wikipedia:Partial blocks.
  • The request for comment seeking the community's sentiment for a binding desysop procedure closed with wide-spread support for an alternative desysoping procedure based on community input. No proposed process received consensus.

Technical news

  • Twinkle now supports partial blocking. There is a small checkbox that toggles the "partial" status for both blocks and templating. There is currently one template: {{uw-pblock}}.
  • When trying to move a page, if the target title already exists then a warning message is shown. The warning message will now include a link to the target title. [1]

Arbitration

  • Following a recent arbitration case, the Arbitration Committee reminded administrators that checkuser and oversight blocks must not be reversed or modified without prior consultation with the checkuser or oversighter who placed the block, the respective functionary team, or the Arbitration Committee.

Miscellaneous


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:05, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

The Checkuser's Barnstar

The Checkuser's Barnstar
You've already received some of these but I think it's important to let you know that your persistent and consistent work is appreciated. —PaleoNeonate – 20:39, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
@PaleoNeonate: Thanks very much, appreciate the thought.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:23, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
100% agree with Paleoneonate! EvergreenFir (talk) 23:30, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

KillerGho$t (sigh)

Hi again Bbb23. So they appear to be going by the name RapidCrane44 over the last 2 days, editing a variety of articles favoured by the the socks we've seen to date:

Next telltale signs are the usual lengthy edit summaries, areas of articles being edited (release dates, charts, locations/geographics etc) as well as the familiar, almost templated user name. But the giveaway for me is this little detail: a previous sock made a single edit to sport related page, most unusual given their affinity towards music related articles. Weird that this latest (potential) sock too has developed a taste for sport related pages as can be seen here, here & here however it is the edits themselves that gets me really suspicious: more date changes. I could wait for more but I think my hunches have been spot on lately. Robvanvee 20:34, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Sigh is right.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:32, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Hammadhassan135

Hi. I see you blocked User:Hammadhassan135 indefinitely. Are you sure this is appropriate? I took his edits to be an attempt to contribute, even though most of the changes were counterproductive. Replacing straight quotes with curly quotes is an understandable mistake for someone new here.--Srleffler (talk) 03:58, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

As you noted on the user's Talk page, it wasn't just the curly quotes - almost every change was unconstructive, and some bizarre. Why would someone come to Wikipedia and act like a grammarian and yet evince such ignorance of the English language? It's not just that they are unfamiliar with MOS (that's understandable in a newbie), but the other changes have nothing to do with our style of doing things. Did you also notice that he used opening curly quotes at the end of quotations? Is it intentional disruption? If it isn't, then it's incompetence. Either way, they are not here to contribute constructively.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:32, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
I did notice the opening quotes at the end of quotations. Yes, "fixing" things that weren't broken by replacing them with things that are is annoying. I'm not sure it's fair to assume intentional vandalism without first giving him a warning and seeing if his behavior improves.--Srleffler (talk) 00:29, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

"incomprehensible"

"Just for the record...."

Why did you remove somebody's comment as "incomprehensible"? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:14, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Did you understand it? What does "JFTR" mean?--Bbb23 (talk) 17:15, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
JFTR stands for "just for the record". He's come up with a list of basic guidelines to stop List of sex symbols turning into a complete BLP-violating disaster area, and has put a head's up on WP:BLPN to tell people about it. Sounds reasonable to me. The trouble with these list articles is they're a magnet for people coming along out of the blue and just adding the first thing that pops into their head without any sourcing or justification as to why it should be on the list; I've been watching over List of Hammond organ players for years and trying to ensure the whole thing is properly sourced and referenced is like Sisyphus pushing his rock up a hill. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:20, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
Hehe, I thought it was the initials of a user but had no idea who. Anyway, thanks for undoing my edit.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:24, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

User:Sourav kumar halder

Pretty sure this is a ban-evading User:Skh_sourav_halder (recreated one of Skh sourav halder's deleted pages, name is also pretty darn similar). Since you were the original blocking admin, mind having a look? creffett (talk) 02:05, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Globally locked. DMacks (talk) 18:44, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

FYI

Strictly as an FYI, I’ve posted a standard offer unblock request for a block you had placed. I’ve also allowed talk page access for the purpose of responding to the request. Let me know if you have questions. –xenotalk 15:38, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

That sounds vaguely insulting.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:46, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
Could you explain? I wrote it in a neutral state of mind. –xenotalk 18:20, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
Perhaps I'm being unduly sensitive to your wording and I confess that this Eranrabl thing is a sore point with me. It's your use of the word "strictly", which, to me, implies that you are notifying me because you feel like you must rather than because you just want to give me a heads up. If I am being paranoid and you did not mean it in that fashion, I apologize.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:24, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
It was more in the sense that none of your actions were being questioned in the linked thread- that you could respond or not at your pleasure. No worries, glad we sorted it, sorry for confusion. –xenotalk 18:45, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
Thanks very much for clarifying.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:46, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigations/Oneboartall

Why did you delete this, they were very similar? Atlantic306 (talk) 22:31, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

SPI

I'm curious, you did a Checkuser searchon the Croonerman SPI? I didn't req one because it's obviously another location from Havershill, LAs Vegas, Hawaii. The technical evidence would have been stale I would have thought? I was basically citing behaviors and habits, previous socks like LasVegasNewsman, Atlanta Researcher, NewYorkadios follows the username patterns and editing subject matter like [[2]] and [[3]] I personally think they were logged out. The other part is the personal knowledge of who reached out to Evans [[4]], this is another classic tell. Location based names, and then the behavior of insisting all the sourcing is correct accompanied with threats of seeking Wikipedia/media help etc, the one faceted nature of Brian Evans promotion alone would be a huge tell IMO. That should have been a behavioral eval I would have thought. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 15:11, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Obviously, I ran a check.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:53, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
Wow, Bbb is up already? Must have had some powerful espresso... Anyway, now that I know you're on call I can get back to my real job! Drmies (talk) 15:54, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
User:Bbb23 I appreciate that but that didn't actually answer the behavioral concerns or questions I was asking about. I can leave it alone if you wish, I just wanted to see if you would clarify why and how that would have been effective in this case or anything about the behavioral evidence at all. If nothing else it will help me not file a frivolous or bad faith accusation. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 15:56, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
An SPI clerk or any administrator may block the user based on behavioral evidence.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:09, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
Thank Bbb23, I respect your opinion and expertise with SPI and that's why I was asking. I appreciate the response and keep in mind if you think I'm off base I'd appreciate a line from you to let me know. I don't want to cross any lines. Have a great day. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 16:11, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
You're fine.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:14, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Request to continue editing

Hi Bbb23! I am contacting you regarding the deletion of this work. I would like to continue editing it to comply with the feedback you and others have contributed. It will be rewritten in my own words and any copyright issues resolved. Thank you for allowing this newbie to contribute to Wikipedia. Edugossip (talk) 17:47, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

User "RooneysBaldHead" seems to be back, as an IP

A couple of days ago user "RooneysBaldHead" was editing at Virgin birth of Jesus‎ and Perpetual virginity of Mary. Then he/she was blocked. But now he/she seems back at the same articles, with similar content, as IP "183.87.251.94". Might you be able to check? Thanks. Feline Hymnic (talk) 22:30, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Second Opinion

I'd like a second opinion on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HankMoodyTZ, specifically the 109.175.38.0/23 range. Given the personal attacks against Oleola, it's pretty clear that most of the editing on this range is HankMoodyTZ, but I'm not so sure about the edits to Živinice yesterday, and to Senidah and Sunny Suljic on Christmas Eve. These edits are outside HankMoody's usual topic area, so I don't really have anything to tie the two IP's to HankMoody behaviourally. From a technical perspective, how likely do think it is that this is the same person? Thanks. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:50, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

I assume you mean /24. Assuming that "same person" means HankMoody, I don't know how to answer your question without violating policy.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:50, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
I'm not asking you to run a check here. I'm asking for you opinion on publicly viewable IP information, because as a CheckUser, you have more experience than most analyzing IP addresses. I figured that experience might give you some insight that I don't have. If you're not comfortable answering that publicly, let me generalize the question. Absent any behavioural connection, how likely, in you opinion, is it for two IP's the same /23 range to be operated by the same person? And yes, I do actually mean /23. 38.0/24 and 39.0/24 are both listed in the investigation. It made little sense to me to treat the sequential ranges separately. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:49, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
IP ranges vary in terms of the likelihood of all the IPs being operated by the same person. The wider the range the less likely. /23 ranges are considered wide (anything greater than /24), but in this instance you can see that the range is not particularly busy. That tends to make it more likely. Without running a check, though, it's still a bit of a crap shoot. Absent a behavioral connection, I'd be reluctant to block unless the edits by the dissimilar IP are unconstructive, in which case it's not big deal if there's some collateral damage.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:22, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
Thank you. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:54, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

WP:AN discussion on lifting autoblocks

I started a discussion on WP:AN about lifting autoblocks. I politely suggest you are the person most likely to disagree with my position, so I am notifying you to give you the opportunity. I have no problem if you do; your arguments are well-reasoned and I value them. --Yamla (talk) 21:28, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Suspect J-Man11?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/SmartyPants22

User seems to be editing same sites started by J-Man11, and renaming units without evidence. What do you think?

BlueD954 (talk) 06:47, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

"No violation" in edit warring report

I'm trying to understand what should I do in this case. Should I not have reported there because there is no 3RR violation yet? Chico Venancio (talk) 18:16, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

It looks like a content dispute to me, not a conduct issue, although I can see some acrimony in the discussions. However, many content disputes are not susceptible to amicable resolution. You'll have to pursue dispute resolution.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:37, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
Thanks Bbb23, they seem to have come to the talk page and make more sourced contributions to the article. I'll look into the dispute resolution process if that fails. Chico Venancio (talk) 11:43, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Bbb23!

I am an administrator of Lusophone Wikipedia and I found that the origin of this confusion principle was the spelling "Ocô". Well, this spelling is correct and is used frequently in Brazilian Portuguese, including one of the country's leading sociologists, Reginaldo Prandi. I added five sources that attest to such use, with dates varying between 1953 and 2017. In other words, "Ocô" is used in a 60-year-old range and I hope that this discussion ends.

So, I congratulate you on the action to deny the application opened by the user above. In addition, I will give a warning to interfere with comments like this. This account has the custom and behavior of making nonsense comments. Usually appealing with victimism.

I also ask you to note the comments: she uses the differences of dialects and diversity of the Brazilian states (and between us, there is not much relation with the spelling), she also uses a possible unrelated negative denotation and her "experience" (pure subjectivity). Comments like this only extend the discussions. Edmond Dantès d'un message? 22:58, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

INTV

Quelle surprise!

...but not really-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 16:37, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

You just can't be trusted to block socks, can you? Probably out relaxing in the chilly wetness. Hopefully, that other user, who shall remain nameless, won't try to apply 3RRNO retroactively. I know I'm cynical, but an indefinite block seems inevitable to me.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:40, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
I was just wearing my standard issue admin ring without the super-secret decoder chip enabled. You'll be horrified to note that I've thrown a tiny bit more rope to said unnamed user, just as I disappear into the misty sunset for the weekend. C'est dommage! <insert sad trombone noise here>. -- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 16:49, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
I noticed. It's admins like you who give admins like me a bad name. Our gutters are being cleaned this morning...in the fog...but at least it's not raining (rained a lot all day yesterday). The weather is supposed to improve. What does this have to do with anything, you wonder? Pretty much nothing, although I could say something lame like we live with gutters and edit in the gutter une goutte a la fois.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:56, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
We're living the 'good cop/bad cop' dream; I'm the Murtaugh to your Riggs!-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 17:06, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
If this page is now open for French jokes, I'll get out my dictionary. O bruit doux de la pluie, par terre et sur les toits! EdJohnston (talk) 17:23, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
C'est pas une blague. C'est un poème. Ponyo, tu veux le transformer en chanson?--Bbb23 (talk) 17:35, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
Sounds complicated for a Friday. I'm at about this level right now:
"We go together
Like rama lama lama ka dinga da dinga dong
Remembered forever
As shoo-bop sha wadda wadda yippity boom de boom"
I'll try again on Monday.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 17:44, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
EdJohnston, you see what I have to deal with?--Bbb23 (talk) 17:50, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Regarding the OyVey1944 case - another account that seems to be quacking

AntiRacistSwede (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

SPI case: [5]

I know the CheckUser tool did not identify this one as a sock, but they are engaging in very suspicious behavior. I don't know if it could be the same person on a different device or something. Basically, they have started edit warring in favor of the same content at Nikah mut'ah.

They had not edited since January 2016, then turned up on February 2 2020 at Nikah mut'ah. Just now they have stepped up to edit war over the same subsection on Zoroastrianism as Qurtuva and OyVey1944. [6] They've also been engaging in personal attacks: it looks like you are hysterical and schizophrenic over this. I for one agree with his analysis of all the sources. So you agree or disagree cause it looks like you are just vandalizing this article for no reason [7] you're gonna have to stop vandalizing that section, the system already automatically marked you as spam and potential vandalism, which should tell you something about what your doing, other than that you did not provide any proper disagreement to the evaluation of the sources, all of them now are all proper university sources. refrain from vandalizing this page, unless you have credentials in Islamic history or direct access to those sources [8] Note the similarity to Qurtuva's claim that he had a PhD in Islamic history, to how Qurtuva and OyVey1944 would accuse opponents of vandalism, and that same run-on-sentence writing style. Note too here his unusual use of "mods" to refer to Wikipedia authorities; Qurtuva did the same here.

Note here they evidently admit a certain IP is them: [9] Don't know if that will help bridge any gaps.

Also, AntiRacistSwede claims on their user page to be an "Ivy League sophomore"; this is very reminiscent of the claims of authority made by Qurtuva and TheAntiFedora on their user pages.

Let me know if you need more evidence or how I should proceed. Crossroads -talk- 23:23, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

@Crossroads: I agree that all of the user's 2020 edits are behaviorally similar to the socks I've already blocked. However, when I look back on the user's edits from 2016 and before, which all focus on rape in Sweden, I have some difficulty, and I wondered if you would be willing to look at it and see what you think. It's possible that it's explained by a change in position (we're talking 4 years). I believe the blocked socks are Jewish-centric (probably Orthodox), anti-Muslim, and homophobic. Yet, in 2016 ARS argued repeatedly that rapes in Sweden were less likely to be caused by immigrants "from Africa and western Asia". In other words, he objected to racism in the article. I've put the case on hold while I think about this, but I'd like your input if you have some time. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:58, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
Crossroads, I've now reviewed more closely the edits of the blocked socks and realized that my interpretation of their behavior was mostly wrong. I now believe that they are pro-Muslim, implicitly anti-Semitic (their usernames), and homophobic. If I now have it right, ARS is behaviorally similar. Do you agree with my revised interpretation? I'm now going off-wiki again (I came back on just to add this comment). G'night.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:33, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
Yes, definitely. I wrote the following comment while your last one was being written:
It all clicks because the blocked accounts are only anti-Shia Muslim. They were pushing a Sunni Muslim POV, and are in fact anti-Semitic. That they are homophobic is correct and follows from their particular religious POV.
There is a major rivalry between the much larger Sunni sect of Islam and the smaller Shia sect. The content at Nikah mut'ah that is being fought for contains the Sunni POV line This concurs with what many Muslim scholars say, that shiaism is merely syncretism between Islam and pre-Islamic paganism and zorostarian beliefs and practices. ("zorostarian" clearly is meant to refer to the Zoroastrian religion.) This was originally added by the sock Qurtuva [10] and sourced to these obviously unreliable Sunni Muslim blogs: [11][12] The latest version being fought for by AntiRacistSwede still contains the line, as OR: [13] Qurtuva was warned for inserting Islamic honorifics: [14] Here he's really concerned with who is a "real" Muslim: [15] There are more examples from all the socks' contribs, but it is clear to me that they are pushing a Sunni Muslim POV, and they are anti-Shia, not anti-Muslim.
As for being Jewish-centric, was that impression from the usernames? I don't know of any edits about Jews; however, the person must be anti-Jewish, as Shlomo Shekelberg is an extremely anti-Jewish meme. [16] I don't know what OyVey1944 is supposed to mean, but I note that 1944 is during the Holocaust. "OyVey" is probably mockery. Antisemitism in Islam does exist.
Once this is understood, AntiRacistSwede's arguing repeatedly that rapes in Sweden were less likely to be caused by immigrants from Africa and western Asia fits perfectly, as (northern) Africa and Western Asia is the Muslim (mostly Sunni) world. I don't give any more credence to their claim to be a Swede or anti-racist than I do to the claims about having Sociology or Islamic History PhDs, except that they care about racism against their own race.
I'm now convinced that they are all the same person, and that they brought back their old AntiRacistSwede account when they felt it was needed. It may be worthwhile to run CU again, in case they got sloppy now thinking the coast is clear and used the AntiRacistSwede account on a device the other accounts were used on, or in case they have created any other sleepers. Or, maybe the two devices are very close geographically, even if not having the same exact IP. Finally, you might be able to match this IP [17] to something. Crossroads -talk- 05:05, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
It's been a busy morning, and I forgot to thank you for your help. Thank you. --Bbb23 (talk) 18:58, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
You're welcome. I'll let you know if I see them pop up again - as seems quite possible. Crossroads -talk- 19:23, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

More Vayalil

Since you're familiar with Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1028#The person, or persons, keen to edit Shamsheer Vayalil, there seems to be a new sock Angel white spell. (note the trailing dot). Their first edit was the usual canvassing of unsuspecting users to edit Shamsheer Vayalil here. The latest is a few hours ago, with much else in between. Is it time to block the IP range from creating accounts? People can still go through ACC, if they're legit, right? —[AlanM1(talk)]— 19:04, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Blocked along with a few sleepers.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:23, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Deletion of Calm Daybreak

The page that I created ( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calm_Daybreak ) has been deleted because it fell under the criteria A7 for speedy deletion, as far as I understand. I understand that the article was not notable, as the argument was made that the subject is not significant. I propose to fix this, by quoting data from nextbigsound ( https://www.nextbigsound.com/profile/1377143 ), e.g. “Calm Daybreak’s work has been streamed 1500 times on the music streaming platform Pandora, with 1000 of these achieved in a single month.” I think this should make the article notable, right? In all fairness, if there are that many people (720) listening to my music, I should be allowed to have a Wikipedia article. :) TechD123 (talk) 09:22, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Please don't use Wikipedia as a platform to advertise yourself.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:15, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Yobeemolt

Hello Bbb23. Is Special:Contribs/Yobeemolt a sock of Rowingasia? I blocked them on Commons for one month for sockpuppetry (the sock is Special:Contribs/Bliseiwaliu), but I noticed you've blocked them indefinitely here, and mentioned that this account is in fact an LTA sock. If this is a sock of Rowingasia, please let me know; we usually request global lock for their accounts. Thank you. Ahmadtalk 15:22, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:58, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
Thank you. Ahmadtalk 16:09, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Another sock of Tbone49

Tbone49 is back using Mustardman48. Same topics, same Android app edits, similar name convention. I'm sure a CU will turn up a positive result. Thanks. Ss112 02:56, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Hey again. Pretty sure Jotree is a new sock. A lot of Android app edits and the same topics. Ss112 01:24, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
I don't mind your reporting these here, but do me a favor: if more than a day elapses between your reports, please start a new thread. Otherwise, at the rate this character is going, this thread may never archive. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:00, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Blocked user - Centrist1

Hi Bbb23, I see you blocked User:Centrist1 for being a sockpuppet. Who were they a sock of? I believe they are back again, as User:Glass of Glasses. They are editing on 2020 Irish general election in the same pattern. Spleodrach (talk) 18:41, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

If you look at User:Centrist1, you can see who the sockmaster is. Thanks for letting me know about Glass of Glasses.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:50, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for that. Spleodrach (talk) 20:06, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Re: Sockpuppetry by Albe23413

Good day!

I dropped by your talk page to report a possible case of sockpuppetry committed by the user Albe23413. The suspected sockpuppet, is Kamel Camellia. The patterns of the editing are the same, always going for adding episode titles to Philippine TV series and the national TV ratings thereto. I checked the activities of Albe23413 during the fime that Kamel Camellia is active, but mysteriously, he was inactive althroughout Kamel Camellia's activities. I've also checked Albe23413's block log and have found that there is a precedent to his propensity for sockpuppetry, as he had once before been blocked for abusing multiple accounts.

Warmest regards.

Gardo Versace (talk) 13:17, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

You're correct. Both accounts are  Confirmed and blocked. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:33, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
@Bbb23: Thank you for responding quickly to this case of sockpuppetry before the sockpuppet can get far. Will closely be monitoring the pages the user watches, I fear the uswr might try to subvert the block by creating another account. Warmest regards Gardo Versace (talk) 16:49, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
@Bbb23: Just as I suspected, the Albe23413 created another account to circumvent the block placed into the user's account. The suspected sockpuppet is AbstractAudition. The account was created 4 hours as of the posting of this report. There's reason to believe that they are one and the same account as the pages they edit and the style of editing is the same. This is the 3rd time that the user has created another account to circumvent the indeterminate block placed on him. What's our remedy against this constant circumvention? Warmest regards Gardo Versace (talk) 10:25, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Yeh Rishtey Hain Pyaar Ke edit war

Hi. User Krish990 is edit warring Yeh Rishtey Hain Pyaar television series since long time stating Kaveri Priyam and Rithvik Arora also as main leads along with Shaheer Sheikh and Rhea Sharma while they originally play pivotal role as stated by many reliable sources while the sources he uses to prove his pointd are non reliable ones. Despite discussing in talk page Talk:Yeh Rishtey Hain Pyaar Ke of the series, he is just editing back again and again, being stubborn in his point itself stating the former two also as lead of the series. Could you help in this matter? Noobie anonymous (talk) 13:31, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

It looks like a long-term slow edit war. I'm not going to intervene in a content dispute. If you think there's a real conduct issue here, you could contact Ritchie333 as he blocked Krish990 last month for edit-warring at the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:45, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Request for Bbb23 to reconsider his deletion of my Wikipedia article, “The Case for an Inner Twin Brain”

Bbb23, I hope that you will reconsider your deletion of my article, The Case for an Inner Twin Brain. Your reason given as, “A10: Recently created article that duplicates an existing topic: Chimera (genetics)” does not apply for the following reason: the article includes two real life cases/medical wonders that TOGETHER, give basis for the article title. The first case involves a chimera person (as a result of “FRATERNAL twin absorption” during the early stage of their gestation); and the other involves the “IDENTICAL twin conjoining/absorption” of conjoined twins (Tatiana and Krista Hogan) whose brains are merged in such a way that they are able to read each other’s thoughts. My article stands alone in much the same way that the "true hermaphroditism" Wikipedia article stands alone from the “Chimera (genetics)” Wikipedia Article, even though true hermaphrodite’s are chimera individuals. I do understand that I am new at this and so the page lacks the polished look of most Wikipedia Articles, but the importance AND notability is obvious, that I felt confident that more experienced individuals would get on board to help with that. There is much more that I intend to add to the article that provide more proof toward “The Case for an Inner Twin Brain” if allowed the opportunity. As well, others would likely add to the article if it existed for them to do so, not to mention that it would encourage Medical Geneticists to explore this particular “twin brain” study via their conjoined twin and chimera twin patients, after all, they no doubt fear the bullies in society who would not want to face this reality (history hasn’t painted a nice picture of societies reactions to unconventional thought ie: Darwin’s theory of evolution) May Monique Ocean (talk) 18:31, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

I suggest you add material to an existing article. I see no need for a standalone article.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:34, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
First, I agree that “The Case for an Inner Twin Brain” can be noted in the “Chimera (Genetics)”. It can also be added to a wide variety of other articles: “Conjoined Twins”, “True Hermaphrodite”, etc. . This very important “NOTABLE” subject is virtually ignored even though the evidence is clearly there for its consideration and inclusion in Wikipedia. It is a controversial subject that a good many will not want addressed thanks to confirmation bias, and THAT, I believe is the problem now and has been the problem throughout time with introducing similar unsettling scientific truths. I decided to write the article after reading Wikipedia’s: “Wikipedia: Please do not bite the newcomers” article and this section in particular : “Remember, our motto and our invitation to the newcomer is be bold. We have a set of rules, standards, and traditions, but they must not be applied in such a way as to thwart the efforts of newcomers who take that invitation at face value. A newcomer brings a wealth of ideas, creativity and experience from other areas that, current rules and standards aside, have the potential to better our community and Wikipedia as a whole. It may be that the rules and standards need revising or expanding; perhaps what the newcomer is doing "wrong" may ultimately improve Wikipedia. Observe for a while and, if necessary, ask what the newcomer is trying to achieve before concluding that their efforts are wanting or that they are simply "wrong".”
I do understand that I can appeal your deletion through other channels, but I also agree with Wikipedia’s first recommendation in a case like this— approach the editor in question. May Monique Ocean (talk) 10:25, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
If you're unwilling to do as I suggest, although I will not restore the article to mainspace, I will draftify it for you if you like, with the understanding that you will submit the draft through WP:AFC.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:00, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
That doesn't sound like a newbie. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 16:09, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
It was/is my intention to include the evidence in support of “The Case for an Inner Twin Brain” theory in other articles (including “Chimera (Genetics)” as per your recommendation). One step at a time... and I decided to trust Wikipedia’s motto, and be “bold”, and hope that they would stand true to their words (as mentioned in my previous response), one that I DID take at “face value” — hence my Wikipedia Article,... and from my perspective, I most definitely have been thwarted!! As to what you mean by “I will draftify it for you if you like, with the understanding that you will submit the draft through WP:AFC”?! Unfortunately, I don’t trust you now— you deleted my Article without even giving me notice... any encouragement whatsoever, and continue to refuse to restore my article even after in good faith I reveal to you that it does not “duplicate” in the sense that you see as warranting deletion under A10 (Recently created article that duplicates an existing topic). I reiterate— the two cases taken TOGETHER in my deleted article holds the scientific basis as the title “boldly” claims, and so does not constitute a duplication of the “Chimera (Genetics)” article.May Monique Ocean (talk) 17:38, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
please see the last part of WP:BITE, it states "One common error among newcomers is to create an article in mainspace about themselves, their garage band, or about their original theories on a certain topic. One way to deal gently with this is to userfy the article, and leave a note saying why. {{nn-userfy}} is designed for userfying autobiographical articles. The remaining redirect can be flagged for deletion using {{Db-rediruser}}. Userfied articles on bands could be tagged with {{PROD}}, since they tend to hang around. New articles about a person's original research and theories could have a note appended explaining WP:OR. It is sometimes helpful to direct new users to alternative outlets." This would qualify as an original theory or possibly WP:SYNTH or WP:OR. This isn't a case where allowing you more time to fix your article would have been the nice thing to do, the submission was flawed from creation. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 15:17, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Mimi

How many sourcs do you want for Mirella Freni being identified with Mimi? - Opera singers are known by roles, and this lead a general "Verdi Puccini Mozart Tchaikovsky" - but reading the obits and listening to the video: for her it's a one and only. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:43, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't see any sources that single out Mimi as her signature role, and I think it diminishes her career to do so in the opening sentence.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:48, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
(ec)
  • Blum: "When Freni made her Metropolitan Opera debut as Mimi in Puccini’s “La Bohème” on Sept. 29, 1965, at the old house, Zinka Milanov went backstage and told assistant manager Francis Robinson: “She’s so wonderful, this girl, she sounds like a young me.”"
  • Brug: "Die ein halbes Jahr ältere Sopranistin entwickelte sich zum ewig „süßen Mädchen“, als welches sie später in einer ihrer berühmtesten Bühnenpaarungen vom Milchbruder Luciano in Puccinis „La Bohème“ besungen wurde." - (the most famous couple on stage)
  • Vienna State Opera: " Exemplarisch etwa, aber nicht nur, ihre Mimì, die auch heute noch beim Hören ihrer Aufnahmen stets unter die Haut geht und sich tief einprägt: Ihr „Ma quando vien lo sgelo“ bringt nach wie vor die Herzen zum Schmelzen.“" - exemplary her Mimi ...
  • Sinkovicz: "La Boheme" - Puccinis Oper ist gewiss das erste, was Opernfreunde mit dem Namen Mirela Frenis assoziieren. Die Sopranistin mit der Engelsstimme aus Modena, die am Sonntag, wenige Wochen vor ihrem 85. Geburtstag gestorben ist, war für Generationen der Inbegriff der Mimi, deren Schicksal sie mit vokalen Mitteln nachzuspüren wusste wie keine Zweite. Mit der legendären Doppelpremiere der bis heute geliebten Zeffirelli-Inszenierung des Werks - Herbert von Karajan dirigierte an der Mailänder Scala und an der Wiener Staatsoper - war die Weltkarriere der jungen Künstlerin gestartet. (... is for sure the first thing opera friends associate the name ..., loved still today) - I'll put it back, with that ref, and once I get time, will add more roles which tell a reader what kind of voice - if they really don't know. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:53, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
Done before you asked ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:05, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
Excellent. BTW, Freni was a great singer, but I adored Milanov. I was a major classical music fan growing up but not into opera. Then a good friend in college set about converting me, and she started with records of Milanov. I didn't just fall in love with opera - I fell in love with the human voice.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:18, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
Great. I just found another Mimi ref. I met the name of Zinka Milanov when someone on radio said that Teresa Zylis-Gara sounded like her when she (ZM) was young. It was at a time when Italian opera in Germany was sung in German, and nobody cared about diacritics. I heard her once more, as Mimi at the Met, and again as Manon Lescaut, with Nello Santi conducting who is on the Main page now. Never heard Freni in person. - Returning from rehearsal with human voices, going to perform 8 March. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:39, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

KillerGho$t

Hey Bbb23. Looks like they are back. They waited a little longer this time though. Name = GoldenPioneer150, so very much in line with previous incarnations... 2 joined capitalised words ending in 3 numbers. Editing dates (release, recorded, years active, etc), certifications, location related edits, long edit summaries for almost all edits and then of course their near perfect understanding of how Wikipedia intricacies work for a new user. I'm pretty confident this is them. Robvanvee 04:58, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

 Done + one.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:18, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Niiiice! Thanks as always. Robvanvee 14:20, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

User:Fan4Life

Just thought I'd let you know that the user listed above — who you blocked for three-months for edit-warring — returned from their block to immediately resume their edit-warring behaviour; even after receiving a warning from an administrator, they have continued. A case of WP:DUCK exists right here. livelikemusic talk! 15:32, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of my sandbox

Hey Bbb23, hope you're having a nice day!

I was just coming here to discuss your deletion of my sandbox. I used the "Contest this speedy deletion" button, but about 1 hour afterwards, you deleted both my sandbox and my contesting of the deletion.

When I wrote the article, I appropriately tagged it with {{humor}} so that it would not be taken literally. For this reason, it was not vandalism and I made clear it wasn't real, so it does not qualify as a hoax. Furthermore, since it was my sandbox, there was no reason to delete it since the sandbox is designed for experimentation. Finally, according to the Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion, a page should, if possible, be reverted to the last acceptable version. My sandbox has not always had the deleted article draft in there, so, even if all my above points are wrong, it should have been reverted to the last acceptable version.

Thanks for taking the time to read this! Ghinga7 (talk) 20:21, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Didn't you submit your sandbox for review? That's why it got tagged. Why do you even want to use Wikipedia resources for such stuff?--Bbb23 (talk) 21:18, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I submitted it for review. My main attribute is humor, and since people bothered to make pages such as this and this, I figured I'd have a go at it. Ghinga7 (talk) 20:07, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
I restored your sandbox.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:21, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

User talk:A1Cafel

This request is open for almost ten days. Can some CheckUsers comment on it?--GZWDer (talk) 08:19, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't know what your interest is in this user, but I have commented on the user's unblock request.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:50, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
(Nosey talk page stalker) The blocked user replied to you but didn't ping. --kingboyk (talk) 16:11, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

T3 discrepancy

Bbb23, may I borrow your expertise for a moment? I posted about a discrepancy between CSD T3 template and policy here and suggested that a minor wording change needed to be made to the policy to correct an earlier alteration. Have I posted in the correct venue? How should I proceed if there are no objections and no responses? --kingboyk (talk) 16:07, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

I have no particular expertise in this matter. In general, I don't like changing policy without a consensus to do so.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:21, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Possible sock of KG

MagneticTrailblazer seems to possibly be the latest sock of KillerGho$t and I say possibly because I'm not as confident as usual. They also have not made that many edits yet so it makes detection that much harder.

  • The name is missing the three numbers at the end but is the usual 2 capitalised joined words. I am sure we have encountered a sock of KG that was missing the numbers in the past (but for the life of me can not find it) as well as the fact that KG omitted them from their username.
  • The 7 edits they have made to all different articles contain 4 articles edited by a previous sock.
  • Longer than your average editors explanatory edit summaries as per all previous socks.
  • But was this that caught my attention: likes to ensure the "chart" sections are kept neat just like socks TM136, GP175, DP624.

Got something or shall I keep looking? Robvanvee 18:01, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

You're good, as usual.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:12, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
Thanks Bbb23! Robvanvee 18:20, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Edit Clarification

You have just said "unreliably sourced" to edits I made -- how do I go about challenging this? Every edit I made I sourced. I will be glad to discuss the details with you and go line-by-line over every edit I made. It seems a bit tyrannical and frankly lazy, to simply revert the entire thing; instead of looking at each edit individually. Link: Penn State Dickinson Law. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael Pipa (talk • contribs) 23:43, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

You're a new user. Calling me "tyrannical" and "lazy" is not going to get you far. If you want to discuss your changes, use the article Talk page, not mine.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:28, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Move Request of Draft:K. Surendran (politician)

Hi,@Bbb23:, I request you to move this Draft page to main space…??

Today, He became the state president of the Bharatiya Janata Party Kerala

Thanks-- Padavalam Kuttan Pilla  Talk  16:22, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

JosefHe

Could you look at the JosefHe account that's been trolling the Adolf Hitler talkpage? It looks like a named account of HarveyCarter. Acroterion (talk) 16:53, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks! --Bbb23 (talk) 18:22, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, I figured he'd found a new angle to flog. Acroterion (talk) 18:23, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Sock of Flooded with them hundreds

Hi Bbb23. I'm rather suspicious of the user Agenzmale, who appears to have registered just to nominate redirects I've created for deletion, targeting things I've created. This looks rather like an extension of this user's vendetta against me, and so this looks like a sock of FWTH to me. @Ad Orientem: If this is confirmed to be a sock of FWTH, would you be able to close the discussions this user started or at least do something about them? As it's entirely what this looks like to me. Ss112 15:43, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Oh and Bbb23/AO, the dead giveaway is that in October last year, they went to Davey2010's talk page enquiring about a page Davey2020 nominated for deletion that was started by a blocked sock of FWTH (Mangoo—if either of you could look through the deleted page's history, you'd see that the article was created by a user that is now blocked as a sock of FWTH). They should be blocked and the discussions they opened (now at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 February 8) closed per WP:DENY. Ss112 15:48, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
@TonyBallioni: As they might have more data on FWTH's sock range. Ss112 15:58, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
The CU results are too weird. You'll have to reopen the Zawl SPI.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:20, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
I’ll look when I get home tonight. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:26, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
I so dislike that person that I'd rather go to my faculty meeting right now than look into it. Drmies (talk) 16:28, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
@TonyBallioni: Thanks. I think this is honestly enough for a block on the basis of behavioural evidence without needing to file an SPI—targeting what I've created, and enquiring about FWTH's deleted article certainly seems to be enough reason on that front. Ss112 16:41, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
I think Drmies should ask his colleagues at the meeting what they think. Seriously, the technical results are not an impediment to a behavioral block. It's not like there's no way that Agenzmale is a sock, just that the results aren't compelling enough for me to block outside of a report at SPI. Other administrators may feel more comfortable doing so.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:44, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
P.S. I would be willing to close any still open RfDs that have little or no meaningful discussion if this turns into a CU block. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:15, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
@Ad Orientem: Well, the redirects were grouped into where they point at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 February 8 after initially being nominated at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 January 29, where a discussion ensued and was deemed a "trainwreck" because of its complexity. Narky Blert has been the only user who has commented under most if not all of the threads on the February 8 page, and put in a bit of work to find out matching titles on other language Wikis. While I respect the amount of effort they have put in to assess the 200 or so odd pages FWTH obsessively scoured for, and while I certainly may be prejudiced considering they're redirects I created, I am concerned what kind of precedent it'd be setting if sock accounts' discussions were allowed to stand and still essentially have effects on other users in the midst of block evasion. If it were a legitimate user with concerns, as in Narky Blert had found them themselves, I'd still think it excessive, obsessive, heavy-handed and bordering on harassment, but I'd feel a lot better than I do about these discussions started still being open. FWTH wants them all deleted and Narky Blert is just unknowingly giving him what he wants. Ss112 02:48, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
@Ss112: Unfortunately WP:EARLY seems to bar me from closing these discussions. I am very much in sympathy with you and I don't think banned editors should be allowed to nominate pages for deletion and have them stand. Especially when the nominations were obviously made in bad faith as an act of deliberate harassment. But I went down this road once before and got my head handed to me for closing some AfDs on the basis of their being opened by a blocked/banned editors and am not eager to revisit the experience. FWIW I think it's unfair but with substantive comments on pretty much all of them I think my hands are tied. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:39, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
@Ad Orientem: Would you be able to make a note (copypasted, perhaps) under each thread on the page that they were all opened by a now-blocked sockpuppet and that that should be taken into account when they are closed? Ss112 03:43, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
@Ss112: Yes, I think that is reasonable. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:49, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 Done I have to say that if that little creep wasn't already site banned I'd support it on the basis of this alone. And I am not a fan of bans except in the most egregious circumstances. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:29, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
  • zzuuzz confirmed and I agree with the assessment. Bbb, zzuuzz and I left some notes in CUwiki if you're interested. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:39, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Bbb23 or TonyBallioni Would either of you consider doing a (quick) CU on The pangea pimp? A tenuous connection perhaps, but I find it rather telling this user registered only several hours ago, but their first edit to Wikipedia is to the last article I edited. It's well known FWTH likes to keep tabs on what I edit and I daresay this is what they did after discovering their old account got blocked earlier. Along with this, another one of FWTH's number of blocked accounts also had "pimp" in the name. It definitely looks like it could be another attempt at harassment to me. If it turns out to be nothing, I'll chalk it up to paranoia and try to get on with not being so. Ss112 15:18, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
@Bbb23: This account is globally locked by Bsadowski1 as an LTA without reporting it to SRG. 2600:6C4E:580:A:2CD7:FF26:B5F7:824 (talk) 17:05, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I requested a steward lock that account and the new one. Most lock requests aren't done on SRG. I requested it via the CU IRC channel. Zawl socks are globally locked because there was some extremely severe cross-wiki harassment going on previously, and the lock prevents him from using other projects to target people he has grudges with cross-wiki. Jyothis locked the current one as a spam bot, but I think that's because it autopopulated in his browser. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:37, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
@TonyBallioni: Maybe not just only the WP:CBAN, but the global ban can happen here. You should file it on Meta:Requests for comment regarding that Zawl is going to face the immediate global ban by the Wikimedia Community. 2600:6C4E:580:A:2CD7:FF26:B5F7:824 (talk) 19:14, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
There's no need for that. Stewards lock him upon discovery. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:19, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedians feeling discouraged

I'd be interested to know why you think User:Zerograv10, having been indef. blocked, belongs in Category:Wikipedians feeling discouraged, in perpetuity, and why you claim that my explanation of that issue "makes no sense". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:36, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Wouldn't you feel discouraged if you were indefinitely blocked? Seriously, blocked users have all sorts of things on their Talk pages, but unless they're disruptive, which this is not, there's no reason to remove them, and there's certainly no reason for you to do so.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:17, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
I'm not sure why you seek to personalise this; I have as much or as little right, or responsibility, or freedom, (or whatever you might call it, to fix this issue as any other uninvolved editor. I note that you address neither of the questions I asked above: Why does this user belong in the category in perpetuity? Why do you assert that my explanation of my edit "makes no sense"? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:01, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi

Hi i've added Klervoyans page from draft, what am i doing wrong, could you show me the my mistakes please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vikipolimer (talk • contribs) 23:35, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

The person is not sufficiently notable to have a Wikipedia article.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:20, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

closing stale SPIs

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/190.16.216.10&curid=63025998&diff=941104473&oldid=939223749 did you check the activity before closing or just the date of the case? 190.16.216.10 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) was still blocked when making all of those edits, and more were made between the date of notification and the date the block expired. This is a long-term problem editor based on the edits at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/190.245.0.0/16 and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2800:2161:4400:72A:0:0:0:0/64 . The original block should have been extended for evasion and the range should have been impacted. Is it me that the admins don't like or is there some other reason they're letting this behaviour continue unchecked? Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:44, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

I made a more detailed SPI entry and it was acted on. I will endeavour to be more detailed going forward. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:59, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Pakistani_films_of_2005

Please find following references for each edit I made on the page.

(1)Film name is: Dekha Pehli Bar released in 2005 and Director name is: Malik Imdad Hussain (Imdad Hussain) https://pakmag.net/film/db/details.php?pid=3838 https://www.imdb.com/name/nm11285044/?ref_=fn_al_nm_1

(2)Film name is: Naag aur Nagin directed by Jamshed Naqvi in 2005 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naag_aur_Nagin

(3)The External link of IMDB on the page is broken (https://www.imdb.com/Sections/Countries/Pakistan/). the following link which I added is relevant. https://www.imdb.com/search/title/?title_type=feature&release_date=2005-01-01,2005-12-31&countries=pk&languages=ur


If you need any more information, I will be happy to help.

New Username: Amircoldscug (talk) 12:06, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Old Username: Malikimdadhussain (talk) 19:58, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Recent revert and readdition on my user talk page

Greetings, got a question about an edit of yours on User talk:Jo-Jo Eumerus. The edit you reverted here has been readded with the rationale "due to missig reason". I am not sure whether to respond. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:09, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

I think perhaps I was too hasty and should have let you read the IP's post. My removal was a knee-jerk reaction to an IP leaving a post on an admin's Talk page in a foreign language. I momentarily forgot that you're a native German speaker, and the IP probably knew that. Having looked more deeply into the matter this morning, I can see that the IP was protesting your decision in an AfD regarding a microbiologist, an article that was apparently created by the IP. The IP belongs to the Swiss Education and Research Network, which perhaps explains the person's interest in scientific/medical matters (I'm assuming it's one person but there's no way of knowing). Take a look at 89.206.112.0/21, which is the range generated by the IP who posted along with the IP who re-added the post. In any event, my apologies for my interference. Whether you respond is up to you. It certainly looks like your judgment of consensus at the AfD is uncontroversial.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:08, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll reply (in German and in English - as coincidence may have I also come from and live in Switzerland, although I am not familiar with this "Swiss Education and Research Network"). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:28, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Another possible sock of KG

It's getting harder each time and I could wait for more but my suspicions are raised. As you have been the primary blocking admin as well as the editor who constantly reverts their edits ("sock edit") I'm sure they watch your talk page. If so they are aware of what I'm looking for and as such, I suspect they opted for a different name format this time.

  • Ocular Enchanter. It might be 2 separate words short of 3 numbers at the end but the name still sounds like many of the previous socks.
  • Last sock blocked on 14 Feb. This account created 14 Feb.
  • Long edit summaries to most of their edits.
  • Well versed for a Wikipedia beginner.
  • 6 of the 8 articles edited were edited by previous socks.
  • Again they are focusing on all the things that previous socks did; Adding music videos, charts, dates, singles and their dates, and the odd sport related article edit.

Let me know if you need more. Thanks. Robvanvee 05:45, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

God, this is tedious. At least it's easy. I wish there were a way I could prevent new accounts, but IP range blocks are simply not feasible in this case. Also, because of the fact that he tackles different articles with long gaps in between socks, semi-protection would be useless. If you have anything to suggest, I'm all ears.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:25, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
Your'e telling me and I'm none the wiser as how best to deal with this. What's sad is that 90% of their edits are pretty good and if it weren't for the sock puppetry/block evasion they could have actually been a productive editor. I guess the ship has sailed for an unblock request at this stage. As long as the socks appear (and I think we both know they will) do you mind if I bring them here? Thanks as always. Robvanvee 16:33, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
Do me a favor and the next one bring to SPI and alert me. I'd like to make some comments on the record at the SPI. The evidence you present here is more than ample to file a report at SPI, so it should be little extra trouble for you.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:37, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
Will do. Robvanvee 16:53, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Simulation12 sockpuppetry help

I apologize, but I'm not that familiar with the whole sockpuppet process. I just wanted to inform you that I received this message on Wikia/FANDOM. The user who posted this (Rose4kid) has recently been adding completely unsourced production codes onto List of Dora the Explorer episodes, and continued to do so today fresh off a 72-hour block. The other accounts in question here are Alphius and Editmaster4, and this is regarding the whole Simulation12 sockpuppet.

I've tried to request an investigation on another account that I received a message like this, but was informed (by you, actually) that it needs to be on-Wikipedia edits/evidence. I'm not sure if this message on Wikia/FANDOM could still be used to at least keep an eye on these accounts or anything like that, but again, I'm not that familiar with the sockpuppet process. Should also be worth noting that Alphius was having a bit of a recent edit war on The Casagrandes, and did however, take it to the talk page. Again, not sure if any of this can be used or anything, but would be at least appreciated if an eye could be kept on these possible sockpuppets. Hope you understand, thanks. Magitroopa (talk) 06:00, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Return of Gilesartq/KasimMejia/RandomAccount13343413/SyriaAnalyst

Seems he have returned editing the same page, also the autoprotected ended on 18 february. And he have just appeared, possible SP of them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/176.88.137.160
Mr.User200 (talk) 13:27, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Hip hop sock editor using IP?

Hi Bbb23. I know CUs don't disclose results of checks run on IP addresses, but I've come across the IP editor 104.158.239.148 and I'm quite suspicious that they might be one of the many hip hop editor sockmasters that gather around hip hop topics. They don't speak as if they're a newbie, and they have edit warred with another editor quite recently, and so I thought (without disclosing if you run a check) that you might have more knowledge with your CU powers than I do. Thanks. @Ad Orientem: Just wanted to ping to see if this editor looks suspicious to you too. They even know how to use reFill so I am confident this user is not new here. Edit: I'm tossing up whether they are either Icy Rollie (a sock of Smart Aleck) or Guccislidesboss, who was apparently a sock of "Edsheeranhater". Ss112 05:52, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

I've consulted with TheAmazingPeanuts, who thinks they're either Xboxmanwar or JayPe. If this IP editor isn't one of those four I'll be very surprised. Ss112 07:38, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Murder of Grace Millane

As you didn't bother giving an edit summary, or contributing to the talk page I was wondering why you decided to revert my edit? Next time, please take the minute or two it takes to do both. Obscure Lobotomy (talk) 16:02, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Oh one other thing, please don't tag edits as minor edits when you're reverting people, I'm highly confident you know that's not what the minor edit function is for. Obscure Lobotomy (talk) 16:05, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Questions on page Diplacusis

Hi,

I am a new editor, learning to write for Wikipedia. I saw that the content I added was removed. Can you please help explain a bit more about why this was done? I included citations, more than the original text.

Look forward to hearing from you.

DrMcGinnity (talk) 17:08, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Please discuss your edits on the article Talk page. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:10, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Grace Millane

Why have you rolled back the info on her sentencing? It is all correct and sourced properly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Towack (talk • contribs) 01:33, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Return of Gilesartq/KasimMejia/RandomAccount13343413/SyriaAnalyst Version 2

Seems he have returned editing the same page again(X2) this week. And he have just appeared, possible SP of them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/176.88.142.169
Mr.User200 (talk) 14:19, 21 February 2020 (UTC) Also should be blocked for insults, like made in this edit summary: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?Title=Northwestern_Syria_offensive_(December_2019%E2%80%93present)&diff=prev&oldid=941923961
Mr.User200 (talk) 14:28, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Deleted SPI...

Hey there, I just wrote up a quick SPI for Aksh Mondal, but when I submitted it through Twinkle, it was rejected because one of the links I used to indicate that the user was copy/pasting content, was on the spam blacklist. So I lost several minutes of work and I don't presently have time to redo it. Short story: Draft:Niyati Joshi was recreated by brand-new user Karan Virani. This is already suspicious as possible UPE. While there are not really any strong stylistic similarities between the old deleted draft and the new draft, both users appear to have copy pasted content from some crappy content aggregators, and both pieces of content were fluffy and inappropriate for a BLP. Stuff like "Niyati was eager to act as a beautiful woman since childhood" was in one of the old drafts, here. In the new draft, the user adds "She is very kind, hard-working and respectful." Both of these and portions I didn't want to quote were lifted from a couple of garbage content aggregator sites. Since both users appear to think it's OK to copy/paste, my feeling is that they could be the same person, and I was hoping you might look into it if you get a chance. Thank you, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:19, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Sock blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:41, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for handling this! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:09, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

SPI

Hey BBB23, just wanted to revisit a conversation we had earlier this year in regards to Croonerman. The case was never reviewed past your checkuser. It was clearly Evans, this is the other one that I uncovered today [[18]] although it is stale it provides good evidence. One edit in particular should be interesting. [[19]] this one here using his twitter account to verify info and then compared to [[20]] which you actually reverted [[21]]. Who ever looked at the behavior evidence after your technical evidence review didn't do such a great job. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 14:18, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Contesting Speedy deletion nomination of Sepoy Imtiaz Ali

@Dear Wikipedia Administrator Sepoy Imtiaz Ali was a Soldier of Pakistan Armed Forces who recently killed by Indian Armed forces as a result of heavy fire between two nuclear armed rivals. As India and Pakistan aggression is increase day by day. Thousand of people search Wikipedia about this incident, Who he was, his age, area etc. I believe, If Wikipedia could add this information than it will increase credibility of Wikipedia for users, as it will provide comprehensive information of an event. Further, Please guided me, How it is not important ? Thanks(Tribune)(Radio Pakistan)(Pakistan Readers) --Knowiunderstandit (talk) 17:45, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

You appear to have significant pro-Pakistani biases. There is nothing notable per Wikipedia standards about Sepoy Imtiaz Ali.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:03, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

@Respected Wikipedia Administrator How I am pro-Pakistani biases. I attached these links just as proof that Pakistan also accept this news. As the major source of this incident is [(Hindustan Times)]. It is very simple that Indian Military Officials and Media stated that One Pakistan Soldier is been Killed in exchange of fire while Pakistan Military Officials ISPR and Media accept this statement. So How i am pro-Pakistani. I am really sorry, If it was felt by anyone. Thanks --Knowiunderstandit (talk) 18:19, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Iran Khanoom

Hello,

This article describes a project that evolves around a person, and to describe the project—which is quite popular and well known in the Iranian community—one needs to know about who it is based on.

Also, according to notability, the person who is the subject of this project is indeed an interesting character, worthy of notice, and very well known among Iranians. Please consider not deleting this in the future. Amiraria14 (talk) 19:53, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Unclear which operation they belong to

Hi again, I'm looking at new user Rafik Fulwala, who has recreated two previously deleted articles, It Happened In Calcutta and Hum Tum and Them. The former was created by a Vc4137 sock, the latter was created by the ArthurCurry70 drawer. They seem so far to be focused on Balaji Telefilms productions, for whatever that's worth. Any idea who they might be? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:09, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

The technical evidence doesn't support a connection to either sockmaster.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:23, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
Shoot. Thanks though. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:23, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Dear Bbb23

Even though you has block อัลเบิร์ but this user has always harm on me with other IP as 14.231.90.28. I'm so tire to manage and protect Wikipedia society. I check this IP location it come from Vietnam (rival of Thai football team). As you see he try to tell me that i'm a sock puppet as its but you can see I edit more than 3000 edit for more than 4 years so it not has a good reason why I must use other user, I can say I proud to use this user as ThaiWikiProject and one who edit Thai football wikipedia page include national team and league team. Please give the justice to me or wikipedia society. Ministerboy (talk) 09:14, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Running on baseless attack against other user doesn't help, and propagating a "justice" agenda doesn't help, either. You soared up a defend that is not so convincing. I watched Thai football team to prevent constant vandalism from Vietnamese editors but also noticed a warring edit went on. You engaged actively in that and aren't backing off despite having been warned. Your impressive user profile won't get you to be patronized by anyone if you violate the rules. 14.231.90.28 (talk) 10:33, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
Hi, Beeb. I see you've blocked อัลเบิร์ as a sock. I found 14 new messages from Ministerboy and the IP they mention above concerning the Thai football articles on my page this morning, and the penultimate section there is also of interest. Could you take a look, please? Bishonen | tålk 10:08, 24 February 2020 (UTC).
@Bbb23, I just checked that User:Ministerboy go on the same edit war again despite having been blocked and warned. He undid many users' edits and not just one user. His and this user ThailandFootball editing format and pattern of behavior seems similar. He even gave false assumption of me as a sock of another editor.14.231.90.28 (talk) 10:33, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Sapiens Foundation

The Draft on Sapiens Foundation now meets the criteria of Credible claim of significance. The deletion under A7 may be reversed — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manoje.john (talk • contribs) 14:46, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

The draft will be reviewed by someone on the WP:AFC team.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:16, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

BonkHindrance

Firstly, contributions is a typical name for a sockpuppet. This is because a typical sockmaster's thought process when it comes to selecting a username involves combining two nouns randomly generated from sites like randomwordgenerator.com.

Secondly, a habit for a sockmaster is to create the account, make one or two edits then become idle for a few days or weeks (to pickup the autoconfirmed flag). This is exactly what BonkHindrance has done.

Thirdly, the user has been doing things and using processes that are not normally known to newbies (such as proposed deletion & deletion sorting)[22], endorsing and declining prods,[23][24] posting on the conflict of interest noticeboard[25], citing policies such as WP:RS[26] & WP:N[27] and using templates such as {{CN}}[28].

Please, my man. Perform a check on the account as I'm 100% sure it's a sockpuppet of a blocked editor who's not supposed to be editing Wikipedia. 185.209.162.141 (talk) 12:41, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

To me, they just seem like a user who skimmed/partially read policy, and at first didn't quite understand it. (I was such a user.)
Until they start showing harmful behavior, I don't see a reason for a checkuser to review them.
BonkHindrance: In this case, I'd argue that yes, the IP editor should've tagged you. However, there are times where it is not appropriate, mostly to prevent a sock from realising they're busted, and stop being covert (assuming intent is to cause chaos) —moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 21:07, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

One of your sockpuppet investigations is the same as a much bigger investigation

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Thiyojs/Archive is the same person as Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/MusicLover650 (check all the "music programmer" edits). · • SUM1 • · (talk) 04:58, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

For Your Attention

Hi Bbb23, I have created an article Named Aswathy Jwala that you previously deleted under WP:A7. she is a famous social worker from Kerala and Her original name is Aswathy Nair.but she is known as Aswathy Jwala.This is her Malayalam Wikipedia article. I call your attention to this article Aswathy Jwala Thanks-- Padavalam Kuttan Pilla  Talk  11:22, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Northwestern Syria offensive (December 2019–present)

Hey Bbb23, seems the article Northwestern Syria offensive (December 2019–present) has been targeted by a block-evading IP editor. Today, you blocked for 72 hours editor 176.88.142.169 for disruptive editing and personal attacks. Just three hours later, 176.88.136.20 (similar IP) started editing in a similar POV pattern. At one point, an edit was also made by 176.54.10.88 (again a similar IP). His edit was virtually the same as one of those made by 176.88.136.20. Just wanted to let you know. Cheers! EkoGraf (talk) 21:26, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

I also asked El_C to check the article and determine if it needs protection in case its the same IP editor and he has just protected the article. EkoGraf (talk) 21:36, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
Sounds like the best solution. Thanks for taking care of it.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:41, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
No problem. :) EkoGraf (talk) 22:14, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
Its seems he/she have returned. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Nabu-Kudurri-Usur_Yaniv

He is using the same edit summary, and the same articles, same behaviour..Mr.User200 (talk) 14:04, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

He/She is changing the outcome of most articles of the Syrian Civil War.Mr.User200 (talk) 14:08, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Landmark sub-headings

I would appreciate your response to my comments on the talk:Landmark Worldwide page, regarding your reversion of my edit. DaveApter (talk) 17:46, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you ...

February flowers
Alte Liebe

... for listening to my "uproar", on Handel's birthday, enjoy! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:14, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

... today's Alte Liebe became especially meaningful after yesterday's funeral. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:10, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you

You probably don't get thanked often enough for what you do, so thank you! With 14-year-old FA Tourette syndrome coming up on the mainpage next week, I've had enough work to do just to get it back up to snuff, without dealing with a sock, so The Thing You Do to help content is much appreciated. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:20, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Personalized thanks are much appreciated. BTW, what does "Typically, Derekx socks follow my edits" mean?--Bbb23 (talk) 16:51, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
There's no short answer for that :) All related in that I was absent from Wikipedia for several years, and forgot who's who in the long-term sock world, and don't know the MO on most of the new sockmasters. First, I knew it wasn't Mattisse, who was known to plague me years ago. Next, I believe that Archtransit was established as a Dereks1x sock, and Archtransit was known to poke me, so that was a possibility. Third, I couldn't even remember the name of the literature sockmaster who plagued me, so couldn't check that out (still can't remember the name, Victoriaearle could remind me). And then, on the current arbcase, there was some indication that Architect was active. Long story short, I knew this was likely to be a well-known sockmaster, but didn't know which one, and I could only remember that Archtransit used to poke me, and he is suspected to be a sock of Dereks1x. I am way out of touch in the long-term abuse sockmaster department, which I see has grown alarmingly. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:26, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Kung Fu Tea

Hey you beat me to the G11, but FWIW I was gonna deleted it. Check the history at Special:Undelete/Draft:Kung_Fu_Tea, pretty sure this is paid/COI editing; the content is basically identical. Plus it was an old redirect that got hijacked. Mind if I delete it and restore the old redirect? ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:14, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

If you like, but it was not a g11.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:17, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

The usual at Emily Bausback

Which is to say, possible block evasion. Might be time for page protection. Thanks and cheers, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:51, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Maybe later but not enough for now. I blocked the IP.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:17, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Re: Sockpuppetry

Good day Bbb23 (talk · contribs)!

Would like to ask for your help in looking into the activities of anonynous user 112.203.248.140 and Venny oops (talk · contribs). I have reason to believe that they might be another sockpuppets of already banned sockpuppeteer Albe23413 (talk · contribs).

In the case of anonymous user 112.203.248.140, the former and Albe23413 can be observed to add national TV ratings of shows brodcast by ABS-CBN. Eerily too, is the fact that the last activity log in Albe23413's account is dated February 10, 2020. The same date is when the anonymous user 112.203.248.140 started editing accounts. The first such edit: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/940051089 is remiscent of these edits from Albe23413: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/939257917 ; https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/939261212 .

As for Venny Oops, similar to Albe23413, the focus of the user is to add episode titles to shows brodcast by ABS-CBN. I would like to ask for a checkuser be ran to determine whether said accounts, Venny Oopa and Albe23413 are sockpuppets of one another. It appears that the said user is trying to evade block again by employing anonymous editing for TV ratings and a user account for episode titles in order to fool our administrators that they are not in fact one and the same users. Said blocked user Albe23143 has in fact been found to have used four other sockpuppets in the past foe which he was meted out the penalty of an indefinite block, namely: AbstractAudition (talk · contribs), Kamel Camellia (talk · contribs) and Platypus156 (talk · contribs). Hoping for an immediate action on this matter. Thank you.

Warmest regards.

Gardo Versace (talk) 16:31, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Venny oops is  Confirmed, blocked and tagged. no No comment with respect to IP address(es). Gardo Versace, in the future please don't use mobile diffs but ordinary ones. They're easier for me to parse. Thanks very much.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:49, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
@Bbb23: thank you! I'm sorry about using mobile diffs, I haven't studied using ordinary diffs yet. Would like to learn more about it. Warmest regards Gardo Versace (talk) 04:18, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Talk:North East Delhi riots

Very unusual number of single edit accounts, at least one blocked, and generally suspicious looking behavior for "new users". I believe it is worth a glance. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:21, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

The blocked user was a sock, but I looked at several others and there was no evidence of socking. Generally, these kinds of events stir up a lot of people, and I find that new users are far more likely to be separate people than socks.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:51, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) There is also some discussion on User_talk:El_C#Attacks_on_editors on El_C's talk.
Dennis Brown to give you a quick summary, The Pro BJP government groups (Hindutva groups) have been highly vocal on social media about this wikipedia page, clamouring for doing something to shift the NPOV balance of this article towards Pro Hindu bias. The talk page threads are clear examples. Many of these appear to be recruited by Social media posts and facebook/whatsapp/twitter groups. I would not be surprised if you find similar users/IPs who were involved in India Against Corruption saga on Wikipedia.--⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 16:31, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Contesting speedy deletion of LA Latino Writers Association page

Hello! I'm new to creating pages on Wikipedia, but I'm really not clear on why the LA Latino Writers Association page was flagged for deletion. You flagged A7, that the topic was not significant enough. There are a significant number of published authors who were members and the group also published a literary magazine. Can you give me a more detailed reason for deletion? Or some guidance on how to make the page better? Spandph (talk) 03:17, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

The article had very little in it. Perhaps you could develop it into something more appropriate for an enycyclopedia article. If you wish, I can restore it to draft space so you can work on it and then, when you think it's more substantial, submit it through WP:AFC where more experienced editors can review it and give you feedback. Let me know if that's what you want.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:46, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Re: Suspected Sockpuppet

Good day Bbb23 (talk · contribs)!

Can you check the user YokieTokie (talk · contribs)? He started editing the pages that Venny oops (talk · contribs) edited after said user was blocked for being confirmed as a sockpuppet of Albe23413 (talk · contribs). Other than the fact that the said users focus on adding episode titles or TV ratings, there seems to be a pattern with the usernames that Albe23413 uses. If the user is confirmed to be a sockpuppet, this would be the fifth such other account that the user has launched after being blocked. Is there a way for us to prevent the sockpuppeteer from creating accounts over and over again? Hoping for a positive response on this regard.

Warmest regards

Gardo Versace (talk) 14:51, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

 Confirmed + Great Motherland (talk · contribs · count) and Chinnypanda (talk · contribs · count). Very hard to stop socks from being created. Sometimes they can be hampered a bit by IP blocks, and sometimes they can be caught by edit filters. You might want to consider filing a report at SPI next time so at least editors other than yourself can identify them.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:15, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
@Bbb23: Thank you! I have tried filing an SPI report about the same user around August last year, but I kind of got lost in the rules. I'll be giving the rules on SPI some time to review. Again, thank you Bbb23 for acting on the matter with haste. Warmest regards Gardo Versace (talk) 16:49, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Similar cases

Informing you about this case since there were similar cases in past that you had closed. ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 11:09, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2020).

Guideline and policy news

  • Following an RfC, the blocking policy was changed to state that sysops must not undo or alter CheckUser or Oversight blocks, rather than should not.
  • A request for comment confirmed that sandboxes of established but inactive editors may not be blanked due solely to inactivity.

Technical news

  • Following a discussion, Twinkle's default CSD behavior will soon change, most likely this week. After the change, Twinkle will default to "tagging mode" if there is no CSD tag present, and default to "deletion mode" if there is a CSD tag present. You will be able to always default to "deletion mode" (the current behavior) using your Twinkle preferences.

Miscellaneous


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:20, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Josip Pečarić

The article on Josip Pečarić is a bit of a magnet for bad behavior. Recently, Mujo France has been unhelpful there: repeatedly making controversial edits with thin sourcing, showing an unwillingness to discuss such edits. One aspect of this is that he has been aggressively advancing a negative point of view about the quality of the work of Pečarić, in a manner very similar to Vujkovica Brdo. Most of this has been happening on a talk subpage that I made to allow workshopping edits before moving to mainspace, so harm is so far limited. I'm particularly concerned about the last several edits on the talk subpage; see also Talk:Josip Pečarić. I ran the situation by David Eppstein, and he suggested SPI. Since you were involved in closing the prior investigations into this sock cluster, I thought it might be expedient to run it by you. I'm not very familiar with SPI, and will listen carefully to whatever you tell me to do. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 12:27, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

 Confirmed. You can now continue the somewhat contentious discussion at the Talk page without the sock. Good luck.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:21, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

User:DJDantheMan2020

I think I've found another sock puppet of User:DJdjPollard15. Would you mind checking it out for me? – PeeJay 11:46, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

 Confirmed along with a few others.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:59, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Sockpuppet: ARA SANTA FE

Hey Bbb23 can you re-open this SPI I want to add or have Allegheny1453 investigated, user is quacking kinda loud. -ie [29] [30] [31] - cheers FOX 52 (talk) 00:25, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Um, you can reopen the SPI if you wish.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:29, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
Congratulations on your promotion (re: your edit summary). TonyBallioni (talk) 00:31, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
Thank you, thank you, long overdue. I used the old Ponyo trick: be nice but make your edit summary clarify what you really mean.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:37, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
Ponyo has skated along with these insidious edit summaries long enough. It's time she was held accountable. Softlavender (talk) 00:53, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
She's probably left for the weekend. If you wish, you can speak to her agent who never gets any leisure time: that's me! --Bbb23 (talk) 00:55, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
I did leave for the weekend...and I stayed away an extra day! -- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 19:06, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

KillerGho$t

Hey Bbb23. I did ping you, but just in case...they have finally surfaced again. SPI logged as you requested. Hope it all looks ok? Robvanvee 07:45, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

When you file a report at SPI, the system signs for you, which means that pings don't work. If you want to ping someone, you have to add a comment to the report separately and sign it. I would have noticed it anyway, though, because I review what reports are outstanding every day.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:04, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
Thanks Bbb23. Does that mean I should report them here from now on? Robvanvee 16:34, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
No, it means that you can file at SPI or report them here, depending on how you feel. Also, your presentation of evidence at SPI was overkill (I don't often say that). The more obvious the behavioral relationship the less evidence you need. You always have to present a certain minimum of evidence, i.e., one diff of the latest sock and one diff of a previous sock or the master, but you don't have to present the entire history of the case. --Bbb23 (talk) 14:49, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
Ok thanks, I'll keep that in mind. Robvanvee 15:34, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
Hey Bbb23. Just for the record I have filed another SPI for this asshole. Only mentioning it here as I wanted to know if my toning down the evidence was sufficient or is it still overkill? Robvanvee 06:37, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
It's not overkill but it's missing comparison diffs, so you have quite a few diffs of the new sock but none of previous socks except a link to the archive, which is not ideal. So, what you can do in the future is side-by-side diffs, one for the new and one for previous, identify them clearly in the prose so the reviewer knows before they click on each and, as you've already done, identify the "category" of behavior. Don't worry. I have confidence in you. Eventually, you'll be the perfect filer, at least by my own standards. --Bbb23 (talk) 13:58, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
Ha ha! Thank you Sensei. Robvanvee 14:48, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mike Matthews17

Hiya Bbb23, I was using TW to add IPs to the investigation due to current disruption, I am 100% sure it's the same guy. However I not sure if TW is adding them right, or not, who ever the troll is, he is very annoying, maybe you can help lock him down. Cheers. Govvy (talk) 13:39, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

I hate Twinkle.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:01, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
heh, I like Twinkle, I like the features to fight vandalism, although way too many notices to pick from to smack ppl with!! Anyway, I still think this Mike Matthews17 has more accounts hidden away that haven't been picked up, switching between IPs. He has certainly been up to really weird disruptive edits. If I slap {{socketpuppet}} on accounts I suspect, does that link up with SPI? Govvy (talk) 14:36, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
Do not put sock templates on any user's page.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:41, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
@Govvy: - see WP:LTA/MRY for an example as to the tag placement. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 15:38, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
That's not very helpful. Even I don't understand what you're talking about.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:50, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
@Iggy the Swan: I was just told not to use the template... and I am not sure how My Royal Young page relates here. Govvy (talk) 15:58, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
I was talking about the notice on the top of the page about not adding the tags in any sockpuppet case. Perhaps I should have mentioned it in the first edit. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 16:02, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

RfA conduct

I don't mean to be a pest, but you can't just rollback Bobherry's comment. People are very interested in making sure WP:ADMINACCT is followed at the moment, and trying to ignore it just breeds animosity. Some calming words moving forward are what's needed. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:26, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

It was a Talkback message. Nothing wrong with using rollback. If you're referring more generally to the RfA, I can't talk to editors, one of whom has a long-standing grudge against me, and others who are not thinking straight. The editor who voted is probably a sock, but even if he isn't, his vote was NOT complaining about lack of civility but about Guy disagreeing with the editor's fringe theories. This is an editor whose account was created in 2010 but didn't start using it until last month and has already been blocked for edit-warring. I know that Guy's manner of talking to the editor was far more heavy-handed and sarcastic than it should have been, but my treatment of the editor had to do with them only, not Guy. I mean, really, an apparent fringe theorist with very few edits voting at an RfA? Frankly, I was too nice to him. If we had any kind of standards around here, such an editor would not be able to vote at RfAs.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:59, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
Oh and one more thing if you're interested. I didn't want to clutter up the RfA (now closed) with this kind of "discussion".--Bbb23 (talk) 23:45, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
There was no involvement of a fringe theory in this subject because my discussions on talk page were all about fixing clear-cut misrepresentation of sources on talk pages which was being done against a pioneering medical system, and Guy Macon was guilty of misrepresenting sources. Do we need admins who cannot even read sources? Anyway, why you are thinking that your misrepresentation of my editing is going to help you evade the concerns raised about your misconduct? Mohanabhil (talk) 02:17, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

TamilKadambamNatanam8's articles

Although TamilKadambamNatanam8 did wrong by creating Draft:Raja Yogam and Mahathma Udangar while evading block, I feel they are worth entering the mainspace. Can you please restore them? Once they are restored, I'll revamp and take them to the mainspace. --Kailash29792 (talk) 06:03, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Khilieexodia17's new account

Hi Bbb23. The sockmaster Khilieexodia17's new account has created in October last year. Similar focusing mostly Maroon 5 related articles. Can you check it out? 2001:E68:7400:2:556C:BC64:96CD:1CF0 (talk) 12:27, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with me.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:31, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

SPI

Hi, I am late to respond at the SPI. It's now archived. Can I still put my comment there? Dey subrata (talk) 20:33, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

No, sorry, you can't edit SPI archives.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:22, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

User edit warring

Hello, hope your day is going well. Their seems to be a user under the username Livelikemusic that has started edit warring and been using curse words upon editing, a page has previously been created for an upcoming Lady Gaga tour. The user has been changing multiple edits to their preferred version without sourcing or being able to prove their claim. As previously spoken to the user, they have now been unable to source nor prove their claim. If their is anyway for you to look into this please do. I have included a link to the page with the disruptive editing, please also notice that they have been using curse words towards other users. Thank you.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Chromatica_Ball Bubblegum10110 (talk) 03:30, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

CSD Query

Hi, I nominated the page Holocene graphical timeline for Speedy Deletion under criterion A3: no content.(You can look in my CSD log for more info) When you deleted it, however, your edit summary said you did so under G7: Author requested deletion. Am I missing something? I'm just wondering if I missed something, not blaming or accusing you. :) Thanks a lot! Puddleglum2.0(How's my driving?) 16:54, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

After you sign your post, I'll explain.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:38, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Ha! Sorry, I write this too late in the evening. :D my bad. Puddleglum2.0(How's my driving?) 16:54, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Did you see Ritchie333's explanation? He removed it for reasons unrelated to your post, but it was exactly right.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:48, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Yep, just looked through the history and saw that. That makes sense, thanks to you and Ritchie333. Puddleglum2.0(How's my driving?) 22:18, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Dear Bbb23

This is all sock puppet of Albertpda need help to report as sock puppet:

Plese stop him to do an edit war in Thai Football page such as Thailand women's national football team, Thailand women's national under-20 football team, Thailand women's national under-17 football team, Thailand national under-23 football team, Thailand national beach soccer team. Thank Ministerboy (talk) 23:21, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

SPI query

Hi Bbb23. Thanks for doing the Checkuser at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mayankvivek/Archive. I had thought the behavioural evidence for the first two listed (Mayank123456 srivastava and Vivek ji123) being the same person was very strong. The first account listed is globally locked and stale. The second account listed is active. But if the checkuser evidence finds no relation between the second account and the third account (Sandhyasrivastava126, also active), does that mean that no behavioural evidence can be considered for even a partial match, i.e. between the first two listed accounts? Best, Voceditenore (talk) 10:02, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

I didn't find the behavioral evidence sufficient to overcome the technical results, which is why I directed that it be closed.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:48, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
Yes, but the technical results had no bearing on the relationship between Vivek ji123 and the stale globally locked account Mayank123456 srivastava. To me the creation of an article about Mayank123456 srivastava by Vivek ji123, the focus on and multiple recreations of Shiv Ram Singh Inter College by both of them as well as by a confirmed sock of the globally locked account, the identical user page biographies of Mayank123456 srivastava and Vivek ji123 and their identical and very odd talk page headings headings "Please talk me" seemed very convincing. I'm not sure what else it would take. But I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. Thanks again for doing the checkuser so promptly. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 18:14, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Rosalind Knight

Why did you remove Rosalind's nationality & mother from the page about her? (without any explanation) -- SteveCrook (talk) 17:55, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Nationalities don't go in infoboxes unless it contradicts the place of birth, and non-notable relatives do not go in infoboxes. And I did provide an edit summary, although it was not specific.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:25, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Re: Suspected Sockpuppet Abdul Salavati

Good day! Bbb23 (talk · contribs)!

Dropped by to once again ask for your help regarding a suspected sockpuppet. The suspected sockpuppet is Abdul Salavati (talk · contribs). I have reason to suspect that he is a sockpuppet of the recently blocked YokieTokie (talk · contribs) based on the fact that both users have been editing episode pages of TV series by ABS-CBN and videogame installments, most notably the Grand Theft Auto series. To exemplify, I offer as proofs these edit patterns by both users:

YokieTokie: [32] [33]

Abdul Salvati: [34] [35]

With all the pieces of evidence laid down, I believe a checkuser on Abdul Salvati is in order to ascertain whether he is a sockpuppet of YokieTokie, who was a sockpuppet of Albe23413 (talk · contribs).

Hoping for a positive response on this request.

Warmest regards

Gardo Versace (talk) 08:53, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

No. Idon't have a multiple accounts, i created my accounts because i sometimes edit articles so please don't block my account i'm innocent and i don't make a multiple accounts in Wikipedia. So please give me a 2nd chance to edit in Wikipedia. Abdul Salavati (talk) 10:24, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

And see my User page and Yokie Tokie User page that's it not same. Abdul Salavati (talk) 10:26, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

I have nothing to do about Albe23413 and Yokie Tokie Abdul Salavati (talk) 10:30, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

I'll edit the List of Pamilya ko episodes because i see that the Episodes is none for March 10, 2020 and i fixed the March 9 Abdul Salavati (talk) 10:34, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

@Abdul Salavati: If you do not maintain multiple accounts, then how can you explain the message left by SharabSalam (talk · contribs) on your talk page? Also, explain this: "No. Idon't have a multiple accounts, i created my accounts because i sometimes edit articles so please don't block my account i'm innocent and i don't make a multiple accounts in Wikipedia. So please give me a 2nd chance to edit in Wikipedia." (emphasis supplied) You say you don't have multiple accounts but you created accounts and you want 2nd chance. I rest my case, I leave it up to Bbb23 (talk · contribs) to decide on this. Good day. Gardo Versace (talk) 11:22, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

I created my account is Abdul Salavati and I hope you to do not Block this Account to make a 2nd chance in Wikipedia Abdul Salavati (talk) 11:57, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

I promising to refrain a editing in Wikipedia to not blocking and I edit Peaceful. Abdul Salavati (talk) 11:59, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

I will follow the Rules in Wikipedia to how to use it. Abdul Salavati (talk) 12:01, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Gardo Versace i fixed typo in List of Pamilya ko episodes, because i'm trying to contribute in Wikipedia peaceful. Abdul Salavati (talk) 12:11, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

@Bbb23: As always I know I can count on you, and my great big many thanks to you too for your speedy resolution of this request. Sorry for that one, I was watching Albe23413's page and clicked on the wrong link which led to the creation of that category. Promise that won't happen again. I'm learning the ropes little by little and you've been a great big help for me in learning. Warmest regards Gardo Versace (talk) 15:18, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Re: Anonymous User 120.29.117.162

Good day Bbb23!

I dropped by your talk page to ask for your help in looking into the activities of the anonymous user under the IP address 120.29.117.162. Said anonymous user has a habit of unconstructively removing content in pages of TV series brodcast by both ABS-CBN and GMA Network. The user also adds content that is either false or unsourced. The user is also stubborn as it wants its edits be the definitive version of the pages its editing over the objection of other anonymous users or extended confirmed users. Said user has been engaged in this activity for months on end. I believe its high time that a sanction be imposed upon said user for its repeated unconstructive behavior.

Warmest regards

Gardo Versace (talk) 21:40, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Removal of speedy from two drafts

Obviously not? How long did you look at the drafts? Just some random youtubers who have no importance whatsoever from a quick google search. If you do not think they are categorized by that speedy tag, fine, there may be another that is better suited - either way they would never be moved to the main space and are a waste of bytes sitting in draft from three months before deletion. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 14:47, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Don't abusively tag drafts for speedy deletion and then come here with attitude.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:49, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
Abusively? I tagged those two drafts which obviously meet the criteria for speedy deletion and then get a revert and "obviously not" as a reason why. Why is it obviously not? Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 14:51, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
Drafts cannot be tagged with any of the A prefixes. If you don't know that, then you should not be tagging any pages.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:52, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
I see, thanks for the info. My mistake. I think a better edit sum like "obviously not because you tagged it with an article tag while this is a draft" would've avoided all of this. I'll take a look over the other tags. Regards, Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 14:54, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
I suppose I didn't assume good faith, but in a way it was an indirect compliment because I honestly didn't think a user as experienced as you would not know that, so I thought you were stretching in a sort of WP:IAR fashion.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:57, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, I made a brain fart - I was scanning all the tags from the TOC and this one looked to fit the best, but chose it out of the "article" section without realizing. Sorry for the attitude—I was coming in with the impression you didn't agree for deletion, not because the tag was wrong! Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 15:00, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
Do you think "G2. Test pages" would better suit them given the user in question also made a similar sandbox? Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 15:00, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
Not sure I see the relevance of the sandbox except that it's not really necessary to create a sandbox version and then a draft version. More normal is a sandbox version followed by an article, or a draft version followed by an article. In this case, the "abnormality" can probably be explained by the newness of the user. In any event, it's not really a g2. Unfortunately, we have lots of drafts whose existence is more than dubious, but barring a change in policy (which I would applaud), we are kinda stuck.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:34, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
Just my opinion, I'd recommend a little less acerbic responses Bbb23, it leaves a user confused and unsure how to react. I can only speak for myself and how I felt but I've asked questions like the last time I asked about the Croonerman SPi here and instead of a helpful response the response was "Obviously I ran a check." I just want to point out that when you actually explained yourself here it totally turned the situation on the head and became a learning experience. This isn't an attack or meant to pile on just an observation on something that might help in all similar situations. Still have mucho respect for you, you do a really difficult job and you deal with all sorts of characters. Hope you take this in the friendly manner it is meant! Hell in a Bucket (talk) 15:18, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Please don't take this the wrong way

Because reasonable people can disagree, but if you don't like the template WP:TFD is thataway. 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 15:57, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

I have nothing against the template. Your use of it is improper.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:01, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
Would you care to explain how so? 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 16:06, 11 March 2020 (UTC) sorry for forking the discussion, it was unintentional you can merge things to either talk page if you prefer.
Two reasons. First, templates like that are used for schools, other institutions, not for ordinary ISPs like Spectrum. Second, you, as the IP, shouldn't be slapping on the template. It would normally be added by an administrator or an experienced user who may oversee such things. Your addition of it is nonsensical.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:12, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
@Bbb23: I did not add the template, except to reinstate after your removal, it was added by ThatMontrealIP with [36], In fact I was initially unsure if it was really that useful given the small size of our core group, but after a tweak I've come to love it. 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 16:33, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigations/Highpeaks35

Hello, I just saw you closed the investigation as the IP edits were found too old, however, IPs originating from the same ISP (Verizon Wireless from New Jersey) have recently edit warred in Bakarkhani with the same editing pattern, [37]. This has been a long term disruption. I'm pretty sure several other IPs from the same range are edit warring in other articles. Perhaps, it may deserve a bit of notice on the behavioral evidence? Za-ari-masen (talk) 18:25, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

You would know. You've been blocked from editing that article.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:27, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
So am I eligible to seek help from an admin? Za-ari-masen (talk) 18:32, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Invitation to produce additional evidence on ANI

Just wanted to let you know I have sought community review of the actions you expressed concern with earlier on ANI, here. You are welcome to present additional evidence for any misconduct as you deem appropriate. I will also understand if you ask me to stop posting on your talk page, thank you 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 04:04, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Policy on rolling back Sockpuppet edits & Question on diffs

Hey, thank you for your quick response to my SPI. I wanted to ask, is there a policy or consensus on reversion of sockpuppet edits? I also wanted to ask if there is a quick way of including diff comparisons since I was only able to show singular diffs. The template docs were confusing but that may have been due to me quickly scanning it. Thepenguin9 (talk) 20:21, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

(talk page gnome) @Thepenguin9: please see WP:REVERTBAN and WP:BE: if the sock was confirmed and blocked, talk page edits may be striked using <s>...</s> and article edits reverted (also see WP:DENY). —PaleoNeonate – 08:46, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

How does this one look?

Really had to go looking for them this time and as suspected they are avoiding music related articles probably because that's my main area of interest. Knew they just cant resist and found them making the usual edits to sport related article. Just wondering if my presentation is improving Robvanvee 19:00, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Another CU disposed of the report! Yay! I am no longer the KillerGho$t CU. Your report was fine, not too much, not too little, and key points outlined. In the future, you should not routinely request CU. This master has rarely had multiple accounts at one time. Therefore, a CU is not needed to find other accounts. The other basis for requesting a CU is if the evidence is weaker and there is some doubt in your mind whether the account is a sock.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:34, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
Got it. Thank you for your feedback! Robvanvee 13:58, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Can you explain to me why Autopsy (2006 film) is not an A11?

I said that if it does not fit the criteria to respond on my talk page. It has been almost 2 hours can you explain here? OcelotCreeper (talk) 19:34, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

There is a discussion about the page. Your tag was disruptive. Who are you anyway?--Bbb23 (talk) 19:35, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict)(talk page watcher) A11 does not apply to redirects. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:36, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
Better answer.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:41, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
Yeah I was guessing the answer was because A criteria stuff only refers to articles. And thanks for explaining that the discussion made the tag disruptive. OcelotCreeper (talk) 20:12, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

This seems off-topic from the main thread, you may merge it back if so desired.

I knew that 2604:2000:8FC0:4:617F:E9A7:AF1C:4546 was previously in use, I was not here when the switch occurred. I assume someone pulled it or turned the computer off overnight instead of just rebooting but I have no idea. I was the first to start editing from this new IP, I was supposed to link everything together but I forgot about that and another user earlier in February ended up doing most of the work, at least in part from a different computer. As for the place this is still a bare-bones hostel for the moment. But the area is growing by leaps and bounds, they've sold out and this will probably be turned into a shiny new luxury development or something similar. No matter what it will likely be out of the price range of the usual crowd of transients. I'm not sure how comfortable I feel going into additional details as it is not just my own privacy I'm dealing with, I only stated what I have so far because it can already be found out by someone who did a little research [38] [39]. I have no issue answering additional questions even though this is a little off-topic. 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 20:19, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

You're full of surprises.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:49, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Got another one

Could you check out User:DJDanisMad2020 please? Why won't this guy just learn and go away. Perhaps an IP range block is needed. – PeeJay 15:18, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

SPI

Hello again Bbb3. I wonder if I should have done anything more in relation to that new filing for that case. I suppose that my error was to first notice the editor who last blocked a sock, who did not followup the case, but I'm unsure. I then tried to update the status as I added more requested evidence (status which you restored), and I'm indeed not a clerk, this could have been mistaken. The case is getting old as new socks are being created and are editing. Should I add other suspects? Was the status supposed to be updated but I selected the wrong state? It's now been filed since 17 February, with the requested additional evidence the next day, without reply/action since. Thanks again, —PaleoNeonate – 09:24, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

DeltaQuad requested more information and put the case on hold. Normally, once you provide the information, she would return to decide what further action, if any, would be warranted. You cannot change the status of the case, but you can ping her from the case to ask whether there's anything more required of you to move the case along. If you believe there are additional socks, you may add them to the report (don't create a new report) with the usual behavioral evidence. You shouldn't mention new socks in the body of the report without also adding them to the list of suspected puppets. I hope that helps.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:27, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, I didn't think ping would be appropriate but will remember for the future (it's now been processed). —PaleoNeonate – 01:24, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Tbone49/Thatboi99 block evading on an IP address

Hi Bbb23. I know you don't publicly disclose CU results for IP addresses, but Tbone49/Thatboi99 is using various IPs in the 140.161.xx.xx range (namely 140.161.84.35, 140.161.250.179, and 140.161.92.10) to still edit topics relating to their interests. I am confident a CU will return a positive result, as previously this user has block evaded using IP addresses geolocating to the same area. Thanks. Ping @Ad Orientem: for a look as well. Another giveaway just from the evidence I have is that the first IP earlier today expanded a redirect Tbone49 created, Human (OneRepublic album), and they've piled on with a bunch of IP edits with the other addresses. I've redirected the article per WP:DENY. Ss112 05:28, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

@Ss112: I blocked 140.161.0.0/16 x 3 months based on behavioral evidence. Bbb23 had previously blocked the range for 1 month and indicated it was affiliated with a school so collateral damage should be limited. In any event a glance at the last few months suggests that almost all of the editing from this range is our boy. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:25, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Cashbook Finance

Hello Bbb23,

I saw that the recently created Cashbook Finance page was deleted for not credibly indicating importance or significance. This is a company offering very innovative services in an industry where SME's are seriously struggling to get funded, so its presence is quite significant so the public can be informed but most importantly educated on such alternative solutions. I can see very similar companies in Wikipedia whose pages have not been deleted, i.e. MarketFinance, Iwoca, Funding Circle, Close Brothers, etc.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Designedbybutch (talk • contribs) 17:10, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Empty file pages

Hi! You have reverted a few of my edits. For example this one. I nominated them for speedy deletion because they are in Special:UncategorizedFiles. Do you prefer that I nominate them for a normal deletion so we can discuss the deletion? --MGA73 (talk) 14:22, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

A3 may only be used for articles, not files.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:57, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
Then just add the number you want and delete :-) --MGA73 (talk) 20:50, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Checkuser

Hello Bbb23. What was the rationale behind turning down the checkuser request? Cheers, Number 57 21:54, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

We don't disclose the IPs of named accounts. It's a violation of policy.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:57, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Ross Flom

Did I do the wrong thing? How on earth is the guy allowed to write his own bio on wiki and it's allowed to stay? Govvy (talk) 22:23, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

I explained what you did wrong in my edit summary.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:40, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
So you want it tagged A7? Thought A11 was also for conflict of interested, created by the person who the article is about. Govvy (talk) 22:44, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

This editor keeps reverting me

I did some edits on Priyanka Chopra's article. He reverted all of my edits even the non-controversial ones. I tried discussing with him and he reverted me again. He has also not replied to my last posts on the discussions we were having on Chopra's talk page. So how am I supposed to edit wikipedia? He keeps reverting me and is not ready to discuss. WP rules clearly says no one WP:OWNs any article and anyone can edit. That editor did not stop at that. He went on to remove a lot of stuff from Andaaz, an article I started working on today. He removes this which has been there since last six years and accuses me of favoring one actress. How am I suppose to edit and work on anything here?Krish | Talk To Me 08:05, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Question about deleted page

Hi Bbb23, I'm trying to create pages about notable advocates of the European Union and noticed that a page for Joshua Curiel has already been created, and since deleted. Would it be possible to create a page for the teenage activist? Thank you, NS — Preceding unsigned comment added by NS MediaMole (talk • contribs) 16:48, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Given that it was deleted as a sock creation, I think it would be best for you to create a draft and then use WP:AFC to get feedback from other editors.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:10, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Mikethewhistle-original

Hey there, Bbb23. I don't believe we've ever interacted. Nice to make your acquaintance! I see that you recently checkuser-blocked User:Mikethewhistle-original. I believe a new sockpuppet has popped up [i.e., Justafriendlyguy60 (talk · contribs)], and I'd like to hear your thoughts on the possibility of this. Thanks! KyleJoantalk 17:44, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks for identifying the account.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:26, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Hey there, Bbb23. I have suspicions that two more sockpuppets of Mikethewhistle-original's have appeared:

I'm not comfortable saying my reasoning for these suspicions because I believe they're monitoring my activities, but I'd be happy to open a formal sockpuppet investigation if necessary. Thank you again! KyleJoantalk 05:00, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Blocked plus a few others.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:34, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Osolot1461!

Do we expect the edits from new editor Osolot1461! to become constructive at some point? If not, I can report. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:11, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

I indeffed them for disruption. I vacillated between that and NOTHERE. Disruption won by a hair.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:19, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

One more

Found another sock of DJdjPollard15 if you'd like to check it over: User:DJDanisHappy. – PeeJay 07:31, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Richmond First

Hello Bbb23, some time ago, you deleted page about a Richmond city civil political party. There are similar pages such as Surrey First and others that are also of similar topic, but not deleted. Thanks in advance!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eric0892 (talk • contribs) 00:53, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

I deleted Richmond First because it was tagged for deletion, and I agreed with the tag. You created that article.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:57, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Trinity Audio

Hello Bbb23. Yesterday, you deleted page about a company called Trinity Audio (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Trinity_Audio&action=edit&redlink=1). How, if at all, can I modify the page to make a more presentable case for it to be on Wikipedia? That was my first time contributing an article so I'm sure mistakes were made and I'd like to know if I can correct them. Thanks!Damir Zira (talk) 18:00, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Sus or not sus

Hey there, do you think it's suspicious that four people added their names to WikiProject Gujarat in four days when there hadn't been any activity there since last year? Two of them seem to be insane about Dr. Nikisha Jariwala, (see also Nikisha Jariwala minus the doctor honourific. Let's not do anything just yet. I'm not convinced that they're the same person, but there is something kind of "ring"-y about this. The person at the top of the participant list has been around since 2010, but only has about 1900 edits, has created 25 articles, and is heavily involved in AFC declines. I'll look more into it. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:55, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Just noticed this, an IP asks Piyakapadia to help them move highly problematic Draft:Swarup Solanki to live space. This was a few days after the user created an account. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:00, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
With the exception of The9Man, for whom a check is not justified in my view, the other two users are either socks or meat puppets. I didn't do a complete check. They have edited serially, so the standard for abuse should be higher than if they overlapped time-wise.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:56, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
I could potentially see a situation where an editor created an account then decided they didn't like the name and moved to another, but if you're saying they edited serially, that's another matter. Still think we should look at it. I understand your trepidation about 9Man, but I also feel funky about them. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:13, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Deletion of edit requests in Page: Jaggi Vasudev

Please mention the reason for deletion of my requests on 04:01, 23 March 2020. I did not even receive a reply. But had the request deleted entirely.

I need to know the reason to make better update requests. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Santoshsatvik (talk • contribs) 07:23, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Unabomber: In His Own Words

Hi. I'd like to create the page Unabomber: In His Own Words. Why'd you delete the previous page? May I create it? JMS Hunt 2020 (talk) 14:17, 23 March 2020 (UTC)JMS Hunt 2020

Hey there, can you please review my profile and let me know whether if I have disclosed properly? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Indian Tech Lover (talk • contribs) 17:43, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Song Senghorn

I saw you deleted the page five years ago. She happens to be the "Britney Spears" of Cambodia. I have a draft about her and the page exists in the Khmer Wikipedia. Do you mind if I go forward creating the page again?Willuconquer (talk) 06:17, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

I have no strong opinion on the matter. I suppose it depends on the quality of the draft you create. Hopefully, you'll submit it through WP:AFC.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:32, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

history of 2019-20 Sheikh Russel KC season.

Hiya Bbb23, I was just looking at the history of the Sheikh Russel season page, even know the page was deleted via AfD and speedy, what got me earlier though was the similarity between three editors on it since it was recreated in violation of AfD, SR Alamgir Khan, Diptadg17 and Ayraa Tehreem Khan. They all have similar user pages and all edited the same article, I've go no real evidence, can't see page history anymore, but feels like the same person to me, just thought I let you know. Govvy (talk) 18:57, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, but it's really seems funny to me. You want to say that same person using these three user identification? It doesn’t make any sense. Whatever, I have enough evidence to prove my identification. I hope you have also got some before blaming. Thanks. Diptadg17 (talk) 20:07, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Sockpuppet

Hi! I just noticed that you rollbacked my tagging of a blocked sockpuppet. Shortly thereafter I realised that I had given the wrong user as the master. Could you please place the appropriate tag? I would be grateful if you could. Thank you! -- JavaHurricane 13:40, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

See your Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:42, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
Thanks a lot! JavaHurricane 14:06, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Stop the madness

Can you stop an active edit war and do a temporary or pending change protection to Candidates Tournament 2020, I have no dog in this one but the edit war and dispute is spilling onto other pages as well. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 17:19, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

I got this. El_C 17:23, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
Good stuff, don't know heads or tails of the problem but 50 plus reverts in a day told me there was a problem. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 17:28, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

SR Alamgir Khan

Actually I was contacted by the person who uses the account of SR Alamgir Khan, and he is saying that he does not have multiple accounts and thus he can not use multiple accounts. Can you please help me with the log files or data which suggests that he is done so, along with the account(s) which suggests it. Would be very helpful.--Anbans 585 (talk) 07:27, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

No, he needs to address this himself.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:46, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Re: Anonymous User 120.29.117.162

Good day Bbb23!

I dropped by your talkpage to implore you take action on the unconsteuctive edits of 120.29.117.162. The last time I wrote to you regarding the user's editing behavior, it wasn't acted upon nor was a reply given. If you'd go to the talkpage of the user, there's a lot of us that have been asking him to stop from making unconstructive edits but to no avail. He'd ignore these warnings and continue on removing content unconstructively. I believe it really is high time that a sanction be imposed upon the said anonymous user. Hoping for a positive response on this regard. Warmest regards Gardo Versace (talk) 22:07, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

If there is a significant conduct issue, you need to address it on the appropriate noticeboard.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:49, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
@Bbb23: Alright, duly noted. Thank you again! Warmest regards Gardo Versace (talk) 20:32, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Pakistanpedia?

Hey, there, do you do regular checks for Pakistanpedia? I notice several socks at Arij Fatyma and I just blocked a promotional editor Patiparmeshwar. Not sure if they're related, since I'm not terribly familiar with Pakistani subjects, but just thought I'd mention it. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:07, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

It's technically unlikely that Patiparmeshwar is Pakistanpedia. However, Search Results Web results Aap ki Kachehri, Kiran Bedi ke Saath is  Confirmed to Patiparmeshwar, so I blocked the account.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:23, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
Thanks! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:56, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

A Sock from COVID-19 pendadmic outbreak

Bbb23 This guy obviously a sock and one that you kept blocking on the ANI reports and following.Regice2020 (talk) 06:35, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Mikethewhistle-original, again

Hey there, Bbb23. I tagged WWWhowhathere as a suspected sock puppet of Mikethewhistle-original. I was wondering if you could help me identify whether I'm correct in my presumption. Thank you! KyleJoantalk 13:17, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes + Capt roo (talk · contribs · count). Regards.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:27, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Re: Reporting of Vandalism committed by IP Users

Good day Bbb23!

As you've instructed I have reported the case of vandalism committed by the IP User 120.29.117.162 and that of another user over at the appropriate notice board as can be seen here and here. However, it was deleted from the reports without it being resolved. I would like to ask why that's the case and what course of action can I do to have the IP users sanctioned for chronic unconstructive editing and/or vandalism.

Warmest regards

Gardo Versace (talk) 06:02, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Dimples?

Hey there, could BryceLahela be a Dimpletisha sock? They feel very socky to me. User page creation on edit #2, here in the recent edit history I see tons of Dimpletisha socks. Here they fluff up Harshad Chopda's article with some award mill "Dada Saheb Phalke Film Festival Award", which is erroneously (on purpose?) piggy-backing on a link to the real Dadasaheb Phalke national award. Smells of promotion, to me, especially with the fluffy quotes they've added, etc. Dimpletisha socks have previously been obsessed with Harshad Chopda and logging every milled award he's received like here in 2019. Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:35, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

You posted this while I was checking. I noticed the account because of the most recent post to your Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:43, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Hollywood Beauty Awards Page

Hi! I'm the one who created that page. I'm sorry I don't really understand why the page's been deleted, can you explain to me please, Thank you. Johhnyfrankie13 (talk) 04:45, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

It was tagged and deleted per WP:CSD#A7. It was a rather straightforward deletion.--Bbb23 (talk) 10:52, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Talk page access revocation

Hey Bbb23, hope you are well. It looks like MalucoWikipededista (talk · contribs · block log) is abusing their talk page privilege after your CU block. You might want to keep an eye out. Thanks. -- LuK3 (Talk) 18:20, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Should have revoked it from the get-go as he's done this before. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:25, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Gérard Gertoux

Would you take a look at what is going on at the AfD for Gérard Gertoux? I'm concerned that a lot of ips and/or users with few other edits are !voting Keep there. Some of it may be just canvassing, but the ips suggest that there may at least be some meat-puppetry. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 21:29, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't see anything for me to do there.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:31, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
Thanks sincerely for taking a look! Russ Woodroofe (talk) 00:01, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Am I paranoid?

Hey there, FathiNaseer looks like a sock to me, but I don't have a master. They showed up suddenly to start building sandboxed content about Neha Kakkar, their second edit shows that they have some mastery over our citation tool. They're presenting POV balance here. I also don't see any obvious sockmaster candidates at Neha Kakkar, although Ponyo did protect the article for sockpuppetry. Am I just being paranoid? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:27, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

I find the user suspicious, too, but they don't remind me of anyone, and I can't find any evidence of socking.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:57, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2020).

Guideline and policy news

  • There is an ongoing request for comment to streamline the source deprecation and blacklisting process.

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • The WMF has begun a pilot report of the pages most visited through various social media platforms to help with anti-vandalism and anti-disinformation efforts. The report is updated daily and will be available through the end of May.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:00, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

FIH bone

FIH bone is another sock with no master. Meaningless user page. Lots of small edits that could have been made in one pass. Looks to me like they're trying to game their way into extended confirmed status. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:09, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't have good technical evidence for this, but do you think it's Shivamroy22 (talk · contribs · count)?--Bbb23 (talk) 16:28, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Orchomen

They've now shown up as Barrys optician. Can we please get a block? Thanks! Amaury • 18:27, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Sounds like you need it. Hope there is a day you come back, best wishes and appreciate for your hardwork here. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 22:11, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Gibby sock?

Hey, I was wondering if you might be able to look into if Reddit6034 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a sock of the previously blocked user Gibby1242 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? Their username follows the same pattern, they visually edit and the are obsessed with defying {{Infobox concert}}. It's just too coincidental for me to ignore. livelikemusic talk! 21:28, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done --Bbb23 (talk) 21:48, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
@Bb23: As always, you are magnificent. Hoping you are well, wherever you are, during these unknown times! livelikemusic talk! 21:55, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

I have a suspected feeling Jordanpf93 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) might be another one, based on their editing patterns. livelikemusic talk! 00:06, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Admin's Barnstar
I award you the Admin's Barnstar in honor of years spent tirelessly doing the dirty work that most of us prefer to avoid. While many admins, myself included, content themselves mopping up an occasional smudge, you've been snaking the drains. ~Awilley (talk) 18:31, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
👍 Like. Dr. K. 06:33, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Barnstar

The Admin's Barnstar
Shocked and saddened by this sudden turn of events. Thank you for your tireless work for the project and hope you will be back someday. P-K3 (talk) 02:07, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
Die Fliege

Thank you

Good day Bbb23!

Hey, I just dropped by your talk page to say hi and thanks for the wonderful job you've done over the past few years that you've had checkuser privelege. During my first year on Wikipedia, I found myself on the wrong end of check user myself and you yourself blocked me (never had a chance to deny it back then due to my inexperience, but to this day I'll maintain innonence because I never truly had anything with that alleged sockpuppet attached to my name) and I took note of that, taking it as a learning experience. And a learning experience it sure was as about 3 years later, I'd have a brush with a sockpuppet master in the form of Albe23413. The user had a whopping 8 sockpuppet accounts, I reported all of them and most of them were blocked by you. There were many times that you've thanked me for reporting a suspected sockpuppet, but I probably never had the chance to thank you for acting on my reports in the first place. I really appreciate the work that you've done and though I've never had the same privelege as you, I know it can be a thankless job.

I dropped by after finding out what happened to you and the ArbCom last April 2. I know you haven't closed your doors on returning, but I really hope you do return. You might feel that the ArbCom does not appreciate your work, but many of us here do. Without you here, the inmates would start running the asylum. You're one of the best administrators out here on Wikipedia who has a proven track record for reliability. Again, thank you for everything my friend, hoping that you'd the vigor to return to being active on Wikipedia like you used to before.

Warmest regards

Gardo Versace (talk) 01:15, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Got another one

Would you mind checking out User:1Thatcham2020 to see if they're a sock of User:DJdjPollard15. The edit pattern is just too similar. – PeeJay 23:50, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

PeeJay2K3, read up a couple of sections, it's unlikely that Bbb23 will be running CU checks for a bit, at least. Ravensfire (talk) 02:45, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the update. Didn't expect that! Oh well, good luck to Bbb23! – PeeJay 09:23, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

A touch too much

Please take a look at this sort of agressive behaviour on Ivan Gundulić [40], calling out another respected senior admin [41] + calling another senior admin "a clown"[42]. and general slurs and lack of WP:Civility [43] [44]. Please note that this is an older editor, who has previously waged a full crusade over the same issue, some 5 years ago and than again ( WP:BATTLEGROUND). Naturally, there is no consens for the version which is pushed by the same user, which can be seen from the TP. Thank you kindly, Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 22:44, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

See the section above "Arcom and me". Bbb23 is not currently available. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:01, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
Ty BMK. A sad day for Wikipedia... Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 00:01, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
Indeed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:16, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Overturned CU block

Hi, I know you're not around right now (and I'm sorry about the circumstances) but for procedural purposes I'm notifying you that I unblocked User talk:M00thu2, an account you had previously CU-blocked. You had previously unblocked a group of these editors per your comment here, but only the ones that outright requested to be unblocked. M00thu2 has since requested to be unblocked and based on the previous discussion, it appeared reasonable that they should be unblocked. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:14, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bbb23/Archive_52&oldid=1142882163"