User talk:Bbb23/Archive 36

Our mutual friend, Sockie

Our mutual friend, Sockie.

user:verita.miner appears to be user:St_o'hara. Where should I take this? Anmccaff (talk) 18:06, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

----Hi Sockie. I am new to Wikipedia and am not sure I am adding this contribution on the talk section correctly. I am not the user you mention above, however. Please let me know if you have suggestions for me. This will be my first contribution also to the Talk section so I'm not sure I've done this right.Verita.miner (talk) 18:14, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

  Let me amend that to "or Meatie..." Anmccaff (talk) 18:32, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello Anmccaff. I don't know what you mean by this. I am not user:St_o'hara and I don't know what you mean by "or Meatie." Maybe I am missing something in the lingo here? I am happy to take any suggestions you have to improve my efforts. As I've said, I just started about one week ago. Thank you. Verita.miner (talk) 22:20, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

 Ponyo, I wouldn't block based on technical grounds. If you're interested in my specific findings, let me know.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:14, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Dunno if Ponyo is, but I am: is it clear enough to to eliminate the possibility of socking? The editing pattern is similar- same subjects, same geographic area, same POV, but the new one seems to be a more competent writer. That doesn't rule out other forms of puppetry, of course, but if the original has left for good it isn't a real attempt to overwhelm other "editors" by sheer numbers.

Thanks for looking into this, even if it was possibly a false alarm. Anmccaff (talk) 04:46, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

I can't share my findings with you.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:44, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Oh, I wouldn't expect that. I'm just asking if you saw a solid barking-up-the-wrong tree false positive on my behalf. I understand, though, that maybe you can't really answer that either, but It's still worth my checking. Anmccaff (talk) 15:56, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

I thought my comments were fairly clear: the two accounts are  Unrelated.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:00, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Nahh, although maybe the problem is on the receiving end, with me. To me, I wouldn't block based on technical grounds covers everything from "no way in Hell is this a sock" to "could be, but who knows?" Again, thanks for your help. Anmccaff (talk) 16:07, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

ARBCOM notice

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lagoo sab and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks, Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 22:44, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

ar case request

fyi: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations.2FLagoo_sab. What did you mean by "A heads up: it's likely I will respond to any more posts you make here"?[1] NE Ent 21:21, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

That was a rather unfortunate typo. It should have said "A heads up: it's likely I will not respond to any more posts you make here". Sigh.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:47, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

user:Bondhead12

Do a user check on user:Bondhead12, and compare her to user:Levelup22 and user:Ruben6121 based on their contributions on wind turbine. Please hurry up. 2602:306:3357:BA0:44F2:12D6:9F32:2D61 (talk) 00:43, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

New article: Giriboy

Hi Bbb23, I have been working on an article over on User:Lenoresm/sandbox and see that you previously deleted an article with the same name:

• 00:41, 9 November 2015 Bbb23 (talk | contribs) deleted page Giriboy (Multiple reasons: speedy deletion criteria A1, A7)

I don't believe my draft has the issues you flagged on the deleted article, but I wanted to ask you to take a quick look before I move forward with creating an article. Thanks! Lenoresm (talk) 16:27, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

• The deleted article was about two sentences long.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:58, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Doubts about Dylan O'Brien's page

I don't exactly understand what you meant by "not in lead?"

About the box - Little White Corvette is added, and it's not even in pre-production stages. I also wonder about the lack of updating in the "career" section. Deepwater Horizon has been confirmed for months, but it wasn't even added.

My apologies for wrongly updating with American Assassins. Could you please explain when would be the right time to add it? Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bice24 (talk • contribs) 10:52, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Mike and Dave Stangle

Hello -

I am hoping to make necessary changes in order to make acceptable a post I authored entitled "Mike and Dave Stangle". They are published simon and schuster authors, have a major motion picture based on their lives (Mike and Dave Need Wedding Dates), and are aspiring Screen and comedy writers with credits to their name. The speedy deletion was made on the grounds that they were not worthy of mention, but wikipedia pages about celebrity types are everywhere and are a great outlet for people to get information.

As a second request, would you mind please sending me the deleted post so that I mat save it for future use? The formatting was quite time consuming for a novice and I don't have it saved because I didn't realize it would be deleted so swiftly. Thank you for your time

Ilovechickenquesadillas (talk) 21:41, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

It is now at Draft:Mike and Dave Stangle.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:15, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Tbacon143 Sock

Hi Bbb23. An IP [2] just re added stuff that Tbacon143 and socks wanted added to Superdelegate [3]. Another IP (same ISP, same geolocation pretty much) [4] edited the talk page a few days back, and those edits, it turns out, are those of one of TBacon143s socks [5]. Thanks for your hard work. Dbrodbeck (talk) 15:06, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

@Dbrodbeck: I can't disclose the IP(s) of named users. However, you have two choices (besides doing nothing). One is to revert based on your view that this is block evasion. Just don't get into an edit war over it. Second is to open an SPI with Tbacon143 as the master, list the IPs, and present evidence. I wouldn't bother unless the IPs are currently editing. We're rarely interested in blocking IPs that have stopped editing. The two choices are not mutually exclusive.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:49, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough, thanks. I've requested page protection, that might be enough to deal with it. Dbrodbeck (talk) 16:27, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom case request withdrawn

The request for arbitration in which you were involved has been withdrawn by the filing party. For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 16:39, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Harvey Carter sock?

Not quite sure about this one, so take a look at the contribs and see what you think: 86.133.255.131 BMK (talk) 17:36, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Same style, same town, it's him. Blocked. Favonian (talk) 17:40, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, it certainly smelled that way. BMK (talk) 17:44, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

• 86.137.48.148 seems to be his latest: same MO, same location. BMK (talk) 21:35, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
  • And now at 165.120.240.245 BMK (talk) 22:57, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Deletion

You deleted a page for a person named Tomas edmundson who is a LAX (lacrosse) player, and I was wondering why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Co-pilot Dave (talk • contribs) 00:56, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @Co-pilot Dave: The reason is explained here: Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#A7. Mlpearc Phone (open channel) 01:03, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

MariaJaydHicky socks again...

Special:Contributions/Imthediscoking and Special:Contributions/188.223.187.130 seems to be Maria's latest socks again. 115.164.218.5 (talk) 11:20, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

I wish I knew who you were. I don't think you've ever been wrong, an enviable track record. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:06, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Mike and Dave Stangle

Hello -

Thanks for editing the Mike and Dave Stangle page! I made some additional, objectively minded edits also and am excited to get it up. How do we turn a draft into a published article? What can I do to help? Thanks again,

Jay

Draft:Mike_and_Dave_Stangle — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilovechickenquesadillas (talk • contribs) 19:53, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Add {{AFC submission}} at the very top of the draft. That will submit the draft to be reviewed by more experienced editors. I wouldn't do it yet, though. You should at a minimum have one reference in a References section.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:28, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

The nerve!

You're not allowed to disagree with me. It's in the contract!--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:59, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

The one I wrote or the one you wrote? BTW, I'm still waiting for you to sign, and waiting and waiting ...--Bbb23 (talk) 21:29, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

My pen ran out of ink. My wrist is broken. The dog ate it.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:35, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

I'll send you another pen. You have another hand, don't you? Have the dog's stomach pumped. The contract is indestructible.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:39, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm illiterate. I broke my other wrist trying to scratch an itch under the cast of my first broken wrist. The dog died and we cremated her. The vet blames the overzealous consumption of an "indestructible" object for her death.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:47, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

I ask you, your Honor, does what the defendant says hold water? I have video of the defendant playing tennis with her dog. Indeed, the defendant's wrist action was quite impressive, although truth be told, the dog's was better. I also have a picture of the dog's bed lined with the contract. That'll be the last time I use high quality paper when drafting a contract. Anyway, your Honor, please impose the requested sanction: the defendant has to write on the Wikipedia blacklist blackboard 100 times, "Bbb23 is always right." I rest my case.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:55, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

tu vincis.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:05, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Aw, we were on a roll. This is the most fun I've had all day. I could've gone on for several more indent levels.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:20, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Seconded. I don't know what you were talking about, but I (and probably other talk page stalkers) was sure enjoying it. Meters (talk) 22:26, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Aslanstatistic123

Hi. I'm User:Zyma who submitted that SPI case. I changed my username. I asked that question [6], because I didn't see any comments by other admins since you checked SPI (20 days passed). I reported a WP:DUCK [7] and no reply from checkusers. --Wario-Man (talk) 12:22, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. It's not unusual for a case to remain in a checked status for considerable time. In this instance it's also not a big deal because the only accounts I found to be technically related haven't edited in a while.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:25, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree that they're not big deal and they became inactive. I just wanted to see the final result. Because the result will help me in the future SPI cases. Thanks for the reply. Cheers. --Wario-Man (talk) 15:11, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SalemHanna

Special:Contributions/Formation1234 is likely the persistent block-evading Salem that I found. 115.164.50.193 (talk) 19:57, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

also, an IP Special:Contributions/86.2.239.210. 115.164.181.205 (talk) 09:21, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Koriefksky

Hello, The page Martin Koriefsky was previously deleted by you. I created this page and do not understand why it was. Koriefsky is a famous classical - contemporary composer and many of of pieces can be found on you tube. Kindly allow the new page to remain on Wikipedia. Thanks in advance, Koriefsky — Preceding unsigned comment added by Koreifsky (talk • contribs) 11:56, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Yunder4, User:Afro55 and web host.

I see that you recently deleted User:Yunder4, you might also want to delete User:Afro55/Venom vicious for the same reason, however, the edit history of that userspace article is currently used as evidence at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#Yunder_4_at_Venom_Vicious that Yunder4 and Afro55 are the same person.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  12:46, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I deleted it. I noticed it before I deleted the other one, but because it was older, somehow it didn't seem as important to delete. Another administrator can always restore it if it's really needed for non-administrators to look at, but I don't really see why. I think the whole thing is in the current article at AfD in the history.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:53, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

ANI

Hey, this might be interesting to you. --Jayron32 14:25, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

@Jayron32: The user should be blocked for being an obvious troll, but what main account are you referring to at ANI?--Bbb23 (talk) 14:52, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

SPI...

Hi B, I really hate to ask because it's work, but could I nudge you to take a CU look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nagendra NJ or to nudge a CU who owes you a favor? My chief concerns are that he's both prolific and the last time around he created a ton of accounts across a variety of IPs, which is going to make it more difficult to clean up the longer he persists. (Also, people come in and edit after him, and the more that happens, the harder it will be to revert the sock edits and retain the good edits.) I'm happy to help out with tagging and reverting and crap like that if you need me to. Thanks man and sorry for the work--It's the sock's fault!! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:29, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the hustle, B. I'll take care of any lingering reverts if you haven't done them already. Much obliged, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:23, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks...

...for all the heavy lifting at my user talk. I've been trying to lay low per DENY and also 'cause I really don't care, but you've been putting in so much time there that I had to acknowledge your effort. Tiderolls 14:34, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Happy to do it. Editors are always protecting my Talk page. It's nice to pay back a little.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:37, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

May 2016

Hey Bbb23, I just want to let you know that I'll be away from Wikipedia for most of the weekend and won't not be able to respond immediately. If there is anything urgent and you need my input before Monday, please feel free to contact me via email. Thank you. RoseL2P (talk) 23:25, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

"no wikilinks in quotes"

Sez who?[8] You should see what I do over at wikisource any day and all day.... -- Kendrick7^talk 12:12, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

@Kendrick7: Says WP:LINKSTYLE: Items within quotations should not generally be linked. Vanjagenije (talk) 13:10, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the heads up, @Vanjagenije:. While I remain unconvinced that there is anyone who works on the WP:MOS who wasn't kicked in the head by a mule while they were a child, I'll try to argue as to why this is a dumb idea on that talk page in the near future. -- Kendrick7^talk 13:59, 28 May 2016 (UTC) ^{I only assume bad faith on the part of the mule}

(talk page watcher) I expect it's because linking to something within a quote could unintentionally alter the sense of what was actually being said. Especially if the wrong thing was linked to (off a DAB page for instance). In any case, we would be basically putting words in the mouth of the speaker that may be anachronistic or otherwise unintended. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 14:08, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Well your first part is exactly right, and the manual should just come out and say that. But shades of gray isn't MOS's strong point. As to "putting words in the mouth of the speaker that may be anachronistic or otherwise unintended", if in 100 years the phrase "appearance of corruption" isn't one of the top five phrases associated with the legacy of Anthony Kennedy by your typical law school graduate, then I beg whatever Wikipedian is reading this in the year 2116 to put some flowers on my grave. -- Kendrick7^talk 15:13, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sakthi swaroop

Could you take a look at the IPs at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swathi Lakra and take action (or not) that you think might be necessary? Since these are IPs I'm not filing an SPI, but it looks rather ducky. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 17:40, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

If you think it looks ducky, block them. I feel incomfortable doing so having just run a check.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:57, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

As the nominator on the AfD I am WP:INVOLVED, it doesn't seem to be a nuisance yet and I think anyone closing that discussion would likely look at the sock block of the account involved, or another admin passing by this post might do the honors. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 18:02, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation

Hi Bbb23, you've recently blocked the accounts of User:Ranyaa.a, User:Sshalhout, User:Nrmeen404, User:Hadeel1005, and User:Alaimusleh as sockpuppets of User:Ranyaa.a. They are in fact all collaborating for a classroom assignment for a microbiology course. Can you please restore their accounts so they can resume? Thanks. --Fjmustak (talk) 08:45, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

User blocked

Okay, I will leave him alone. Thanks.Tintor2 (talk) 14:35, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Deleted my userspace

Hi there, you deleted my userspace! There was vital information in regard to a future article awaiting regulation, that has now been lost... If you could restore my userspace, that would be much appreciated. Yours, Faithfully JAMROQ (talk) 21:20, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

That article was deleted via a deletion discussion last month. If you have plans to change it significantly enough so it wouldn't be deleted per WP:CSD#G4, I can restore it, but not to your user page. I can move it to its own spot in your user space, or I can move it to draft space.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:08, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi there Bbb23, that would be great, I would much appreciate that.

Cheers, JAMROQ (talk) 11:27, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

It's now here: User:JAMROQ/The Word (newspaper).--Bbb23 (talk) 12:41, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

MariaJaydHicky sock

Special:Contributions/Bowsha seems to be him/her. And Special:Contributions/188.223.187.130 is doing again.115.164.177.230 (talk) 22:50, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Formation1234 did it on Madonna (entertainer) before his/her same sock Bowsha. 115.164.90.159 (talk) 23:41, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

HarveyCarter sock

User:81.153.133.220 seems to be him. Same MO, same location. BMK (talk) 21:41, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

• (talk page stalker) Oh yes! Blocked. Favonian (talk) 21:44, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks! BMK (talk) 01:47, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

For dealing with and blocking User:Ecoboy90!

ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 14:13, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

2016 Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Community Survey

The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.

• Survey, (hosted by Qualtrics)

Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:48, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

This deletion (DXAS, radio station)

Hi,

I just noticed that you deleted the page DXAS under G5 (creation by banned user). I suppose I should have checked the user contributions during my page patrol.

Anyways, I had copied content to the FEBC page, and the attribution is now broken (see Talk:Far_East_Broadcasting_Company). I hate it, but our copyright means it is a Bad Thing (tm). Could you perform a history merge, or even undelete the page (after all redirects are cheap)?

Please ping when replying. Best regards, Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 12:21, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

@Tigraan: What's your authority supporting the existence of DXAS as described in the deleted article?--Bbb23 (talk) 14:07, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, there is this. Anyways the copyright issue remains even if it is a hoax. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 16:02, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

@Tigraan: That isn't much of a source. Frankly, I don't understand what copyright issue you're talking about.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:10, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Merging requires attribution of the material, see WP:CWW. Leaving edit summaries and talk page comments (as I did) pointing to the revision from which content was copied is enough, but if the page gets deleted it does not work anymore. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 16:14, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Meh, it's no big deal. If you want to back out your changes to the Talk page and to the article, fine. I'm not restoring an article that is possibly a hoax created by a sock.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:15, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Bbb23. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 17:32, 2 June 2016 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

~ Nahid ^Talk 17:32, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Please contact Mike V. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:35, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Replied. Mike V • Talk 19:16, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Roi Casilana and TV5Ozamiz. SPI

Hello! I noticed you were the CU who performed the last check on Roi Casilana, I found an account that I have added to the relevant SPI that might be able to link the accounts as it has edits dated back to March. Thanks! --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 21:50, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 21:55, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

8 years

I was just checking your user page, and in 2 days you'll have been on wikipedia for 8 years! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adotchar (talk • contribs) 22:17, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Training

@DeltaQuad and Mike V: Since the previous clerk training ended with only 1 and a half trainee still working at SPI, would it be OK for me to take two of the applicants from WT:SPI/C for individual training? I'm talking about new applicants, not those from the december training. I think that would be faster way to get new clerks. Vanjagenije (talk) 19:37, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Sure, I have no objection to individual training. Mike V • Talk 19:40, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

I have no objection, either, but I'm curious which two.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:48, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

I was thinking about GeneralizationsAreBad and Sir Sputnik. They have been helpful at SPI and are also very active editors. Vanjagenije (talk) 19:56, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

One suggestion for GAB, I recall a couple of instances where I've needed to remind him to provide evidence and diffs for the cases that he has brought forward. If you could keep an eye out to make sure that he's evaluating cases with sufficient evidence, that would be much appreciated. Mike V • Talk 20:09, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, it is something I've had to work on. That's typically for cases where the master's behavior is well-established (I.e. Europefan), but I have hopefully gotten better at providing evidence. Either way, I really appreciate your consideration. GAB^gab 02:51, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

WP:BAN

Yeah, I realized after linking it that the lead to that article made totally no sense to me. Good call. --w^{L<speak·check>} 18:32, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

(smiling) Unfortunate Wikipedia gobbledygook.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:54, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

FYI

Another sock of Radyanskysoldativ/AnnaRedko89 - [9] - [10]... My very best wishes (talk) 02:32, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks.  Confirmed and blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:48, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

L235 has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Thanks for your work at WP:SPI. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 03:45, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

A belated thanks, Kevin. Yesterday I bought a chocolate walnut cookie at a local bakery. It was surprisingly good (I'm fussy). I'll send you a bill.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:34, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi

Hi @Bbb23:, what is the result of 75.162.244.4 in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Who_R_U%3F/Archive ? Is 75 a sock? 108.162.157.141 (talk) 19:11, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Why do you say I am nagging you? 108.162.157.141 (talk) 22:40, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

i sound like a broken record... (HarveyCarter)

165.120.240.166: same MO, same location. BMK (talk) 17:09, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm not a sock, I just finished reading five books about Operation Barbarossa and they all mentioned it may have been designed as a pre-emptive strike before the Soviet Union was ready for war with Germany and Italy. (165.120.240.166 (talk) 17:27, 4 June 2016 (UTC))

You say the same things HarveyCarter's socks always say, and your IP is located in the same place in England that HarveyCarter's socks always come from, ergo, you are a HarveyCarter sock, until someone tells me that a CU says you're not. Your edits will be deleted on sight, as befits the edits of a banned editor. HarveyCarter: you are banned and you will not be allowed to edit Wikipedia. BMK (talk) 18:04, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

81.132.48.174 would also appear to be related. Calidum ¤ 18:29, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

• Absolutely. BMK (talk) 18:33, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

  User:81.159.6.158 as well. BMK (talk) 18:50, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

  I thought this was Favonian's job.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:50, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

  No problem, I can drop notes on his talk page from now on. BMK (talk) 21:59, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

  If you come across named accounts, leave a note here. I tend to avoid blocking IP socks except in limited circumstances.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:03, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

  Will do. BMK (talk) 23:46, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Page about podcast Drunk Ex-Pastors deleted

Hi, I apologize in advance if I am doing this incorrectly. If so, please point me in the right direction. The page for our podcast (Drunk Ex-Pastors) was deleted yesterday and we're not sure why. It's a fairly popular podcast with 5k-10k listeners and growing and we'd like to know what we can do to have it undeleted, if possible. If there were some guidelines we were not following (we didn't create the page actually), then please let us know what they are and we're happy to oblige. Thank you for your help. Xianking (talk) 22:17, 6 June 2016 (UTC)xianking (Christian - one of the co-hosts of DXP)

The article was deleted by two administrators. I was the second. Wikipedia is not a platform for you to have an article about your podcast. It's an encyclopedia, and your podcast is not sufficiently notable to justify an article.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:59, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you

For your amazing CU work. I know it's laborious and thankless, and the socks are essentially infinite. This makes your contribution all the more impressive. Thanks again! Athenean (talk) 03:56, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

MariaJaydHicky

Special:Contributions/TCNDay, Special:Contributions/Formation1234 and IP 151.231.155.64 are the socks 123.136.107.116 (talk) 07:47, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

IP block wikipedia

Hi, Bbb23 I have a problem with the creation a page on Wikipedia. I should create a page on a historical fashion company called Cristian Leone based in Florence both in English and Italian. But every time I create the page come and even reported on the Italian Wikipedia Elwood administrator have locked me the IP address. My priority is to create the page in English, but later also in Italian, I know how to fix this situation? I also recorded my e-mail address. waiting for your reply. Thank you, smartlabstudio — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smartlabstudio (talk • contribs) 09:09, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

I have nothing to do with the Italian wikipedia where you've been indefinitely blocked. I can say that the Leone article, which was deleted twice, first by Patar knight and then by me, was not worthy of an entry on this wikipedia.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:17, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

hi, Bbb23 if I send him what I would write in the page for review and then later publish it on Wikipedia, it gives me the certainty that the page will not be deleted?

thanks in advance, smartlab — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smartlabstudio (talk • contribs) 09:22, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

A message of thanks

Hello, I wanted to say thank you for finally banning StealthForce and his continuous disruptive edits of a few articles. It was getting tiresome, and I am glad you took action on him; he has taken on an abrasive tone many times about his edits. Again, thank you so much for your work. 2601:601:4002:E260:51B:33C2:C33:67B9 (talk) 00:00, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Have a beer bro! Scotsman18 (talk) 09:44, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Weird User Page Related to Violetnese

So I noticed that you had brought up concerns about Violetnese a few weeks back and it had resulted in a site ban for that user. I noticed when looking at their contributions they had edited a very weird userpage which is User:ForTheLoveOfPoe/Rosalie. The page seems to be created to look like a mainspace page and seems to be mostly edited by Violetnese for the most part. I'm certain it's not urgent but I just thought it was a weird thing left over from a previous issue. As I'm still relatively new and I'm learning how the internal parts of Wikipedia work as well as page editing etc. I figured I'd bring it to your attention as I wasn't sure what else to do with it. Jlahnum (talk) 16:44, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks

Much appreciated, your help with the socks at David Gaither (artist). Very best from 99, 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 20:32, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Toe steppin'

I started checking Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Deonis 2012 before I noticed you had marked it "in progress". I wasn't snooping on your work, I swear!--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:32, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

@Ponyo: I'm glad you were checking as it caused you to post here. Seems weird not to talk to each other for such a long time. Sock land seems a little more unusual recently, but maybe it's just my overactive imagination. Best.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:36, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

An overactive imagination can be a treasure; It keeps boredom at bay! I saw something in a magazine I thought you'd like, I'll scan it and send it your way. Your stomach will thank me.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:52, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

SPI Suggestion

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Langus-TxT

Since you declined the Checkuser, [11], Langus edited again. Does this mean a Checkuser is now possible, it may be a quick way to get this resolved. WCM_email 08:47, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Bbb23 sorry to be a pain, I see you did the checkuser. Does the comment "possible" indicate there is a possible link to Langus? He's gone quiet since the Checkuser so I'm guessing he is lying doggo awaiting the outcome. Do SPI always take this long to settle after Checkuser? I only ask as the guy has plagued me for years and I have an inkling if the case is allowed to die he'll be back. WCM_email 10:44, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes to your possible question. I can't tell you how long the case will sit in its present status.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:49, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Does the certainty of Checkuser increase with the number of logins? WCM_email 21:38, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't look at logins.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:42, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

No worries I just wondered. WCM_email 21:44, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Talk page access

Hello Bbb23. Regarding your recent block of user:Beercan999 as a checkuser block, please consider revoking talk page access as well. The user is reinstating over 2 million bytes of disparaging banter which slows the page from loading and plainly is not something Wikipedia should care to host. The edit summary is attacking as well. Thanks.--John Cline (talk) 08:36, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Crap. Sorry!

Dang, sorry about the erroneous SPI report. Thanks for spotting that and moving it. Dang! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:18, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't know anyone else who says "dang". What are you anyway, a farm boy from the American midwest who's interested in articles about India because they're exotic? :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 21:21, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Darn tootin'!--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:42, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Naw, I just like folksy small-town American patois for its quaint reminder of a simpler time. And the only pleasure I get from Indian articles is irritating the shit out of the corrupt organ grinders whose monkeys hop about producing articles about "all-time blockbuster status" films. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:57, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

SPI question

Hi Bbb23. Based upon this post, I think the IP might be Sevcohaha. Same pattern of editing women's articles, and the FOOTY diff cited seems to reference Sevcohaha's disagreement with how WP:NFCC was applied to non-free logos used in certain women's soccer team articles. Then there is also User talk:Marchjuly/Archives/2016/April#Sevcohaha sock which makes me wonder about Special:Contributions/Helenmitchell. Anyway, if any of this meets WP:DUCK, please advise on how to bring it up for discussion at WP:SPI. Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:35, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

I can't comment on IPs. You can reopen the SPI, though, if you wish, and it will be analyzed behaviorally.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:00, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. If I do decide to re-open the SPI, do I just add "Sevcohaha" in the submit field and then add the IP as a suspected sock puppet. My understanding is that checkusers are not used on IPs. Can I request one on Helenmitchell? -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:21, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes to how you reopen the SPI. Checks are not run on IPs. You can request a CU for the named account. You list both the IP and the named account when you reopen - don't do separate reopens for each.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:39, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:44, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Notice

Hello, I wanted to bring this to your attention. The user making socking accusations did not provide any actual evidence, certainly none worthy to request a checkuser. If you find my response reasonable, please close this for lack of evidence. Clear, behavioural evidence of sock puppetry, was not submitted. This is mainly a privacy concern and I asked for a clerks opinion, please wait until they comment until doing the check. --Oatitonimly (talk) 03:19, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Trout love

	A lovely slice of trout
	Some ornately prepared trout for you, for sticking rigidly to process when it wasn't really necessary[12] Deryck C. 16:32, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

VPNs?

Hi B, hope the weekend finds you well. To your knowledge, are there any restrictions on editors using VPNs to edit? Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:09, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

AFAIK, there is no absolute bar to using VPNs. As with anything else, if an IP is using a VPN abusively, the IP (or range of IPs) may be blocked. Mike V may be able to give you a better answer.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:23, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I was asking more for myself, actually. I typically spot-check questionable references through TOR, but sometimes find the "reference" has blocked TOR nodes. Would prefer to create a distance between myself and those sites. That was my original hope, then I started thinking that it's probably smarter/safer/private-r all-around to web browse through VPN. Anyhow, would appreciate any input Mike has. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:03, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

VPNs are only blocked if there is an active block placed by an administrator. If it's hard blocked, the you should be able to edit unhindered with the ipblock-exempt right in the admin kit. As for tor exit nodes, those are blocked by a separate piece of MediaWiki software. To edit through those, you'll require IPBE, which has the torunblocked right. While tor and VPNs can help obfuscate your internet traffic, there are risks to consider. Tor exit nodes are unencrypted and anyone who's running the exit node can see your traffic if end to end encryption isn't used. As for VPNs, a lot of that comes down to the country they operate in (and the laws that apply), their data retention policy, and how much you trust them to do what they say they do. (e.g. not retaining data) Some VPNs have language buried in their ToS that state they will provide traffic data/logs in response to subpoenas. With that being said, if you're just looking to visit question references you probably will be fine. Mike V • Talk 19:58, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Cyphoidbomb, I strongly recommend the use of a VPN, especially if you're an admin, when checking out sketchy sources. A few times I've received emails/talk page posts saying (paraphrased), "I know where you live now, I'm going to out you!" after visiting sites. Luckily I've picked a random geographical area through a VPN before checking the link. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:56, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks guys. Much obliged for the input. I was most concerned about crossing any in-house rules, but I think my questions have been covered. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:59, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Hey

Hey Bbb23, how are you doing these days? Hope everthing's going well. Apart from that, I wanted to say; as you know, in a relatively short period of time, two new socks of long-term sock abusers have been blocked, after a period of no "apparant" account socking by both. Due to that, and as a tool of help for in the future, I would like to make a long-term abuse case for both. Given that both have been socking for over 5/6 years, I think this would be a good plan. What do you think? Btw, when done, should I just add it to the archives in a similar way as was done here? (for example). Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 15:07, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Hard for me to comment without knowing which masters. That said, it's not only the amount of time a master has been socking but how continuously they've created new accounts. The guidelines for creating LTAs are pretty mushy in my opinion. BTW, as an aside, your comment recently at an SPI about a sock being "so busted" was very amusing. A rather punchy American colloquialism coming from a non-native English speaker. To use yet another one, it was a real kick in the pants.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:22, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Oh, damn, thought I had linked them. I meant Lagoo sab and Satt 2. Haha. Well, the thing is, I had told at some talk page on Damianmx's first day of making edits that he was very suspicious, and already on the fifth day, that I was totally sure he had to be a sock. However, back then I didn't really care enough to make an actual dig to see who the master was, I guess, so I kinda left it at that. Nevertheless, now several months later, the user in question still being over the top disruptive and agenda-loaded, I did a minor dig and found the master with 99,99% certainty. So yeah, when filing the SPI case, I kinda felt like "oh, busted". That's all, haha. But yeah, the 2nd one is kinda over the top, looking back at it. Didn't even notice I had added it twice. Lel. - LouisAragon (talk) 15:51, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Aaron Persky

Definitely appreciate your edits, as it helps to present both viewpoints of the judge's decision in this case. JoshDonaldson20 (talk) 14:59, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words. Honestly, though, I think there's too much information on the Persky page about the sentence. It more properly belongs in the main article and is not really proportionate to Persky's judicial career. However, I seriously doubt the community would permit me to pare it down significantly.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:18, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

We could tag it with Wikipedia:Recentism should this continue to be on Persky's page rather than the main article itself. I believe that wiki admins will have a more balanced longterm view than other editors who are drawn to the case as a Cause célèbre. JoshDonaldson20 (talk) 18:01, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

School Ties

I came across the article for School Ties in a roundabout way - I happened to photograph a decal used as a set piece while taking documentation of an old train station. I'm concerned about your repeated reverts of an IP editor and subsequent semiprotection there. That anonymous editor has made a number of edits to movie articles, with sourced information and no evidence of copyright violations. Although there are some minor issues with their edits to School Ties - the formatting of the references could be improved, for one - I see no indication that the edits are copyright violations or otherwise problematic. Could you please explain your reasoning here? Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:20, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

The IP added this paragraph:

Both films are about prep schools with strict rules, where one of the teens stands out from the others and does something considered "wrong", when in reality his actions are just different from what is expected of him.

That's almost verbatim from this review: "Both films are about prep schools with strict rules and one of the teens stands out from the others and does something 'wrong' but in reality is just different from what is expected of them."

--Bbb23 (talk) 20:46, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Award for 100,000 edits

This user has earned the
100,000 Edits Award.

Awesome accomplishment. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 10:23, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

		100,000 Edits
		Congratulations on reaching 100,000 edits. You have achieved a milestone that very few editors have been able to accomplish. The Wikipedia Community thanks you for your continuing efforts.

Congratulations to reaching that milestone! It's a nice opportunity to call you awesome, while I can't when speaking for the project that does so traditionally, - I miss too much --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:16, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Test for you to revert

Hi! --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:44, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't see a test, NeilN. (I read your latest message at Twinkle talk.)--Bbb23 (talk) 12:52, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

I meant you could revert the post above :) --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:54, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

I tried that already and doesn't work, I assume because it would bring me back to this page anyway. I can't remember, but if it's supposed to open the page for editing, it doesn't do that. How about if I do something to your talk page?--Bbb23 (talk) 12:58, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Reverting your own edits probably doesn't work. I'll add something to my talk page you can revert. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:02, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

If you're quick you can revert [13] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:06, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I did that, and I think it worked because I saw a message flash by as part of the rollback, but can you add something to your userpage instead because that way I'll know that it takes me to your Talk page instead of just leaving me there. Or if you're tired of this, it can just wait until the next time I do a real rvv.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:07, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Added something to my user page. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:10, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

You had consecutive edits, and I figured the rollback itself would wipe out all of them, which it did. I fixed it, though, but I'd check if I were you. In any event, the initial Rollback Vandal did not take me to your Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:40, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Bbb23, I remember reading somewhere that you only recently switched to Chrome from FF. Are you experiencing this after you made the switch? If so, can you check to see if you have popups blocked on Chrome? (Block or allow pop-ups in Chrome) - NQ (talk) 13:41, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Hmmm. If this was a widespread problem there would be complaints galore. Maybe do a real rvv? I'm using Firefox with AGF rollback/Normal rollback/Vandalism rollback on and "In a window, replacing other talks". --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:45, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

@NQ: I think you may be right, although it doesn't explain why my preferences checkbox was unchecked. In any event, I followed the instructions in the Chrome help, but when I get to Content settings, there's nothing about pop-ups in that dialog.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:50, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

From this diff it seems like you checked the "Open user talk page when invoking rollback from user contributions" in Twinkle preferences. Was that the one that was left unchecked? Please see this video to locate the popup menu in Chrome settings. - NQ (talk) 13:59, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

That's the box I found unchecked just this morning and had to check it. That video is horrible. It's fuzzy and it goes too fast. However, I finally figured out what I was doing wrong. I have trouble sometimes with Chrome's scroll bars (they're a dim gray and I don't always notice them), and I simply hadn't scrolled down so didn't see the pop-up management part. Anyway, I left it not to allow pop-ups but created an exception for wikipedia. I think that'll work but won't know until I test it somewhere. (Speaking of checking, I've been flip-flopping back and forth between this dialog and a check user I'm running. It's making me dizzy.)--Bbb23 (talk) 14:10, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

That option is only for the Special:Contributions page and is not checked by default. I'm guessing these settings for the diff pages were already checked? Try testing it on this diff. - NQ (talk) 14:22, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

You're absolutely right. I unchecked the box. I tried the Rollback vandal, and it opened your alt Talk page. Thanks!--Bbb23 (talk) 14:32, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks

I just want to thank you for keeping that beautiful photo of the French countryside up on your page. Once every two or three weeks, maybe, I'll come by to take a look at it and in my mind get whisked away to some calm, simple life in a picturesque village. I'm sure the reality of the place is different, but maybe not. And either way, it's a few moments of respite in a busy world. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:00, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

The village was lovely in reality. I don't know about the "life" there because we were staying somewhere else, so we didn't spend enough time in the place to get a good feel for it.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:39, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

NewEditor121 SPI

As you CSDed Alexander Asiedu, could you also leave a note at and also close out the AfD at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Alexander_Asiedu? There's also Draft:Alexander Asiedu at AFC that I don't know if we should keep under the circumstances. MSJapan (talk) 19:38, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Based on the creator of the draft, there was no valid basis for me to delete it.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:36, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

The SPI investigation concluded that the creator of the draft and the copier of the draft into mainspace were two different people. pbp 16:40, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

• @Bbb23: I had edited Alexander Asiedu after it was AfDed. I request one of the following:

1. That the article be un-deleted and the AfD continue
2. That my last revision be merged into the draft, or
3. That the content be dumped into my userspace pbp 00:13, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

• Here you go: User:Purplebackpack89/Alexander Asiedu.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:36, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

• Thank you. I'll probably mainspace it in the near future. pbp 16:40, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Where by "near future" he meant pretty much dumping it back in mainspace immediately without any substantial changes, including correction of spelling errors or verification of sources, which means it is substantially the same content that was declined at AFC in the first place. WP:POINT and CSDed. MSJapan (talk) 19:29, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Remember, I have the user rights to accept AfCs, and I did so en route to putting the article back in mainspace. CSDed declined because AfD was never completed (and frankly, I have a lot of problems with articles being CSDed for reasons unrelated to AfD while an AfD is going on). There's nothing any more POINTy about me recreating this article than there is about you continually CSDing and AFDing it. pbp 19:37, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

...and MSJapan reverted my decline of the CSD. I still say CSD is invalid because the AfD was never completed. pbp 19:39, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

• Both of you stop bickering. I've undone the latest tag by MSJapan. It clearly didn't apply, but no speedy tag is acceptable at this point. However, renominating it for AfD is acceptable. If you, MSJapan, want to nominate it, go ahead, and it's not POINTy to do so, Purplebackpack89. By the way, Ppb, there's absolutely nothing wrong with speedy deleting an article while it's at AfD.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:45, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

The reason I considered CSDing it as bad form (in this case only) is basically because it brought us to where we are now. The CSD was based on the premise that the first guy to mainspace it was indeffed. However, the guy who originally created the draft (User:Gufelagordge) was found not to have been that user in the SPI. The guy who accepted his AfC with modifications (me) hasn't been blocked either. 99% of the time, what you'd have done would have made perfectly good sense; it's just in this particular case, I personally would have ignored the ambiguity of the creator's status and just let the AfD play out. pbp 19:52, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Hmmm

I'm assuming this is not you?--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:20, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

I answered my own question.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:22, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Is that CU impersonating chap still active? I blocked one of those a few weeks back for impersonating DoRD and I think there were more then.—SpacemanSpiff 20:27, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Wait, how come only the boys get to be impersonated? Not cool. --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:39, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, with names like Dudesonridingdudes I think you should feel happy that they aren't impersonating you! But keep up your work on Indian actors and actresses and you'll feel the wrath of the fanboys there, something other CUs don't get much of! —SpacemanSpiff 20:46, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Point taken.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:52, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Looks like we have an ask and you shall receive situation P. I hope that everyone has a pleasant weekend. MarnetteD|Talk

I'm two hours away from something slushy and boozy. Nothing can faze me right now. --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:08, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Another sock of a user you previously blocked

User talk:GunturSubagiyo2016 editing pattern strongly resembles of the blocked users User talk:GunturIrawanSub and User talk:Guntur Irawan, the latter account being the sock master. Taking it here as you blocked both accounts and it looks pretty cut and dried. Safiel (talk) 03:02, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

 Done.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:29, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Checkuser request

Do a user check on user:STOPBLOCKINGME! Alright? and user:DontLeaveMe-DontLeaveUs and block the IP address where the accounts originate. 2602:306:3357:BA0:558:557:4D72:E65B (talk) 17:40, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

QuestionPro Inc

Hi Bbb23: I notice that you deleted QuestionPro Inc. Just a note that the deletion discussion for the article at AfD is still open. Just a heads up. Cheers, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:44, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Usually, someone wakes up and realizes I deleted it and closes the discussion. I guess this time everyone's asleep or uninterested in closing it. Too much time spending arguing with sock accounts. Anyway, I closed it.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:05, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the closure. It seemed prudent to first notify you to allow you the opportunity to perform the close, since you deleted the article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:11, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

In this instance, less prudence would have been better. --Bbb23 (talk) 19:12, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Long-con sock?

Hi B, here's a weird one: Look at this version of Ajayan Vincent. This was submitted by Kichappan, an editor who has made about 1000 edits since 2009.

"Ajayan Vincent ( is an Indian cinematographer. He is the son of veteran cinematographer/director, A. Vincent, and younger brother to Jayanan Vincent.[1] He is known for his works predominantly in Malayalam, Tamil, Telugu and Bollywood.

Compare that to this deleted version submitted by a Padmalakshmisx sock, which I deleted 3 weeks ago.

"Ajayan Vincent is an Indian cinematographer. Jayanan is the son of veteran cinematographer, A. Vincent, and younger brother to Jayanan Vincent.[1][2] He is known for his works predominantly in Malayalam, Tamil, Telugu and bollywood."

I don't see other behavioral similarities, like Padmala's typical edit summaries, but this is very odd and difficult to ignore. Kichappan has created a significant number of articles despite only 1026 edits. Maybe he's the guy they bring in when they're in trouble? What do you think? I also noticed in this edit history, which only has a few edits, there is an edit from IP 103.14.196.22, which whatsmyipaddress.com calls a confirmed proxy server. I know these "confirmed" labels aren't gospel, but it is noteworthy. I may run it past our proxy experts. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:01, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

• Kichappan is  Unrelated to Padmalakshmisx. However, the following accounts are  Confirmed, blocked, and tagged with Kichappan as the master:
  • Kichappan (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • IndianCinemaRasigan (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • TamilThiraiUlagam (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• --Bbb23 (talk) 15:31, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Recent Revert needs REVDEL

Hi Bbb23. You made this revert. Can you please also REVDEL it? The page could use a semi-protection too given the IPs trying to add potentially libelous info. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:14, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

I protected it. I don't think it's necessary to revdel the recent edits on the page. I have a higher threshold on that sort of thing, though, than some, so it won't bother me if you want to ask another administrator.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:19, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for protecting the page! EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:49, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Scottish Militia History and the US Second Amendment

What's the issue here? I gave sources - not enough apparently. So what would make the material acceptable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raven Onthill (talk • contribs) 02:14, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

You added a lot of material to the article's Talk page, a good thing. Too many section headers, though, so I removed them all so all of your comments are in one section. That's the right place to discuss your proposed changes, not on my Talk page. Let's see what other editors say. Please be patient.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:46, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

SPI Confirmation

FYI - JackTinWNY (as JackTinSD) has responded to the block, confirming the accounts are connected.

And a belated congrats on the 100k. for (;;) (talk) 15:03, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello

I think User:Anatha Gulati, is backed one of his several sockpuppet accout (User:Bolialia) was editing in the article Growth of religion, where he made everal Copyvio, i removed all of his Copyvio edit but now anther new user as you can see here, making excally the same edit, cliaming it is re written. Anyway can you also hide these edit that i removed it?. Have a nice day.Jobas (talk) 16:38, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

@Jobas: as you know from your comment at ANI, I've blocked Karibahar as a  Confirmed sock puppet, along with several other accounts I found in checking. If there are copyright violations that need to be hidden, please ask Diannaa. Apparently, she's done it before and she's much better at that sort of thing than I am. Thanks for bringing the account to my attention.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:53, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you i will ask here. Have a nice day.--Jobas (talk) 18:55, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

• Jobas is not adhering to neutral point of view for the article Growth of religion. He is removing re-written contents and statistical data as copyvios. Please, check. Karibahar (talk) 17:11, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Another Guntur Irawan sock

Another sock of User Guntur Irawan. Special:Contributions/GunturIrSubagiyo18tahun. Safiel (talk) 05:30, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

FYI:farmer Brown

Farmer Brown IS Dennis Brown. The only difference is one has a girlfriend and the other one wears bib overalls. Buster Seven Talk 21:17, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Having a girlfriend and wearing bib overalls are often mutually exclusive in my experience. No disrespect intended...--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:45, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I belatedly figured that out and self-reverted.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:52, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Userspace

Thank you for restoring my data, and excuse my late reply as I have mainly been away from wiki. Much appreciation, JAMROQ (talk) 11:53, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Padma vs Kichappan

These chaps are now overlapping! I've been waiting to request CU on Kichappan for PaachuvumKovaalanum but have held off since there's only one edit on Mammootty that's almost word for word. Was just wondering since one account came up as linked if you came across others or that wasn't the purpose of your check this time. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 18:38, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

I checked all the accounts asked of me, and that's what came up. I can understand it's frustrating, though. It is for me, too, because I have to keep them separate but in the same place. I had this happen once before, but it was even worse because I had to - have to - keep track of three masters. BTW, there is no case on Kichappan. Everything was posted here on my Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:13, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't realize that Kichappan was handled here. It's one of those accounts that I've been meaning to do an SPI for a while and was happy to see you handle it before I had the chance! Thank the megastars for the presence of Cyphoidbomb! —SpacemanSpiff 03:08, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

And I jsut saw Pebble101/Kannadiga, I'm lagging on filing SPIs by over a year now!—SpacemanSpiff 03:12, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

@SpacemanSpiff: Do you think I was too lenient with the user on that case?--Bbb23 (talk) 03:27, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

TBH, I hadn't come across the Iber account until I saw the SPI now. I've only dealt with Pebble and Kannadiga (I wasn't active for a few months), and if history is anything to go by, we can deal with Iber via ARBIPA soon enough so it shouldn't matter (I'm guessing DS warnigns to socks count!). Pebble was notorious on those topics last year. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 03:42, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello

Sorry for the Disturb again, I think User:Anatha Gulati, is backed one of his several sockpuppet accout (User:Bolialia) was editing in the article Growth of religion, now anther new user as you can see here, he went to User:Diana page were i make complian about his copy vio edits. Now the user misrepresentation the soruces and make it out of it context. Have a nice day.--Jobas (talk) 22:09, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

No bother. There's already a report on that account at the SPI case page.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:13, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you this the new account User:Juliandas51. Have a nice day.--Jobas (talk) 22:35, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello sorry to disturb again, can you chick the User:Juliandas51 edit here, i don't want to go in edit war, i already explian why i revert his edit in the talk page of the article and in the edit summry, the editor is not even understand and he revert again my edit even i already explain that information that is he mentioned is out of context (and he make such a cliams that are even mentioned in the study), cliaming that im try pushing pro-Christian bias. Have a nice day.--Jobas (talk) 08:16, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

A new account of him here, can the page be protected for a while. Since he keep creating new accounts. and try to go in edit war.--Jobas (talk) 14:46, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Need your insight and help!

Hi There,

I attempted to create a page for my company Chat Sports, worth including because we are a venture-funded sports media company with over 4 million users. I don't think I went about the citation correctly, though, and the page was deleted. I've done more background research on the parameters and I want to try again. We've been in business since 2012, launched a Nationwide panel series, spun off a video production studio, have hundreds of thousands of facebook followers -- so we really do need to be included. Is it okay to try again with another page?

Thank you so much, Suzi — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suzialvarez (talk • contribs) 21:42, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Wow, that article was deleted a year ago. It's not generally a good idea to create an article about one's own company. Your first attempt was pretty bad, honestly.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:16, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

OK... Well I'm going to try again and hopefully it will be better. Is that OK? Or does someone else need to create it since I already tried one. Appreciate any help or insight you might be able to give. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suzialvarez (talk • contribs) 18:55, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

If you are intent on recreating the article, I strongly urge you to use the WP:AFC process. In that way, it's less likely the article will be speedy deleted, and you will receive helpful feedback from more experienced editors.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:09, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Mary Ellen Copeland

Please check.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mary_Ellen_Copeland&diff=prev&oldid=713437473 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.241.21.151 (talk) 07:12, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Help

Hello Sir i need your help? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bilal Araeen (talk • contribs) 23:50, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

I assume it's for your promotional edits. The only suggestion I can make is not to use Wikipedia to promote people and groups.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:52, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Possible SPI?

Hi, I recently came across an article (Natalie Stejskalova) that seemed referenced in a vague (deceiving) way. Upon closer inspection of the author, and the other pages that he/she created, I saw similar types of referencing and connected accounts. The concerned pages involve: Sutal Group, Sutal Dolls, Miss Supertalent 2016, ‎Natalie Stejskalova ; and the concerned accounts: User:Internationalinternational2019, User:Mynameisfredlee2000. Thanks for looking into it. Aust331 (talk) 11:15, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Incorrect information

Hi, you just accused me of putting incorrect information in an article in : The Lady in the Van. I sourced my information from the British Film Institute. I'm not really sure how much more British and reliable the source can be.
http://www.bfi.org.uk/news-opinion/news-bfi/announcements/bfi-statistics-2015-uk-independent-films-win-audiences
is the source in question. Please refrain from accusing editors, and try to assume good faith. Cheers — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:CA0D:8C00:8CA3:4F18:3FFC:B1A2 (talk) 18:01, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for the quick discussion. I was referring to the table, the BFI links to each movie give the same information, but was easy to work off of the table. Sorry I was so testy in the reply, apologies. Have a good day! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:CA0D:8C00:14D6:CF36:F641:DC44 (talk) 18:22, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

You weren't testy. You behaved with more restraint than I did. Take care.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:24, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Blocked Editor Question

A few days ago there was slow-motion edit-warring between a new editor and an IP at Brendan Dassey. The new editor then, by good-faith mistake, reported the IP at Open Proxies, not knowing what an open proxy is. The IP posted at the Help Desk a very hostile question. It was explained what an open proxy was, but they sounded off about McCarthyism. You then did a Checkuser block on the range. Please just clarify that I understand correctly that that means that you found that the IP range had been previously used (legitimately, then) by an editor who was then blocked or banned, so that logged-out use of the IP range was block evasion or ban evasion. Do I understand correctly that that is what a Checkuser block is, and that Checkusers are highly trusted functionaries who can see the IP addresses behind registered users? (They might not have gotten caught at all if they hadn't made such a fuss at the Help Desk.) (There are a population of arrogant unregistered editors who know, beyond knowledge, that they protect their privacy better by editing from IP addresses than by editing pseudonymously. In fact, only a small number of Checkusers can see the IP address behind a registered editor. Oh well.) Robert McClenon (talk) 14:59, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm afraid policy prohibits me from answering the specifics of your question. I can say generally that CUs "are highly trusted functionaries who can see the IP addresses behind registered users".--Bbb23 (talk) 15:27, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Does a checkuser block mean that the IP was a blocked or banned editor, or is even an answer to that considered to be within the non-discussable area? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:07, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

The only thing I can say is a checkuser-block should only be used by a CheckUser, which isn't telling you much, sorry.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:09, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Related to this, said IP has now returned at 32.218.152.124 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (they've been a thorn in the side for anyone editing a Wisconsin-related article for months bouncing between numerous IP's and refusing to get one account, that's how I know). The ranger might need further extension. Nate • (chatter) 23:21, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Taking a look at one indefinite block

Hi, this is about CasetteTapeMaster, a user you've indefinitely blocked. I've had the chance to see a lot of their edits and many were constructive. Yet they had also engaged in apparently well-intentioned but ill-informed edits that went against the advice and (later) warnings they received on their talk page. So blocking them was definitely warranted to prevent further disruption.

However, I don't really see the need for this block to be indefinite. This editor is a high school student [14] and some of their behaviour at talk pages is recognisably juvenile (this is especially clear here) and I think this is the most likely cause of their disruptive behaviour. But people don't stay teenagers forever, so this cause will most likely be gone by itself after a couple of years at most. In this light, don't you think it'll be a good idea to revise the block to a specific duration? Thanks! Uanfala (talk) 22:14, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

I rarely entertain unblock requests by proxy. If the user wants to make an unblock request instead of the drivel they posted on their Talk page and sent me by e-mail, they can do that, and it will be evaluated. I also note that rather than request an unblock, which is the usual first course of action, they went instead to WP:UTRS. That went nowhere. I have no inclination at this point of reducing the block length. At a minimum, I don't think they are competent to edit here; nor do they demonstate any good sense or good judgment.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:38, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. This isn't an unblock request, I absolutely agree that the user needs to remain blocked for at least a year to prevent more disruption. But I think we'd agree that a block is warranted for only as long as the editor is likely to be disruptive. It's not uncommon for teenagers to show a lack of good sense or judgement, and this is something that normally goes away with time. Do you think a 25-year-old could be reasonably expected to go anywhere near posting the same kind of drivel as their 15-year-old selves? Uanfala (talk) 23:24, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi

Thanks for the recent help on the Rowingasia case. I just noticed this, which is an unusual habit for an SPA. It reminded me of Taokaka (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who had a fetish for tagging socks, too. Just wanted to get another pair of eyes on this, thanks - GAB^gab 19:07, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Dan Bilzerian

I'm not sure where the 'notability' line is drawn on a person like this who's only in the news because he's in the news. Dennis C. Abrams (talk) 20:03, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Having your place burgled generally has nothing to do with the notability of the person. However, when it happens, the news will report it because of the person's celebrity. We're not a newspaper, so we obviously don't need to - and often shouldn't - report it as an encyclopedia. Now, it would be different if there was some sort of well-sourced evidence that the subject was targeted because of who they are, but I don't see that here.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:14, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Randomgurl413

Looks like there might be another one related to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HelloImNotAdele: User:Randomgurl413 – suddenly showed up at Peyton Meyer (actor) to remove a CSD tag, and went back to violating WP:BLPPRIVACY by readding an unsourced DOB just like sock User:GirlMeetsWorld12345 did. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:02, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

SPI action

I updated an SPI one week ago. I couldn't find any information about when and when not to request a checkuser so I put it in to see what would happen. You declined it and I think I understand why now so that's fine. The issue is that the first incident has not been acted on and neither have the other incidents that I added to it in that time period. I think it's unlikely action will be taken against an IP when it's been so long since the last edits anyways. What does it take to get action on them in a timely manner? Is there something I could be doing differently here? Should I not bother with this anymore? Thanks in advance. Air.light (talk) 00:12, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately, sometimes cases sit for a while. Depends on how many there are, how many clerks are active, what they tackle first. At the moment there's a backlog, but that ebbs and flows. If IPs go stale in the interim, then the probability is no action will be taken against them because we're mostly interested in current and ongoing disruption. There's nothing you're doing wrong. Whether you "bother" with it in the future is your decision.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:43, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. Air.light (talk) 01:00, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Riddle me this

Is your CU log script working? Mine no longer adds the blue navigable link.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:01, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Ponyo, you might want to look at User talk:NQ#Script problem. The script wasn't working for Bbb23, so after some tweaking by Amalthea, it started working for him (and didn't stop working for me). If you don't mind saying, which browser are you using? ​—DoRD (talk)​ 22:08, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

I just tried to post the almost identical message. You'd think I'd win the race on my own Talk page. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 22:11, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Firefox. I tested in Chrome as well, but no love.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:16, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Just to be sure it was still working for me, I just checked in Chrome, and it is. Do you abuse your browsers? Maybe they're trying to get even.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:21, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

I've made no changes whatsoever. I've tried reimporting the script and clearing my cache (I even deleted my script and imported the one in your .js file because I'm sneaky like that). NADA.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:25, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Hmm...I use Firefox and it still works for me. In the long run, since Amalthea no longer has the means to test it, another CU who knows JS (definitely not me) will need to take over maintenance of the script. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 22:24, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

In that case I'll just hand over all of my SPI and CU work to you and Bbb23 until someone fixes it for me ;) --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:26, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Nice try, but it's just the log stuff that doesn't work for you. Besides, you can get around even that by getting to the same spot manually. Think of it like roughing it when the electricity stops working and you have to use candles. It's an adventure!--Bbb23 (talk) 22:32, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

"you can get around even that by getting to the same spot manually". Holy Hannah, have I still not impressed upon you how lazy I am? It's like I want to enjoy a leisurely walk around the lake and you suggest I climb Everest. --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:37, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

You don't have to climb Everest. It's not even near you anyway. It's real easy. While you're taking your leisurely walk around the lake, stop, sit on the bench, rest, enjoy the view, and then start walking again until you get to that special spot where IPs shoot up like wildflowers.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:54, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

On a related note, I know someone who has completed the Seven Summits (including summiting Everest twice). He was at Annapurna when the quake hit. This is a man with stories to tell. He is not lazy like me! --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:06, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Would he like to become a CU?--Bbb23 (talk) 23:14, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Ha, ha.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:18, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

(tpw) @Ponyo: Clear User:Ponyo/monobook.js, User:Ponyo/vector.js, User:Ponyo/common.js and try with only importScript('User:Amalthea/culoghelper.js’); in User:Ponyo/common.js. - NQ (talk) 23:32, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

@NQ: Do you mean clear them of all scripts or just clear the culoghelper script? sorry for using your page Bbb--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 15:56, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

No worries. You're welcome to take it over completely.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:02, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

That sounds like a lot of work, and before a long weekend to boot. --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:17, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

And after removing the scripts from my Common.js and restoring them, my User:NuclearWarfare/Mark-blocked script is now also kaput. Gah! --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:51, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

I think you should head out for an early weekend before your entire infrastructure crumbles. Seriously, sorry for your problems.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:18, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

That's due to a small syntax error. You need to replace importScript('User:Amalthea/culoghelper.js’); with importScript('User:Amalthea/culoghelper.js'); - NQ (talk) 03:29, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

@Ponyo: I sent you a long email with some troubleshooting steps. - NQ (talk) 03:10, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Ambedkar in Hungary

Greeting! Very grateful thanks for the help. Dr. Ambedkar would like to edit entries in addition to the Hungarian aspects. The Hungarian Wikipedia article what we have created. We understand and appreciate the advice. Now we abbreviated in the text and have been provided with an external reference. Here is the text :

Outside India, during the late 1990s, some Hungarian Romani people drew parallels between their own situation and that of the downtrodden people in India. Inspired by Ambedkar, they started to convert to Buddhism. The European Buddhist Union granted the Ambedkar follower Buddhists Gypsy organization membership in 2011.( http://europeanbuddhism.org/members/jai-bhim-network/ ) The Buddhist Roma also founded a secondary school in Sajókaza, Alsózsolca, Mátraverebély and Mágocs by the name of Dr Ambedkar School. (https://thebuddhistcentre.com/triratna/jobs/dr-ambedkar-school-hungary-seeks-new-manager) (https://thebuddhistcentre.com/tags/jai-bhim-network ) (http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-features/tp-sundaymagazine/ambedkar-in-hungary/article662028.ece ) ( http://www.countercurrents.org/attri221109.htm ) (http://www.jaibhim.hu/a-roma-and-dalit-joint-project-in-hungary/ ) (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7RyNNX-DInE ) (https://jangamashwin.wordpress.com/2008/04/17/ambedkarite-buddhism-5/ ) (http://www.wiseattention.org/blog/2011/11/29/gypsy-buddhists/ ) (http://www.badurfoundation.org/project-details/dr-ambedkar-school ) (http://www.jdc.org/womens-history-month/more.html ) (http://europeanbuddhism.org/news/jai-bhim-new-documentary-dvd-exit-from-the-home-of-poverty/ ) (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-I6H30bi3A ) (http://www.ambedkar.eu/ ) ( http://www.jaibhim.hu/ )

The Roma living in Moldava-nad-Bodvou in Slovakia have set up an Ambedkar follower organisation called Chakra under the direction of renowned human rights activist Milan ’Igor’ Hudák.( http://www.csakra.eu/ ) (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-4yM-oluoI ) (http://cronkitenews.azpbs.org/2016/05/09/its-hard-to-be-a-gypsy-in-my-town/ ) (http://spectator.sme.sk/c/20057775/al-jazeera-film-focuses-on-abused-roma-mans-quest-to-become-a-teacher.html )

On April 14, 2016, by courtesy of the Indian Council for Cultural Relations (ICCR) His Excellency, Rahul Chhabra, India's ambassador in Hungary donated a bust of Dr. Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar to Dr. Ambedkar School at Sajókaza.( https://drambedkarbooks.com/2016/04/15/first-dr-ambedkar-statue-installed-at-the-heart-of-europe-hungary/dr-ambedkar-school-at-sajokaza-hungary/ )( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vx2qDA7_Sq0 )( http://www.indianembassy.hu/?p=130676 )

What is your opinion? Thank you very much for your kindness! Friendship: Ambedkar school Hungary — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr. Ámbédkar Iskola (talk • contribs) 08:39, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

You should take this to the article Talk page, not to mine.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:06, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Checkuser check

Please do a checkuser check on user:Fuck the Golden State Warriors! Sincerely, Tikeem and user:TikeemIsMyWorld and block the IP address where those accounts originate. 2602:306:3357:BA0:B919:A583:2133:8AAF (talk) 04:47, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

News on 7

I nominated the article for speedy deletion since I suspect that it was created by a sock of Bertrand101. Anyway, I've opened an SPI case at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bertrand101 where your comments are welcome. It has been open for more than a week but I've got no response since I've opened it. Sixth of March 12:26, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Page recreation

A user has recreated the Power Rangers Ninja Steel page again. I don't know if this is the same user who was blocked or banned.--Keith Okamoto (talk) 23:06, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Alter ego

Take a peek at Bbb23a. Appears to be more of BuickCenturyDriver. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 23:14, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

He's apparently quite upset at not having his say at RFA. clpo13_(talk) 23:15, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) And already blocked. Nevermind! ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 23:15, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Just wait, BU Rob13. This is what awaits you! clpo13_(talk) 23:17, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

@Clpo13: He did a much better job with my username than with yours.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:36, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

User talk:Wawaxi

Hello. I picked this up when it was placed on the IRC unblock channel. I am looking at their edits for this year, and I am trying to understand this block. Is this because they replaced the unblock template for the other user after it was removed? Perhaps there are quacking issues? Possibly because of their unkind words to you on your talk page?

To finish this review I need to better understand your reasoning for this block. I am thinking there is something I am missing. HighInBC ^{Need help? {{ping|HighInBC}}} 14:22, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

This is a user who stopped editing in 2012. He then pops in out of nowhere and makes two edits. In the first, he defends Whiskeymouth and attacks two other editors. He also slaps an empty unblock template on the page. In the other edit, he votes at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murder of Tim Bosma. If you look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Whiskeymouth, you'll see that the puppets listed by Winkelvi were involved in that AfD. The coincidence was - and still is - remarkable. With the limited non-stale data I had for Wawaxi, I could not demonstrate to my satisfaction that the account was a sock of either Whiskeymouth or of the other puppets who were unrelated to Whiskeymouth. So I took no action. However, when he restored the unblock template, I blocked. If they had just posted to my Talk page, I wouldn't have cared. I'm fairly used to being abused by trolls, and it doesn't bother me a whit, although the continued personal attacks against the other editors is more than problematic. I chose disruptive editing as the basis for the block because it was the most generic rubric. I entertained the possibility of an indefinite block for NOTHERE but decided there wasn't enough at this point to go there.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:35, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Okay thank you. HighInBC ^{Need help? {{ping|HighInBC}}} 14:53, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

IP 79.74.61.80 and Justplaneediting

Thanks for deleting those edit summaries. IPs have been conducting personal attacks against me at that particular talk page or my own for about 3 months now.

I see somebody started an SPI concerning the IP. Personally, I don't think it is Justplaneediting. Just used to go by the User name Qantasplanes and while Qantas and I often disagreed, I can never recall him doing personal attacks against me. I once said something like 'I can see the steam coming out of Qantasplanes ears when he reads this edit of mine' but that was kind of like the history we had and he might have poked back but never anything like what has been going on now.

BTW I didn't even know they had been blocked from editing till today....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:57, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Ninja Steel is back

The article has been recreated at Power Ranger Ninja Steel (lack of S on Ranger). I don't know enough of the history of this situation to know fully what the deal was and thus the appropriate next step. --Nat Gertler (talk) 04:19, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

José Rafael Cordero Sanchéz

Hi B. You declined Loriendrew's G5 as a recreation by a sock of blocked Josercs1 on José Rafael Cordero Sanchéz with writing "renominate it if the account is blocked". I don't get that, could you explain, please? Sam Sailor ^Talk! 13:39, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

How can I delete an article per WP:CSD#G5 if the recreator account isn't a confirmed sock (blocked was shorthand)? Let's say a sock creates an article and it's deleted. You come along and decide that you can improve the article, so you recreate it, if I could do what you wanted, I could delete your creation simply because the previous creator was a blocked sock. That makes no sense, and it's not what the criterion says. The recreator has to be a "blocked user[] in violation of their ... block".--Bbb23 (talk) 13:47, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining, makes sense. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 13:50, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

I have no problem with the decline, it was jumping the gun on my part, automatically assuming socking based on the article/redirect name.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 14:20, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Talk page block needed for HelloImNotAdele

(Request automatically removed from ANI by bot as already blocked, so posting here.) I think HelloImNotAdele should have their talk page access revoked, as they keep removing the sockpuppetry notice which is not allowed per WP:BLANKING. Also, this is not exactly disruptive but might not count as "appropriate" use of the talk page either. nyuszika7h (talk) 16:05, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

The user may be allowed to remove the other notices, but not the sockpuppetry notice. nyuszika7h (talk) 16:37, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Nyuszika7H: I've reverted your good-faith edit. The user is entitled to remove block notices. They are not entitled to remove declines.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:38, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

WP:BLANKING says they are not allowed to remove "confirmed sockpuppetry related notices". As far as I understand that's separate from the "declined unblock requests" part. Though I suppose it's still on the user page. nyuszika7h (talk) 16:42, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't know why that phrase is in there as it makes no sense. "confirmed" has a specialized meaning, and the only thing on that page is the sock puppetry block notice, and that could be slapped on whether the account is "confirmed" or not. If you like, you could raise this on the talk page of the policy, but I'll stand by my understanding of how this works unless it's clarified. The blanking policy has a tortured history of disagreement among editors, and it drives me crazy. Anyway, there's absolutely no harm in the user removing the block notice. I often block socks without even putting a notice on their talk page. Finally, I don't want to watch an edit war over this issue, and I don't feel the user's behavior to date warrants revocatiion of access to their Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:49, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia sockpuppets of Sarojupreti

Hi Pony, sarojupreti is using more than 8 accounts. Currently he is using Beebek Bhurtel which is Wikipedia sockpuppets of Sarojupreti So Please investige about this problem.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bollywood Nude (talk • contribs) 16:54, 4 July 2016‎

Comment edited to remove this talk page from the sock category. (This post seems to have been a boomerang, Bollywood Nude is plainly a sock of Sarojupreti.) --McGeddon (talk) 09:22, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Odd suspicion

Hi Bbb23, I have an odd suspicion that user Needbrains might be the blocked user of Oatitonimly and Steverci, both blocked for WP:SOCK. (N0n3up (talk) 03:03, 6 July 2016 (UTC))

Cgsailor94

Hi, I added one more suspected sock, apparently just as you were about to close the SPI. Any chance you could check that too? Thanks, OnionRing (talk) 17:43, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Strange "archive" of your page

Hi Beeb, have you seen this? I don't understand what it's for, but the username is disruptive, too, and indeed BethNaught just blocked them, as my finger was on the button. Bishonen | talk 21:37, 6 July 2016 (UTC).

@Bishonen: I could verify it, but my guess is the same as Beth's, that it's a sock of BCD. There've been a rash of them over the last several days. One administrator even deleted "my" SPI case where I was the sockmaster. The nerve!--Bbb23 (talk) 22:27, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Atlantic Caucus

Hello Bbb23! I am the author of the Atlantic Caucus Wikipedia page that you deleted earlier today. It was deleted because it was not made clear how credible the material was. I tried reopening the page but I was advised to contact you.

I'd like to ask you to reopen the page. The Atlantic Caucus is real, and it is a big deal to those here at Suffolk County. The original user who first flagged our page said they searched for us online and couldn't find anything. That wasn't because we don't exist, but rather because we aren't huge.

My biggest concern (which is partly my fault) is that the page was far from finished when it was deleted. I started it at work today, but told myself I would come back to it later tonight to finish it. I had not yet added my sources nor did I add all the hyperlinks and pictures I had prepared as well.

The Atlantic Caucus is the first caucus of a program run by Suffolk County. Suffolk County recently started a program in which they have students run a mock legislature. I made an article about the Atlantic Caucus because it is known for being the first one and also the most significant one expected to ever exist. I will provide all the details in the page hopefully once I get my page back! I absolutely love Wikipedia and respect users like you who try to keep everything accurate, but I assure you the Atlantic Caucus is no hoax, and we take its future very seriously here in the county.

Please let me edit my page once more! Thank you very much.

Kazdapedia (talk) 01:23, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

The article was not deleted because it was not "credible" or because it was a hoax. It was deleted per WP:CSD#A7, which essentially means that the caucus is not significant enough to merit an article at Wikipedia. I don't think there's anything you can do about that even if you were given more time to do so. Even you acknowledge that whatever claim of significance the caucus has is local to one county and you aren't "huge." Wikipedia is not the place for you to have a website about the caucus.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:56, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

SPI page

I see you have deleted the SPI page for KrakatoeKaty. May I ask why? Katie herself has said that a CU would be profitable, as it is necessary to know if the impersonator is a sock of two well known impersonators. Please could you restore the page until a CheckUser is performed? Thanks for your help - if you cannot restore it for any reason I completely understand. Regards --PatientZero ^talk 18:22, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but it's not necessary to satisfy anyone's curiosity. There are a lot of masters going around lately, some doing similar things. Blocking their socks is more important than figuring out who's who. Frankly, the SPI clerks and CUs have enough to do at the moment. Thanks for your understanding.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:24, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Absolutely. Thank you for your response. --PatientZero ^talk 18:25, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Stinky editing

Hi B, re: that recent SPI on Amitbhb, check this out:

• Deleted version of Rajat Poddar as edited by Amitbhb07.

Rajat Poddar was born and brought up in Jabalpur, a beautiful town in Madhyapradesh. He was inclined towards all kinds of performing arts since childhood. He Found an interest in storytelling and narrations at a very early age. He took part in many model making exhibitions, drawing competitions at school level and always stood first. He had his music performing group for a few years in Jabalpur.

Then:

• this change by IP 86.134.58.210 a minute after Bishalbiswas9735 edited].

Rajat Poddar was born and brought up in Jabalpur, a beautiful town in Madhyapradesh. He was inclined towards all kinds of performing arts since childhood. He Found an interest in storytelling and narrations at a very early age. He took part in many model making exhibitions, drawing competitions at school level and always stood first. He had his music performing group for a few years in Jabalpur.

StinkyQuestionable editing going on, man, stinky questionable editing. I don't expect any resolution from you, I just wanted to express my perplexity. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:59, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Actually, I guess a Bengali IP added it the first time, but it's still weird to see it verbatim from a UK IP, which suggests meat, or that they're hiding behind a VPN or something. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:03, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Cyphoidbomb: Thanks for adding color to my Talk page. Pictures are nice sometimes, too. Checkusering can be a drab job. Please don't use the word "stinky" in a negative manner. Used to have a cat named Stinky. Raised her from when she was so tiny she fit in the palm of your hand. Had to use a small bottle and formula. Someone had abandoned her in the street before her eyes were even open. Back to your perplexity. Did it ever occur to you that Bishalbiswas9735 and the IP might not be connected?--Bbb23 (talk) 22:07, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

How dare you suggest that I may not have considered something! Yeah, it just seemed weird that it happened a minute later, but I suppose it's reasonable that the IP is Amitbhb or something. Sorry about the stinky. Stricken above. Cats are cool, would never deliberately denigrate one. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:12, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

I thank you and Stinky, who is no longer with us but lived a full and happy life, thanks you.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:32, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Hey, I had a cat called Stinky once - a male stray that walked into my home one day and gave me a look as if to say "I live here now". And he did. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:44, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

I said I'm sorry!!! ;) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:18, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Buddhist Brahmins

Have a look at Brahmins of Buddhism. I've forgotten the name of the sockmaster; I hope your memory is better. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:45, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Keep these at your fingertips JJ. It's Buddhakahika who has been through two of Abecedare's successful RfAs and seems to exhibit greater longevity. I've done the G5s and blocks now. —SpacemanSpiff 05:56, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Lovely edit summary Mr Spiff. -Roxy the dog™ woof 06:07, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

You got mail

Mail, that's what you got. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:56, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Responded, Boing! said Zebedee.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:59, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

I've forwarded my recent reply to you on to !James. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:08, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Hey SuperCU

If you look at this, you'll see a bunch of socks beginning with "Jasonski" harassing A guy saved by Jesus. It's been going on for over a month, and since the socks are obvious, they're just blocked and an SPI is never done. Do you think it's worth it to open a SPI and request a CU to see if the underlying IP range can be blocked? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:16, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

I've been working on this on my own. Why did it take so long to protect the Talk page? The Jasonski accounts aren't that interesting. Range blocks, if even possible, will be of limited value, but I haven't finished. May take some time. I'm trying to figure out the origin, and that's harder. In the meantime, perhaps you could do me a favor? There's one editor who seemingly is not problematic, but the technical evidence is compelling. Also, this comparison is striking. Could you take a look at the behavior and see if there's anything you can point to that would establish a connection? There are some things you can't know about this editor, but I'll hold those in reserve because there are some borderline privacy issues. That editor goes back to May 22, 2016. I think this problem may go back even further to January with a particular sock master, but the couple of accounts at that SPI are stale. Thanks for your help.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:22, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

I need a break, but a little more help for you: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mets1237 and Daniel Murphy (baseball).--Bbb23 (talk) 23:29, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

PwrRangerFan16

Forgot to sign. I was curious how that user was determined to be a sock puppet. I ask because he/she popped up on an AfD I recently nominated. I noticed you reverted, which I had not seen on an AfD. I then saw the user was banned, but could not see why based on contributions. Just curious. Delta13C (talk) 04:15, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

The vote was removed because socks don't get to vote. This is a notorious sock master who has been creating many accounts recently. One of the earmarks of the master is to vote at AfDs, seemingly randomly.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:17, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Okay, wild. Thanks for the reply. Delta13C (talk) 12:29, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

HarveyCarter sock

This one is an account, so I'm bringing it to you. User:JerryFidley Usual HC article & POV. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:52, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Just so you know, the account, unlike others in the past, is just  Likely, so the block was based partly on behavior.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:51, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:46, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Recreated article check?

Hi there,

Shopbox which you deleted as part of a recent SPI, was just recreated by a new account. Could you take a look to see if the content matches the previous version? Thanks. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:19, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) It's a near verbatim copy and likely pulled out from the same hosiery shelf. Not being familiar with this shelf, I'm not taking any action. —SpacemanSpiff 13:45, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

You'd think, but based on the one edit the account has done so far, they are unrelated to anyone.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:51, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

It's happening far too often these days, just yesterday it was Prateek Baid, now this. —SpacemanSpiff 14:02, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

In a case like this, how would they have got hold of the same article if it was deleted? _Muffled ^Pocketed 14:04, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Meat? They saw the article before it was deleted? They used the think system from The Music Man?--Bbb23 (talk) 14:08, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

So to clarify, are you saying it would need to go through AfD? The user's work looks like it's largely going to be kept, unfortunately. One was deleted by PROD, one deleted at AfD, Modani Furniture looks like it'll be kept, and three others were deprodded (two by experienced users, and CubaOne Foundation by 71.62.26.168 -- in case that IP is relevant). I still think G5 should apply to when abuse began rather than when the person was caught, but meh. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:22, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

What was deleted at AfD?--Bbb23 (talk) 14:32, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Sorry. Tangent. Matt Granite was, but it's only relevant insofar as I was giving an overview of where the various articles from that SPI stand. No action required :) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:51, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Michael Cherney

Why did you delete what I do ? There are wrong facts like that he born in Ukraine and not in uzbek and many more of facts that you delete. do you have somthing personal about cherney? סקרלט (talk) 05:16, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks. Something went a little pear-shaped during the creation of that SPI. I call first edit of the day mulligan. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:20, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

@Anna Frodesiak: I'll let you get away with it this time but only because I like you. --Bbb23 (talk) 01:27, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. I like you too. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:30, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks again. What's wrong with me? Granted, I've a lot of off-Wikipedia distractions lately, but still... :) Still like me? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:40, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

I know what off-wiki distractions are like. It's not good when stuff on-wiki becomes a distraction from stuff off. You'd have to do a lot more than a couple of procedural errors to cause me not to like you. Perhaps in your spare time you can work on it, although I imagine you have more interesting things to do. :-) Still your friend --Bbb23 (talk) 11:45, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:18, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bdebbarma

User:Hx7 also mentioned (but didn't link clearly) User:Daimalu as related in this case. Obviously stale, but wasn't sure if I should just identify it as such as an admin or you want to include it in your more official CU results. DMacks (talk) 13:59, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

I didn't notice, sorry. It's not terribly important given how old it is. If you want to note that it's stale, that's fine.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:01, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

• Am I reading the findings right that, even though the three named accounts are not related to Bdebbarma, they are interrelated enough that they have all been blocked? If so, should one "master" of the three be allowed to petition for an unblock, with conditions to include using only one account going forward? —C.Fred (talk) 14:09, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

• @C.Fred: Actually, the blocked accounts are  Technically indistinguishable. In theory, one of the accounts (one has no edits) could do that, but given the disruption and incompetence, I would not be inclined to agree to it.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:15, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm not inclined to either. One of the three contacted me via email, and I wanted to know whether they could pick any of the three accounts to move forward with or needed to use a specific one. In other sockpuppet cases, the person has been told to make the request from their master account. Thank you for clarifying. —C.Fred (talk) 14:22, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

@C.Fred: Sorry, I think I misled you. It should be the master account unless there's a plausible reason why they want to use a different one.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:26, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

I just left the user a message about their block, including a mention of the standard offer. Contact me via email if you want to know what the "something about [their] email" was. —C.Fred (talk) 14:37, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Some requests

Bbb23:

I'm asking a small number of admins whom I especially respect and admire to do a few things for me, so these could well have been already accomplished by the time you see them.

• (1) Could you please permanently protect my user page User:Beyond My Ken?
• (2) Could you please do the same to User:Beyond My Ken/thoughts, User:Beyond My Ken/code and User:Beyond My Ken/My backstory? Should I ever return to Wikipedia. I'd like these to be available in the state I left them.
• {3} I don't care about the talk page connected to any of these pages. Let people do with them whatever they wish.
• (4) Please indef block my User:Beyond My Ken account.

Finally, I want to thank you for being an excellent admin, one of the very best on Wikipedia. I hope you continue to guide and protect the project for many years to come.

Yours, EF

Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:18, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)  Done. Best of luck Ken :)--5 albert square (talk) 20:29, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken, I don't know if this ping will reach you, but I will miss you very much. Drmies (talk) 20:39, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:44, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Kingdom of North Sudan

And we're back. Drmies (talk) 18:07, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

If that's supposed to trigger a memory, it doesn't. You'll have to spell it out for me.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:22, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

• Check the deletion history: you deleted it two years ago as a hoax. Seems to have been very much the same version. :) Drmies (talk) 20:39, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

• Yeah, but I can't really delete it as a hoax. Even back then it was dubious, but at least it was tagged. So with a masochistic eye I've sent it to AfD.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:57, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Dervorguilla disingenuous discussion & POV

I don't think I have any more patience left re user Dervorguilla at Talk:Donald Trump#Trump signature size is inappropriately minuscule. He's obviously intent on a slow edit war circumventing a block. His discussion tactics are a complete cover. I'm sick of it. But I won't be opening a thread at a Noticeboard. (To oppose what I believe is disingenuous contention!?) I don't want to be blocked even though technically I probably merit due to sanctions on the political article. This is only the 3nd contentious article I've worked on that are contentious with POV editors (others have been Bobby Fischer and initial efforts at Burzynski Clinic). I'm not used to bull of this kind. IHTS (talk) 00:37, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Recreation of deleted article

Sir, an article that you deleted once has been recreated by another sock of DS that has slipped through, please see to it. Thanks.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ^ʞlɐʇ 20:49, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello

Both Bongaosl and Sharif uddin are editing from pro-Naik bias and Anand2202 is editing from anti-Zaik bias (please carefully check his diffs on Peace TV channels as well). The only neutral editors are Chris Troutman and GorgeCustersSabre. Thank you for running a CU on Bongaosl. But please, also run CU on Sharif uddin and Anand2202 for the sake of impartiality and keeping Wikipedia neutral. Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.250.223.151 (talk) 17:50, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

IP range 82.132.2...........

Hello User:Bbb23, The IP range that you blocked a few days ago here has found a way to evade the blocked range and is back, mainly on this page. The subject matter is the same (orders of knighthood) as is the modus operandum of IP hopping while edit warring. The IP numbers seem to be from the same range, but the numbers used in the previous matter are not seen. I'm going to work from the premise that we are dealing with a block evasion here. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 14:58, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Your links above are the same. I didn't impose a range block. BethNaught did, and it's expired.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:25, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

I see, thank you. I changed the link in the above text. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 15:32, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

SPI rename

Hello Bbb23, could you please rename my SPI to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Setareh Malek from Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mahya tab, as Setareh Malek is the actual sockmaster. Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 15:41, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

 Done.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:50, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

• Hi again, could you please delete Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bsll2016, which I created in error. Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 17:28, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Shabeehanswar - + 1 (?)

Hello Bbb23, I just noticed this SPI-thread while cleaning up Mokalpur, Uttar Pradesh. The article's creator (SPA) added similar AdnanAliAfzal-links. External links in the initial article version are malformed (possibly to avoid an edit filter or link bot). I am not sure, if it's worth re-opening a closing SPI over an 1-edit account, but maybe you want to take a quick look into the situation. I have also deleted and redirected Mokalpur, Ambedkar Nagar which seemed to be about the same village and had been affeced by the same spam problem in the past. GermanJoe (talk) 19:59, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Request+Line

The user is possibly a sock of MariaJaydHicky. Can you revert the user's and semi-protect any page. 123.136.106.85 (talk) 00:00, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm not familiar enough with the subject matter to know which edits it makes sense to revert. However, if you do, you can revert them. As for protection, you're going to have to tell me which articles you think need protection. BTW, I blocked the account you brought here and two others. Thanks for that.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:22, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Closure

For your information: [15] The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:16, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

@JamesBWatson: I noticed, but thanks for the heads up.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:42, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks

for your attention to that silly SPI report. Jeh (talk) 09:40, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

I will try to be ambiguous

You removed and struck through something I put on [[16]] I won't mention what, as you obviously removed it for a good reason. I didn't realize it was something unsuitable, but I will try not to put content like that on SPI again. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 13:35, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:51, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Sockpuppet Investigation/Nepali keto62

He has included you. Rainbow Archer (talk) 13:40, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Hate speech given by blocked user

User Abhishek Jha Nepal who you've blocked has written a hate-speech confession on his talk page. Ayub407^talk 18:56, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

"No master, no action"

I'm sort of at an impasse. I am sure by virtue of behavior that a user claiming to be "new" is not new at all. However, because the user is claiming to be new, I don't know who the master is. I assumed I provided enough information to show that there was a basis for the assumption that wasn't just a fishing expedition. However, I don't see any other potential course of action available to address the issue other than doing what I've already done. In short, it seems like a catch-22, because I can't CU without knowing the master, and I knew the master, I wouldn't need the CU. Are there any other options available that I'm missing? MSJapan (talk) 23:16, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

It's not true that if you knew the master, you wouldn't need a CU. CUs are requested all the time with identified masters. Whether a check is made depends on the case. Your other option is to try to determine who the master is and provide evidence in support of your determination, which is the usual way it's done. Otherwise, if the account is disruptive enough, they should get blocked independent of any possible socking.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:19, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

SLBedit and P3DRO

Hi, I just saw you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Could you take a look at SLBedit and P3DRO who are edit warring at 2016–17 S.L. Benfica season? They have both reported eachother and SLBedit has also reported P3DRO to ANI. Just a few days ago SLBedit did the same thing to an other editor and was told not to forumshop and was warned for edit warring but that has not helped, he contiues to war and then report the other editor (he is just as quilty as the other editor). Qed237 (talk) 18:36, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

The reason for this message is because it is a lot of reverts that needs attention. Qed237 (talk) 18:37, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. Qed237 (talk) 18:39, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Emergency checkuser request

I need you to do an emergency check user check on user:THE LORD OF FFF UCKS, and user:THE LORD OF FF UCKS. Look for any sleepers and block the IP address. 2602:306:3357:BA0:E42C:B867:9CD8:C963 (talk) 18:39, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Science19

I would request you to kindly restore science19 page into the draftspace! thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pjpa12 (talk • contribs) 02:42, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

??? Pjpa12 (talk) 19:27, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

suspected vs confirmed

Reg this, I'd left it to CU/clerk discretion at that time because I only went off of the autoblock and behavioral link to the master when I did all those blocks. As a lowly admin, I didn't feel comfortable changing it as the master itself wasn't checked. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 13:10, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

The accounts I confirmed should have two templates: one sockmaster template showing checked, and one suspected or proven tag. They appear mostly to have just suspected tags because you originally tagged them and the clerk didn't change those tags, just added a confirmed tag to a new one, which is not accurate but we do it sometimes. If someone wants to "fix" the tags, fine; I don't.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:08, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, the subtleties of CU process often escape me, that's why I keep my role in all this as simple as possible. —SpacemanSpiff 14:49, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

User:P3DRO

P3DRO is back edit warring instead of reaching consensus on talk page. I don't want to get blocked again. What to do? SLBedit (talk) 18:41, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

@SLBedit: I think both you and P3DRO should stay away from that article. Otherwise, you may find that both of you will be blocked again.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:45, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

I have always edited S.L. Benfica season articles without problem, until now. (I even started that article.) The edit warring, started by P3DRO, is due to player shirt numbers. This could be solved on the article's talk page or at WT:FOOTY but P3DRO doesn't discuss. SLBedit (talk) 18:49, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

This user did not learn with his 24h suspension. He continues to revert my edits without any reason, continues to create a edit war. This user has a childish behaviour and I think his edits are acts of vandalism. He likes do bully other wikipedians and he alway thinks he's right. And he lies about other users. He said I didn't put a refernece (when I had put it) only to report me. This user do not respect other users contributions and is always reverting stuff, thus destroying the work of others. Also, in stuff concerning Benfica, this user thinks he is always right and only accepts his vision on the matter. SLBedit does not assume good faith and do not respect this rule

I seek your opinion in a matter concerning this page. This user insists in adding the numbers to some players who did not play in Benfica last season. It is a nonsense to put the number 32 in Bebé when he was playing in Rayo last season. The same goes to César and Mukhtar. You can see in this Barcelona season that players like Cáceres or Hleb do not have number. And that makes sense. P3DRO (talk) 18:55, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You'll have to seek a third opinion from someone else. I cannot comment on content and retain the authority to impose sanctions. I hope you read what I wrote above.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:59, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Then discuss it at WT:FOOTY or on the article's talk page. SLBedit (talk) 18:58, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

IP hopper JovanAndreano back

Dear Bbb23, I noticed that the user user:JovanAndreano, has returned making all kinds of edits without sources, removing information and adding false information with sources which don't even write what he claims. He makes the same kind of edits like JovanAndreano and he removes or inserts information without explanation. I already tried to revert the 50+ edits he made of the last two days, but he just found out and reverted everything again (this user user:196.206.65.201 The users are user:105.156.236.182, user:105.156.233.41. Just a few minutes the user user:196.206.65.201 reverted 30+ edits in less than 10 minutes. Thank you. Alhaqiha (talk) 19:33, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Big Brother 18 (U.S.)

Could you please semi-protect this article? There has been a ridiculous amount of vandalism on it over the past couple days. IP editors are persistently inserting false information, including information about weeks of the show which haven't even happened yet. I requested semi-protection for the article at WP:RPP over 15 hours ago and didn't even get a response. --A guy saved by Jesus (talk) 19:01, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Never mind, Airplaneman just took care of it. --A guy saved by Jesus (talk) 19:42, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Sock

A new User:Čokoholičar has popped up inserting Asdisis-like claims to Balkan-related articles. Can you check if the two are linked? 23 editor (talk) 20:55, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Checkuser needed?

User:Fizz is my homeboy (unusual link to avoid pinging the account) showed up at WP:UAA; the reporting bot said that the account is potentially a sock of User:Incorrigible Troll. All of that account's suspected and confirmed sockpuppets have names consisting of "[single word] is my homeboy", but I know nothing of their editing patterns or anything else aside from the usernames. Would you mind investigating? I didn't want to file an SPI solely because of the username. Nyttend (talk) 03:46, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Already blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:47, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Block

Hi. Thank you for having blocked Protot, aka Prototype. — Regards, Pro patria semper 15:01, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

RfC on verifiability

Do you remember the huge barney Wikipedians had, a few years back, on "Verifiability not truth"? The one that started around November 2010, went through two RfCs and a mediation, and ended in July 2012 with Wikipedia's first-ever "triumvirate close"? It's possible you don't, as a search for Bbb23 on the RfC page indicates that you didn't vote and you may have been inactive at that time.—S Marshall T/C 18:41, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Discussion about the deletion of the page about What Culture Pro Wrestling

Bbb23, i saw you that you deleted the page about What Culture Pro Wreatling (WCPW). why? WCPW is an indiependent wrestling promotion in england. they have signed wrestlers, they're running shows, why shouldn't they have a wikipedia page about them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChaosMe (talk • contribs) 20:14, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

False accusation

Please withdraw your false accusation of edit warring at Talk:Creation Museum#Warning. I made one entirely valid edit to a category without being aware of any previous article lock.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:10, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

I saw your post. You made your point. Let's not overdramatize it. There were a lot of users who were edit-warring before the article was locked, and I assumed incorrectly you were one of them. If it makes you happy, you can post a message to the Talk page pointing to this thread.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:28, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

I would otherwise leave it, but the implication has triggered another editor to further mischaracterise me there.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:35, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

I disagree. The other editor is challenging your change, and the two of you are fighting about it. You're conflating the two.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:38, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

So you think the other editor's claim that "sanctions are in order" was justified? Hardly. But I think I've gotten as close to an apology from either of you as is possible on Wikipedia, so I think I'll leave it there.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:43, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Searcher11

The userpage links to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Asdisis/Archive but the username isn't mentioned - was this a mistaken block, or the wrong SPI case? ~Amatulić (talk) 05:32, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

One of the links automatically generated by the sock template links to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Asdisis (not the archive), but that's just to show who the master is; the user's ignorance of that fact is of course feigned. The only reason I referred the person to that page was to make clear they could have figured out the basis of the block on their own, but I also explicitly said they were blocked as a sock puppet of Asdisis. I also explicitly said it wasn't a mistake. I guess you're not that familiar with SPI or blocking socks, but I block accounts for sock puppetry all the time outside of the SPI. Like other CheckUsers and many administrators, I don't even always tag the accounts, so many other users don't even know who the alleged master is. Another administrator revoked Talk page access because, just like me, they didn't believe anything the user said.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:40, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Right, I don't spend a lot of time at SPI. I'm accustomed to feigned ignorance in unblock requests -- oftentimes just the similarity in grammar in English usage makes it obvious, although it wasn't this time. I don't recall encountering a blocked user whose userpage refers to an SPI investigation that doesn't mention that user, so I thought I'd ask you about it. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:17, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

AN?

Hey. You posted a notice about an AN discussion on User talk:JoeM. But I can't find the discussion itself (not on ANI either). Were you distracted by this? Bishonen | talk 20:51, 24 July 2016 (UTC).

JoeM is the "OP" I referred to in my comments (your diff).--Bbb23 (talk) 20:52, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Ah. Possibly they'll have trouble finding it, since I did. They're not named in the thread at all. Bishonen | talk 20:55, 24 July 2016 (UTC).

Heh, for some reason that doesn't really bother me a lot, but I think they'll find it if they wish to.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:57, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Message

Sorry to bother you, but I got this notification which was then reverted by yourself. Mind explaining what happened? 23 editor (talk) 03:28, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

I generally revert messages posted to user talk pages by block evaders. You are welcome to restore it if you wish.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:30, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

No, thanks for that. I was momentarily confused and had no idea it was Asdisis(?). Weird. 23 editor (talk) 03:02, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jhony jhony yes papa

Any possibility of a range block on this one? It's a real nuisance now as I've got to block one or two socks on a daily basis. Disruption is worse on Commons where he does Flickrwashing for his copyvios. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 03:48, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

When you say you're blocking one or two socks a day, do you mean named accounts or IPs? Is this outside SPI? I can't do anything about Commons. The probability is there's little I can do. This person uses a lot of different IP ranges. Generally, when I'm checking, if I see a range that's been persistently disruptive and it's blockable without collateral damage, I just do it. I could look next time I run a check, but I at least need to know if we're talking about soft- or hard-blocking.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:36, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Mostly named accounts (three in the past 24 hours), I think I've only blocked a couple of IPs (different mobile service providers) relating to this sock farm over the past month or so. The chap has a more structured set of interests on Commons so it's easier for me to find him there and once I do, I block here before he can continue his nonsense. INeverCry‎ blocks him quite quickly at Commons too but I was trying to see if there's way to prevent the disruption rather than rectify it. I'm hesitant to do page protections as some of these articles get good faith non-autoconfirmed edits and it'd also be more difficult to find him. BTW, could you take a look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nouman khan sherani. The chap seems to be making the best use of Ponyo's vacation. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 14:17, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm not going to have time to look at the first issue or the other case. I'll do a little more work this morning and then I'll be gone for at least a few days.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:21, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Enjoy your vacation, I'm sure that there are many socks here who will! —SpacemanSpiff 14:52, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Ponyo is on vacation. I wish mine were.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:55, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Have a good break! We'll be here when you get back (hopefully). --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:28, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Return

Hello @Bbb23:

Return of [17] here: [18]

Best regards, --Blue Indigo (talk) 09:23, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

User with at least 4 different usernames/accounts

Lookie here: [19]

• Adamsmith (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Rajusharmaofc (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Nepalirider123 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• AdamSmith12 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

They're all giving each other barnstars, !voting on the other's AfDs, getting all up in each other's business, moving and redirecting each other's accounts. I can't unravel this, and it is way above my pay grade, but Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi and Mr rnddude noticed it at ANI in this thread which I closed just now: [20]. What to do, what to do? Paging Bishonen as well. Softlavender (talk) 13:36, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

It's well above my pay grade as well, I only found it because of FIM's original comment. Personally, I think this ought to have a good chance as an SPI case, but, that's just my opinion. There's just too much overlap between these accounts for them not to be connected. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:39, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

• I don't see anything for me to do. There are only two named accounts (the others were renamed). One of the two is stale, and the other is now blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:44, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

@Bbb23:, It's User:Nepalirider123 who is the crux here. Three of those four These usernames above are indeed the same editor, after various username changes (through page-moving); but NR is- supposedly- a separate account. Yet also actually made one of those page-moves himself. _Muffled ^Pocketed 13:53, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

On edit: Has he already been looked at in an SPi? It rings a bell, but we've had a swathe of Nepalesesocks lately, and it would be bizarre if they all had the same style but were individual contributors. Definitely confused! _Muffled ^Pocketed 13:59, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

User:Nepalirider123 isn't stale or blocked, and just !voted on the AfD User:AdamSmith12 kept trying to derail (which is why the latter got blocked). Their editing histories have extreme crossover, including redirecting their own accounts to each other and giving each other barnstars. Softlavender (talk) 13:57, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict x 312) You original list was wrong. I fixed it.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:02, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Crikey. I did see those usernames in the nest of redirects infesting the Adam Smith accounts, but never thought one of them might still be used. User:Nepalirider123 blocked as a sock. (Or maybe it's the older account, I can't make myself care enough to check.) I actually think the individual means no harm with this blatant sockpuppetry. It's a competence issue, compare this convo on my page. So much so they need indeffing for it, IMO. What do you think, Beeb? Bishonen | talk 14:19, 29 July 2016 (UTC).

I'm looking some more now, but see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rajusharmaofc.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:23, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Just as before, Rajusharmaofc, renamed to AdamSmith12, and Nepalirider123 are  Unrelated. I pretty much knew that before I rechecked because of the locations of the two users, but I took a peek to see if any other accounts popped up that were connected to either user. I didn't find anything clearly connected.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:45, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Two locations- Quatar and Nepal, perhaps...? That page move though is still unexplained- and, I suppose short of actually asking!- we will never know. _Muffled ^Pocketed 14:51, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

What a fucking zoo. Pardon my French. Softlavender (talk) 14:56, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Translating Softlavender's French into adminese, I believe there's a single individual behind all these accounts, even if they're technically unconnected (perhaps indeed because the individual moved). Little Muffled, I have actually asked,[21] because Nepalirider has requested unblock. If there's a credible and creditable explanation for the page moves, I'd be interested to see it. Bishonen | talk 15:22, 29 July 2016 (UTC).

(edit conflict) Good luck with that. Last time I checked, Softlavendeer's "French" was English, both of the Bishonen and my kind. Why do the fucking French get blamed for bad language anyway? If it's any consolation to Softlavender, this kind of thing gives me a headache too, but I just go to the patisserie and wallow in sugar and cream until I pass out.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:37, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for tackling that head on, Bishonen. It did occur to me that, amidst all the wondering about that edit, he'd probably never actually been asled! But, like you say, it will be an educational answer  ;) _Muffled ^Pocketed 15:33, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

• Nepalirider123 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) has been blocked for being a sockpuppeteer of AdamSmith12 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) despite being confirmed that they're unrelated to eachother. Ayub407^talk 17:19, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Evlekis

Hello. Evlekis showed up on WP:ANI (see this) as Creektiming, and the edit history of that account led to Owaavaax. Both have already been blocked, but since Evlekis has a habit of using several accounts in parallell there might be more of them, so would you please do a check? /Tom Thomas.W ^talk 20:48, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Well what do you know, there's already a sleeper. clpo13_(talk) 20:52, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Already blocked, but there are most probably more of them, because I doubt Evlekis would waste one on trying to revert my edit here if he didn't have at least one more account. Thomas.W ^talk 20:57, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Application page on Wikipedia!

I'm a musician and I want my wikipedia page here like Justin Bieber or as other artists! I hope to answer? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yackinn12 (talk • contribs) 00:43, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

As was explained to you repeatedly already on your talk page, you should not try to write an article about yourself. If you are famous, then somebody else, somebody without your obvious conflict of interest, will write an article about you based on press reports and other reliable sources. --Orange Mike | Talk 04:00, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Check

May you please check out this report here: [22]? AcidSnow (talk) 00:57, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Why me? In any event, the report is malformed. Unless you really know what you're doing, you should use WP:SPI or Twinkle to open or re-open SPIs. At some point a clerk will deal with it.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:56, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

My apologize as I incorrectly thought that you were one of the adminis with prior experience with the master account and his puppets. You're also right that I am missing both comment sections for the investigation. I have no experience with twinkies nor do I know what exactly they are.

I would also like to thank you for blocking the user Zekenyan and his various puppets. Judging from their behavior and edits it's likely that the master account is User:Baboon43. AcidSnow (talk) 15:59, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

WP:Twinkle, not twinkies.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:48, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

I wasn't actually referring to twinkies haha. I simply got the name wrong. Nonethless, thank you for your advice. AcidSnow (talk) 06:52, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Dude

Why don't you want to be called dude? --113.203.154.217 (talk) 03:11, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Many people dislike certain forms of address. I don't like dude. I don't like most slang.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:47, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Dude, for real? :p -- Kendrick7^talk 12:57, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

I guess if that is the way you feel, dude. :P --113.203.139.86 (talk) 18:08, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

You could have..

...just altered the message to say article was deleted. Although I probably should have checked first, didnt think it would be that fast. Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:55, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Supreme Court of the United States

Famspear (talk · contribs) and I are editing a new paragraph in the subject article which was removed with your edit at [23]. The edit comment said, "poorly crafted and topically/politically motivated". We are still working on the exact wording of the paragraph. Motivation is generally not conjectured on WP except in cases of WP:COI. I originally added the paragraph and I have no connection with the justices or their staff (and I assume Famspear doesn't either). The subject of the paragraph is by necessity topical to the section in which it was added. I don't see how it could be seen as politically motivated as it applies equally to all of the justices who are currently evenly split in their political leannings. The material is well sourced by dozens of reliable sources, so I'm not sure why it was removed. Sparkie82 (t•c) 11:19, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't agree that my statement that it is politically motivated means you are affiliated with the Court. It's not just topical to the section, it's topical to "now". It was added during an election. It was added during a time when at least one of the justices made controversial statements about one of the candidates (although it had nothing to do with gifts). You added it to the top of the section? Why? The phrasing was at times awful, e.g., "A group called the Center for Public Integrity and a newspaper callled the New York Times". The Times doesn't say anything that would permit you to say "the behavior and the criticism that has raised eyebrows and cast a shadow on their decisions". Even the Center's opinion piece, which is more hard-hitting, doesn't go that far. There's no way you can introduce material like that in its present form. I suggest you and your friend go back to the drawing board.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:43, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Dear fellow editors: Just to clarify something, since I am being mentioned in this discussion. What I did was edit material that someone else (apparently, editor Sparkie82) inserted -- to correct an obvious error: the cited material did not say what the article claimed the cited material said. Whether the material should even be in the article at all is a different matter. Famspear (talk) 02:49, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

That historical-figures/causes of death vandal-editor...

Re: User:ChristopherT312 I'm sure you're right...I only went back to the oldest account I could see at the time. Would is do any good to open an SPI on all the apparently-related accounts including User:ChristopherS.Tran1 (even though the accounts are already blocked)? Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 21:24, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

@Shearonink: No, I think it's fine. If a clerk wants to move it to the older account based on behavior, that's fine, and you referenced the other blocked accounts in the SPI, so there's a record.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:16, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Europefan

I reverted the edits made by the socks picked up by CU at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Europefan and G5 tagged their category creations. 188.96.229.167 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been undoing my reverts and removing the CSD creations. Seems like an obvious IP sock and I figured I'd let you know since you handled the SPI. clpo13_(talk) 21:46, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Also Sro258, who's recreating the categories that were already deleted. clpo13_(talk) 21:55, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

NeilN seems to be on top of everything as usual. Me I was lying down resting with my socks off.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:14, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Socks off?! Why I never. clpo13_(talk) 22:23, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) My socks are awake a lot more than I am. They're never.. zzzzzzzz.. never off. Bishonen | talk 02:22, 2 August 2016 (UTC).

Remembrance (EP)

Someone has complained about our deletion of this article. Please See my talk page. Cheers, --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:39, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I know, he pinged me. I thought your response was fine and I had nothing to add. Your taking the article to AfD moots any issue associated with the delete.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:42, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi

Hi there i'm new to wikipedia so i didn't know those pictures were violations I apologize for this inconvenience. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahmadmamad (talk • contribs) 07:22, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

No worries. Wikipedia has a lot of rules.--Bbb23 (talk) 10:03, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Nazcheema

Just wondering- he wrote quite a few articles (mostly lists and stubs) and they all seem OK. So are they ok to stay, as written before the socking happpened? _Muffled ^Pocketed 12:25, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

They are not eligible for WP:CSD#G5 if that's what you mean.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:26, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Zactly. Not being 'in violation at the time. _Muffled ^Pocketed 12:33, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Denying him

I posted this the other day and now notice your asking Linguist111 to not file unless still unblocked. Is the RA0808 post okay? Should I suggest to Linguist111 that he drop one of us a short talk post with "User:Example is User:THATGUY" and we can block and DENY to save the SPI filing? We're both on a lot and have a lot of admin watchers, so maybe not a bad plan. Thoughts? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:09, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

I haven't tracked how the socks are getting blocked, but in general there's no need to bring a blocked puppet to SPI unless there are special circumstances. And, no, the RA0808 post wasn't okay, either, same problem. This master is just a vandal. He's prolific. The socks shouldn't be tagged or "recorded", just blocked. It's not the only case like that. It's a little wearing because it keeps happening again and again, even though I know editors are filing in good faith. It also doesn't help that we're short-staffed at SPI right now, so I'm doing more "clerking" than I usually do. Thanks for your offer to help.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:27, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

I understand and agree. I'm for the smallest footprint for these LTAs. I just posted here. I am not clear when you say "the RA0808 post wasn't okay". I mean, if a non-admin discovers the sock, what's the lowest-profile way to handle it? Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:48, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Actually, "footprint" isn't the best word. You know what I mean. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:42, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

I retract my comment about RA0808. I assumed they had filed the SPI after the sock was blocked, but I just checked the block log. The sock was blocked seconds after the filing. Now why they included an IP that hadn't edited since March is beyond me.--Bbb23 (talk) 10:01, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough. So, the bottom line, is it okay for me to recommend to such users that, rather than posting at AN/I or reopening an SPI, they instead click Special:Log/block to find an admin who is active right now and post with a boring and resource-saving "User:Example is obviously sock User:THATGUY so pls block and DENY, thanks."? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:40, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, although it would be better if the user had a good relationship with the admin and/or the admin was familiar with that master. Also, with some socks, who are obviously vandals in addition to being socks, reporting them to AIV is often very efficient.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:52, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

That makes good sense. Cheers. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 19:18, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

I posted at Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations/Archives/Archive18#DENY by not reopening SPI. Your input is most welcome there. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 19:55, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Ambeinghari

Hi B, I know we had a run of trying to figure out who Ambeinghari is, but I wonder if he's not a sock of Kichappan now. Here he adds content almost verbatim to stuff previously added by Kichappan.

Mammootty holds a matinée idol status in the pop culture of Kerala. He has been cited to as "Megastar" by popular culture and media. Film critics, contemporaries, and other experts consider him as one of the greatest actors in Indian cinema for his versatile and natural acting.

"Matinee idol" doesn't come up much in normal talk. Attempt 2 by Ambeinghari:

"He is widely regarded as one of the greatest actors of Indian cinema and also holds a matinee idol status in the popular culture of Kerala. He is often cited in the media as one of the most popular actor of Malayalam Cinema and is known as "Megastar" among people of Kerala diaspora."

If we compare that to some of the previous attempts like this one from PaachuvumKovaalanum, a CU-confirmed Kichappan sock:

"Mammootty holds a matinée idol status in the pop culture of Kerala." ... " he began to be referred to as "Megastar" by the media and fans,"

Or this edit from IP 103.14.196.22:

"Mammootty holds a matinée idol status in the pop culture of Kerala."

Clearly something is up and this guy/these people are being instructed to add certain bullet points to the article. It would be an odd coincidence for him to get the wording verbatim, so it's almost certain he's scouring the article edit history to re-add the content. That's not normal behavior. Either he's socking, or there is a paid editing situation going on, which is also quite possible. Thoughts? Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:36, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

There's a lot of confusion, technically and behaviorally, about many of these accounts and which ones belong to whom. That said, it's technically highly unlikely that Ambeinghari and Kichappan are the same person. It's possible that Ambeinghari is related to N Blaze Lightning (talk · contribs · count) and Cactus Killer (talk · contribs · count), and it's true that I found those two accounts were  Likely to Kichappan (the confirmed tags on their username pages are inaccurate). I know this sounds inherently self-contradictory, but a lot depends on the amount of data I have when I'm looking at the accounts. More data usually translates into better findings. Anyway, that should be as clear as mud for you.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:10, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Aw poop. Well thanks for looking, as always. It's frustrating all around I'm sure. Something seems off about him, so my sock-sense starts tingling, but it seems we're going nowhere... Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:26, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Excuse me, As my name is mentioned here i want to covey you all that i even not hears about words like kichappan, N blaze, catucus killer. Whats going on i don't know. Pls i didn't understand anything. You can investigate about it. I don't have any connection with these above mentioned accounts. May be i have added content on Mammootty page. I find it genuine and i add it. Now its not there as i found out it was not allowed. Adding same content never makes two accounts same. Don't know much about wiki policies. But seriously am genuine. This is my one and only account and pls it hurts when you all made me a sock of these accounts. Ambeinghari (talk) 07:12, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Query

May I know what happened to this investigation. And what likely to happen. Inside the Valley (talk) 06:52, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

• Forgive the intrusion and answering on your behalf Bbb23. ItV; While Bbb23 took an interest in that SPI, he's under no obligation to do anything more with it than he has done. There are 62 open cases. Bbb23 is a CU, and may only have an interest in SPI in so far as CU is concerned. He may not wish to conduct behavioral connectivity issues. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:09, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

• What Hammersoft said.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:14, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Need Help

Inside the Valley (talk) is kind of hates me. He is mentioning my name to so many users that i am some sought of sock and he questions all my edits and queries. Don't know what to do. I don't know whats his problem really is. Need help. Regards Ambeinghari (talk) 09:38, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

• Being addressed at User_talk:Inside_the_Valley#Mohanlal. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:29, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Asilah1981 case

@Bbb23: Re Asilah1981 case, excuse me, what the hell are you doing? I posted all the requirements, evidence, and diffs as required, what are you doing? It took me 2 hours to search all the stuff and post it, on top of all of the disruption the emboldened reported editor is bringing about to me and the WP. Is it a technicality? I am not a professional or even user of this or like WP resources. All that I wrote and saved did not to show later on the Sockpuppet investigastion case I do not know why, very disappointing, and later, you remove everything. Sorry I am (bitterly) waiting an explanation, thanks Iñaki LL (talk) 20:12, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

What you did was make an unholy mess. You cannot use that redirect page to create a sock puppetry case.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:24, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

How can you ever remove the whole case??? I cannot believe it, I am not a litigation expert, it just referred to an archived case. Now you could just have rvd the edit anyway. What is going on? The fact is that a clear-cut sockpuppet is all the more emboldened, attacking me in different talk pages and keeping disrupting the WP. I do not know who Historian Student is but by cross-references when I first detected Asilah1981's irregular activity time ago. This is a whole new case, whether the sockmaster is Historian Student I do not know. Please do restore everything, with my evidence and diffs that did not show initially if possible, I am not interested in an archived case, this case is well kicking and living, and is becoming a matter of big concern and distress in the community for editors in Spanish topics, it is just expelling good editors from the project. Thanks Iñaki LL (talk) 08:05, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Back in 2015 you were chastized for not knowing what you were doing, at least with respect to sock puppetry. It doesn't seem like you've educated yourself since. But I'll put that aside. As near as I can tell, you are alleging now that Asilah1981 and Pablo.alonso are operated by the same person. Pablo was created on July 27, 2013. Asilah1981 was created on November 19, 2014, well over a year later. Therefore, Pablo is the older account, and don't tell me you don't care about such niceties as who is older. Policy cares about these things. So, all you have to do is open a new case naming Pablo.alonso as the master and Asilah1981 as the puppet. You may include IPs as well as possible puppets and, of course, present evidence in support of your allegations. If you present no evidence, as you did before I reverted you, your case will be closed with no action, so don't even think about opening such a case. There currently is no case with Pablo.alonso as the master so you won't need to destroy an SPI redirect to open it.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:28, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Sigh, looks like we are talking to cross purposes, but admittedly technically you have a point. The last time I checked Pablo.alonso's contribs, for some reason, I realized it was a purpose specific account, created on the moment, but now further looking into the contribs, I actually happened to overlook the first one, it is one of those dormant accounts (sleepers). The sockmaster plays on those kinds of technicalities to turn off targeted editors like me. But you are right, it is on the policies, and I thought I was following it. It redirected me to Historian Student (archived), whose activity I did not get to know, so I get entangled in a maze, and therefore the disruptive editor's goal is achieved! Frustrate good editors!

Secondly, I read all the instructions, where to write things, etc. I do not know what happened to all the evidence (introductory explanation) and diffs I added (more than 10), to my surprise when I saved the case, I could only see the IPs and the above editor's name, the rest was blanked. Very frustrating, a nightmare to be honest, I do not know what happened. I did not remove the "<--" marks ("WRITE BETWEEN THESE..." ETC), I do not know if that has something to do. Iñaki LL (talk) 20:32, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, it sounds like you've at least calmed down. That's always a good thing. Much easier to get things done if you're not angry or frustrated. If you decide to go forward with an SPI, let me know if you need help doing it "right". I'll do my best to assist you if I'm available.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:00, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, do not know if will gather the stamina to do it again, but that is indeed welcome. Re my last point, a preview option for the post should work out the problem, but I do not know if that is actually available. Iñaki LL (talk) 22:21, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

If you're using SPI (as opposed to Twinkle), preview should be available.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:28, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

What have you done? What have you done? Regardless of the Checkuser (this is not a regular individual editor), have you ever looked into the behavioural patterns, also those of the IPs? Frankly, it looks like not. What is the SPI about really? I can only foresee a scene of further conflicts with powerful, shadowy and aggressive editors further emboldened by your verdict. Iñaki LL (talk) 07:17, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

You gave a warning, could you just deliver and remove the latest comments of the two usernames, as you stated? Not that it is my intention to feed them, I have not even read their comments, but it might as well continue for ever. If there is no respect/fair play, there is no smooth WP editing. Thanks Iñaki LL (talk) 12:46, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Anyone you know?

[24], [25] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:23, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

@NeilN: Yes and no. Based on the technical evidence and behavioral evidence (which is not typical in most ways), I've blocked and tagged.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:50, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

...and back again Anmccaff (talk) 04:49, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

dude...

You better be careful. You're gonna get throw from the earth and die at the space. TimothyJosephWood 13:31, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Could be worse. Someone could force me to decide disputes at ANI.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:33, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Sockpuppet of Nouman khan sherani

I think this user is a sockpuppet of the blocked user Nouman khan sherani--Yufitran (talk) 19:40, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

And you would be right.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:49, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. --Yufitran (talk) 20:21, 6 August 2016 (UTC)