Archive 35

←

Archive 38

Archive 39

Archive 40

Archive 41

Archive 42

→

Archive 45

Hi there, you declined speedy deletion, stating g7 doesn't apply, however, the draft article was created by the same user who requested deletion. I appreciate that the full article history is not evident at Jamie Drew Weinand, but it is listed in the request for a sock-puppet investigation that you closed. Trankuility (talk) 13:34, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

WP:CSD#G7 applies only if "the only substantial content of the page was added by its author". Even putting aside the socks, who are the same person as the author, there were other editors who edited the article beyond just reverting or adding templates.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:01, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

That's a fair point, but the data shows that the substantive content was added by the socks. The largest percentage by a single different user is 2.8% Trankuility (talk) 14:12, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

As the 2.8% contributor to the article was the editor who initiated the SPI, Drchriswilliams, perhaps they should weigh in here? As for myself, my only edits were to tag dubious sources. Funcrunch (talk) 16:08, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. This got more complicated over time. Some of the claims that were initially posted in the article were really overstated. My starting point was to try and pick through some of the content and see what could be verified. I quickly saw a draft had been declined multiple times and blanked. As I began some routine checking, it became apparent that there was a cluster of accounts that were being used to add material. There were also talk page comments that were dishonest and implausible. The press release that was issued and then withdrawn by the Point Foundation makes this whole thing even more odd. It seems the subject of the article is still a medical student, having not yet graduated. This student's name is on a couple of papers that have been cited in academic work and elsewhere. Although commendable, that body of work isn't itself particularly notable. I got the impression that the attempts by the sock to speedily delete the article were an attempt to get rid of the trail of their misadventure. Bearing all this in mind, I think the Speedy deletion request being declined was appropriate. I think someone will likely try to recreate an article on this individual. An AfD discussion would at least be able to capture some of the problems that emerged in the creation of this article. Drchriswilliams (talk) 16:40, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree that AfD might be a better way to go here in order to preserve evidence. Also, as I mentioned on the article talk page, I have a screenshot of the press release and have corresponded with the person who was listed as the contact, so I can provide that additional evidence to Bbb23 or another admin/CheckUser if needed. Funcrunch (talk) 16:46, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Another IP with no other edit history just started editing with similar edit summaries to the socks. Might be innocent, might not... Funcrunch (talk) 18:51, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick block. Might want to check out this one too (though only one edit so far, similar MO). Funcrunch (talk) 19:11, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Ok. This all makes sense. Trankuility (talk) 20:00, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

--UTRSBot (talk) 17:05, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

(tps) @Just Chilling: I've left a comment there...and I just noticed that this template appears to have a problem with this username. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 17:13, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Just Chilling (talk) 17:17, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

I did not understand your last removal of articles templates...Could you explain how to place them back--S!lVER M. (talk) 00:56, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

The reason for the removal was in my edit summary. You need to "comment" them. One easy way is {{Voluntary protection program}}. There are other ways to do it, maybe better, not sure. In any event, in that way you list the templates rather than transclude them onto your userpage.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:00, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Very helpful...Good admin--S!lVER M. (talk) 01:04, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't understand.

Okay, I have seen your tags of other two accounts. I asked that question due to the archive, where you blocked Xtremedood Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Barthateslisa/Archive. But, how did you suspect? Nobody filed a new SPI case. --Marvellous Spider-Man 14:06, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

My block had nothing to do with the accounts in the archive. I'd completely forgotten there was even a report filed against Barthateslisa. My suspicions were based on other things.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:28, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

I've noticed a number of accounts (Mrshowtime2008, for one) that I believe are linked to this case. Since it appears to be an instance of a class project gone awry, do you believe it is worthwhile filing? I hate to accuse a mismanaged class project of socking, but...

Thanks, GAB^gab 18:29, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Unless I'm wrong, none of the socks, including the one who complained, ever got unblocked. I followed it for a little while and then I gave up. You're in as good a position as I am to investigate the class project claims, but it's not promising that the account you're referring to above still has no indication they are part of a class project. Personally, I'd continue to block the accounts until and if they and the instructor ever get their act together, but I'm not the most patient person in the world. --Bbb23 (talk) 20:31, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I went ahead and filed the case. GAB^gab 22:58, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello Bbb23,

After reading your comment I just wanted to clarify that this was my first such allegation, and it apparently took me so long to read the guide and create the diffs that it was all over by the time I created my request for the investigation. I will keep in mind to check a second time, before submitting another such request. Best regards. Lklundin (talk) 17:52, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

@Lklundin: That's nice of you, but what you did happens all the time; nothing wrong with it.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:54, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello! I'd like to bring your kind attention to [1] by user:Utk2 and this [2] by user:Akshay23sep where both editors are making the same edits and removing sourced information. These accounts seem to me SPA and there may be canvassing outside Wikipedia. I am unable to open a SPI case so can you please check? Thank you. --45.123.13.164 (talk) 09:12, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Here is another evidence[3] where user:Utk2 again removing sourced information done by user:Akshay23sep. --45.123.13.164 (talk) 09:25, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi, can you delete Joker (character) per the updated changes at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (comics) and move Joker (comics) to Joker (character) please? I can move but I can't delete. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 20:42, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Or say no so I know you're not going to so I can ask someone else. Courtesy man. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:35, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

@Darkwarriorblake: My apologies. I'm not good at this stuff, so I was hoping one of my Talk page watchers would have done it if it was appropriate.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:44, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough, thanks for getting back to me. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:03, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi, This user User:FreeTaiwan looks like the latest version of banned user User:Kumasojin 熊襲, sharing similar interest in Altaic, Ryukyuan topics, DNA, Austria etc, has returned to edit warring in Ryukyuan religion (User:X Aterui x [4] is a confirmed sock of User:Kumasojin 熊襲) and also appears to be rather sophisticated for a new user. Can you check if this user is a sock? Thanks, Fraenir (talk) 23:36, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello, i think this is a irrational claim. I am no sockpuppet nor do i share interests in altai, ryukyu or austria. Where is a edit war at ryukyuan religions please? Maybe you mean ryukyuan people, but there i made a mistake as you can see on talkpage. And what do you mean with sophisticated? Must a new user be stupid or helpless? Sorry but i do not understand you claim at all.FreeTaiwan (talk) 00:18, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

• @Fraenir:  Confirmed, blocked and tagged. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:50, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

This user is back, currently editing at this IP [5] Fraenir (talk) 02:58, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi there! I've just re-added an image you removed as being a probable copyvio. Feel free to tag it for deletion after providing support for the copyvio claim - I have no problems with that. Cheers! Jon Kolbert (talk) 16:01, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

You removed a report I filed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rajeevkr224 & requested it be refiled at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Authorincharge. Fair enough - but pedantry cuts both ways.

When GeneralizationsAreBad moved the report to Authorincharge, and Rajeevkr224 was supplanted as master, Rajeevkr224 was not added to the list of socks. Even though Rajeevkr224 has been blocked it wasn't for puppetry or anything to do with the SPI case, but for copyright violations. Rajeevkr224 still hasn't been tagged as a puppet.

Had Rajeevkr224 been tagged as a puppet of Authorincharge I'd have logged Authorincharge as the master for my report and this would not have arisen.

As my report indicated, I can tie Rajeevkr224 to Rajeev224kr & to Heart of India. There's nothing I can see to tie them to Authorincharge. If someone wants to finish up the move and tagging properly then I'll play along. Until then, I'm not making a report I can't defend at Authorincharge. Cabayi (talk) 20:44, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Is poor English is a problem rather than the content? Just wondering since your sudden revert in Zakir Naik article with that edit summary seems harsh to me. Night Lantern (talk) 13:22, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

A combination. If I had thought the content was more important, I would have fixed it. I know of no way to say another editor's English is not good without being mildly offensive. Having subpar English says nothing about a person's intelligence and may not be a problem in their real lives, but on Wikipedia it can be a problem when creating content. I don't mean it to sound "harsh", just plain speaking.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:33, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Alright. I will refrain myself from editing such articles about controversial people from now on. I take your words as a reminder. Thanks btw. Night Lantern (talk) 13:41, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Irvicelli (talk) 02:02, 18 April 2017 (UTC)could you please give me the text that you delete? This page has been deleted. The deletion and move log for the page are provided below for reference. 01:05, 18 April 2017 Bbb23 (talk | contribs) deleted page Sergio Lamensa (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion)Irvicelli (talk) 02:02, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

The article is now in your userspace: User:Irvicelli/Sergio Lamensa. After working on the article, I strongly urge you to submit it for review by experienced editors rather than moving it directly to article space where it runs the risk of being tagged and deleted again.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:28, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Nothing in the account's editing history points to the blockable editing that has been happening exclusively re: Passover article edits. In my opinion, their entire editing interests, editing style and attitude have completely changed. I am most concerned that the account has previously (in its previous/former incarnation) openly connected itself to a living person... Perhaps the account is completely blockable on naming grounds because it is a named account connected with a business, the "Whydah Pirate Museum" at http://www.discoverpirates.com. Shearonink (talk) 17:25, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Actually, there are similarities. He was approached by Huon for adding unsourced material to articles, and his reaction was aggressive and inflammatory. Plus, he was clearly spamming the museum itself, which is hardly something an editor should be doing. If his username didn't have "Docent" attached to it, I could indefinitely hard-block the account, but it gets a little dicier with the username he chose. Perhaps other administrators would be less lenient. I must confess that I almost blocked him indefinitely as NOTHERE, but I decided that was too big a leap. If he persists, though, after the block expires, that's where he's headed. Given his sporadic history, there's also a good chance he won't be back for many months.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:40, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I guess I had been thinking that all his other edits had mostly to do with the Whydah but now I see there were some interesting edits to Zircon - nothing about THE TRUE DATE OF PASSOVER. That previous reaction was aggressive. The whole thing just seems...well, how about interesting - to veer between pirate articles and creationism/religion interests. Shearonink (talk) 18:02, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you with this, but I have noticed a pattern.

User:Xtremedood was indefinitely topic 9 December 2016 from, "Religion, broadly construed; India and Pakistan, broadly construed".[6]

I noticed on List of converts to Christianity from Islam that IP 156.223.200.214has done mass deletion of information;

• 09:51, 16 April 2017 (diff | hist) . . (-6,058)‎ . . List of converts to Christianity from Islam ‎ (→‎M) (Tag: section blanking)
• 09:50, 16 April 2017 (diff | hist) . . (-2,318)‎ . . List of converts to Christianity from Islam ‎ (→‎D) (Tag: section blanking)
• 09:50, 16 April 2017 (diff | hist) . . (-5,954)‎ . . List of converts to Christianity from Islam ‎ (→‎C) (Tag: section blanking)
• 09:50, 16 April 2017 (diff | hist) . . (-7,071)‎ . . List of converts to Christianity from Islam ‎ (→‎B) (Tag: section blanking)
• 09:49, 16 April 2017 (diff | hist) . . (-8,814)‎ . . List of converts to Christianity from Islam ‎ (→‎A) (Tags: section blanking, blanking)

Whereas 156.223.49.53 uses similar wording and nominated the article for deletion;

• 15:58, 17 April 2017 (diff | hist) . . (-12)‎ . . List of converts to Christianity from Islam ‎ (This list may be inaccurate and has questionable references. It contains a lot of conjectures, bias, and has discriminatory references.)
• 15:57, 17 April 2017 (diff | hist) . . (-13)‎ . . List of converts to Christianity from Islam ‎ (This list may be inaccurate and has questionable references. It contains a lot of conjectures, bias, and has discriminatory references.)
• 15:54, 17 April 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+60)‎ . . List of converts to Christianity from Islam ‎ (This list may be inaccurate and has questionable references. It contains a lot of conjectures, bias, and has discriminatory references.)

Nominated List of converts to Christianity from Islam for deletion.[7]

Oddly enough, Xtremedood also has done mass deletion of information from this article:

• 06:39, 28 October 2016 (diff | hist) . . (-3,537) . . List of converts to Christianity from Islam (Undid revision 746571818 by Jobas (talk) sources do not indicate that.)
• 06:28, 28 October 2016 (diff | hist) . . (-3,537) . . List of converts to Christianity from Islam (Undid revision 746571428 by Jobas (talk) no you did not)
• 06:27, 28 October 2016 (diff | hist) . . (-3,752) . . List of converts to Christianity from Islam (sources do not indicate a conversion from Islam or weak source ie "blogspot")
• 06:21, 28 October 2016 (diff | hist) . . (-3,387) . . List of converts to Christianity from Islam (sources do not indicate a conversion from Islam)
• 06:12, 28 October 2016 (diff | hist) . . (-6,118) . . List of converts to Christianity from Islam (sources do not indicate a conversion from Islam)

AND, Xtremedood has nominated an article for deletion as well. Probably not a coincidence.

Since you handle sockpuppet cases, I was curious if you thought the edits of the IPs would be considered duck, and that the IPs are actually Xtremedood violating their topic ban by editing logged out. Your thoughts? --Kansas Bear (talk) 05:26, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

As a CheckUser, I can't comment.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:09, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

You blocked Special:Contributions/108.52.100.147. Please refer to the back and forth I had with him over the last two days, User talk:108.52.100.147 I have been making infobox changes across the articles of Article III United States judges, working backward from Obama appointees, a project I started in late January of this year. The user was inadvertantly, reverting some of the articles from appointer back to nominator, a position which was incorrect for reasons I explained on the IP's userpage. I notice the IP was a bit too aggressive in following my guidance. Given that he was following what I suggested to him, his initial changes were not disruptive, though he might have improperly reverted you on one or more edits. In telling him what I did, I didn't intend to get him temporarily blocked. While it is your call, perhaps you could at least cut down the length of the block a bit. I will explain to the IP what the deal was and tell him to back off on his over enthusiastic editing. Thanks. Safiel (talk) 02:53, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Standard offer unblock request from user Edday1051". Thank you. Letting you know; policy compels; etc. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:24, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello, The account User:Dr_Thaane_Wala and blocked users Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Randikasyap/Archive edits are same as blanking page here from User:Dr_Thaane_Wala and here from User:Mahul kashyap which is push me to inform you here coz im unable to create SPI, Pls have a look if they are related to each other, Thanks --119.30.38.226 (talk) 09:44, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Actually, an IP can create an SPI. You need to look at the instructions at WP:SPI as it's a little different than the usual for a registered account. However, no need, you're correct and Dr Thaane Wala is now blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:40, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

hi i am user:Dr Thaane Wala i bought a second hand mobile, so idk about previous accountsDr Thaane Wala (talk) 13:59, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Hey Bbb23, would you be willing to look at these two users as possible socks for Renamed user nnnnnnnnnn/Nobeaches? The focus on Star Citizen and the frequent marking of most edits as minor are hallmark behaviors, but the article has been canvassed on reddit before. -- ferret (talk) 17:09, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

@Ferret: You know, I had been checking new accounts at that article until a little over a month ago. However, because they were always  Unrelated, I stopped. Nonetheless, I checked these two, and they continue the same theme: unrelated.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:49, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, appreciated. -- ferret (talk) 17:54, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm assuming that User:DKJIAJNEIF is a sock of User:Wali-e-Mewat Raja Khanzada Akleem Khan, Bahadur. Can you take a look at this page and the users? Best, Nicnote • ask me a question • contributions 22:08, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Also there was some editing invoving a suicide hotline? 173.13.189.193 may be the IP they're using, as it's the commenting IP on Talk:Maurerkopf. Thanks again for your time and endless assistance. Nicnote • ask me a question • contributions 22:11, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

The two named accounts are  Confirmed, blocked, and tagged. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:53, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

No, thank YOU. Next time I'll go to WP:SPI rather than bother you here, but their vandalism and socking was so bad I had to go to you direct this time. Have a nice day/evening. Best, Nicnote • ask me a question • contributions 23:02, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

The POTUS is the most powerful person on the planet. Business Insider, Forbes even some of the links to the information support this and these are based on measurements. Redom115 (talk) 23:53, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Make your case at the article Talk page, not here. From your edit history, this isn't the first time you've edit-warred with other editors about who's the most powerful whatever. I'm surprised you haven't been blocked so far. Your edits are disruptive.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:56, 19 April 2017 (UTC):

In what way are my edits disruptive when they are factual. That's what Wikipedia is supposed to be, right.--Redom115 (talk) 12:57, 22 April 2017 (UTC):

I am sorry about yet another misidentified SPI - Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Yoyoyoi7. You and I keep hitting this problem, despite my best attempts to nail the master account. I do understand that this creates more work for you and that SPI is at present understaffed. I'll try harder. - Sitush (talk) 01:22, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Sometimes I wish the process of opening an SPI were less crude and warned you if you had selected the wrong master before it finalized the case. There are other things I wish, though, too, and they never come to pass. Here's to trying harder!--Bbb23 (talk) 14:12, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

96.36.68.29 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

IP is asking for help on their Talk page. I think they are at least claiming not to know why they have been blocked. You left no block notice on their Talk page, though your block comment said it was a CU block. General Ization ^Talk 18:27, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

I removed the Help Me section. Please take the IP's Talk page off your watchlist. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:29, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

On the gamble that I'm not talking to a bot can you elaborate (perhaps in plain English) on your redaction of my edit of the Napster wikipedia page on April 20th, 2017 where I add Justin Harris to the list of Napster developers? My edit cites another wikipedia page as well as a first hand interview with Justin Harris that is conducted by a well regarded podcaster who is documenting oral histories of the development of the internet. Also, if in your opinion my cites are not strong enough what can be said about the inclusion of John Fanning and Sean Parker as Napster developers? The page currently has a footnote with the label "Citation Needed" next to John Fanning's name. How is it that we are redacting Harris' name from the developer list but allowing John Fanning and Sean Parker's name's to remain on the list? It seem like we may be applying different standards of evidence to these additions. In the interest of coherent and consistent citation can this problem be addressed please? Lfernandez (talk) 16:07, 22 April 2017 (UTC)Lfernandez

Us bots don't speak English good. Please take your issues to the article Talk page, not mine.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:49, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)One obvious point: citing another wiki page is a bad thing, they are neither stable nor necessarily authoritative. Anmccaff (talk) 16:27, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Per your council above I've made a similar request for clarification to the one above (with heading "Question/Elaboration") on the Napster Wikipedia Talk page. When you have time perhaps you (whoever/whatever you are) can address it. Also, with due respect, why use a pseudonym instead of one's real first name and last name? In more traditional media editors use their real names. Why is this practice not observed on Wikipedia? Lfernandez (talk) 23:35, 22 April 2017 (UTC)Lfernandez

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Eddie_Redmayne#Including awards list in Infobox. Brojam (talk) 08:20, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

--UTRSBot (talk) 20:32, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

@Just Chilling: My preference, at least as a first step, is to reinstate Talk page access and ask the user to duplicate the UTRS appeal in an unblock request. Technically, I did not block this account as a CU because he admitted to being a sock. However, the master and other sock accounts are CU-blocked, so in my view it's a distinction without a difference. If we were to force him to request an unblock of the master account, even though he doesn't want to keep that one, he'd be stuck and a community discussion would be of little use except perhaps as an advisory tool. It's also a lot of work for "the community" to go through the entire history. Unblock requests from socks generally attract other CheckUsers, so it might end up being useful to him. What do you think?--Bbb23 (talk) 20:59, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

I am happy with that approach. Just Chilling (talk) 15:04, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello Bbb23. Because you blocked Silver socks, I'm posting this here (not linking on purpose). The account of the creator of the "Egypt Basketball Cup" article was created about the same time. If not him, it's still suspect (edited on some common pages Silver did, is not reading talk page, and using the name of an organization as user name). And oddly, this article that's now on AfD was created by this editor, subsequently blanked and tagged for deletion, deleted, then recreated the same day by the same author, now in the same state it was before its deletion... so, just in case it's of interest. Thanks, —░]PaleoNeonate█ ⏎ ?ERROR░ 21:10, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Frankly, I prefer links. You can use noping if you wish, doesn't matter to me. I don't know who "Silver" is, at least not by that name.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:26, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Sorry about that, then. The blocked editor was Silver Master. This suspect editor is AlAhlyHistory1907. The article which made me notice this editor is Egypt Basketball Cup. Thanks, —░]PaleoNeonate█ ⏎ ?ERROR░ 21:32, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Much better, thanks. You have to understand I handle so many sock cases that unless it's a truly notorious master that I've dealt with a great deal, I need things spelled out. I'll look at it.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:40, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

•  Unrelated.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:46, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! —░]PaleoNeonate█ ⏎ ?ERROR░ 21:51, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Gaurav Agarwal, back again under a slightly different page name, created by Wikipageagarwal (talk · contribs). SPI opened. [8] FYI. 220 of ^Borg 07:19, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Bbb23. I've seen you around the SPI desks so am requesting guidance. At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dina Ali, the majority of comments are from new editors, whose accounts have been created from October 2016 till April 2017. While this may be a coincidence, I wanted your assistance in checking the said editors. If you could take a look at it, that would be great. Thanks. Lourdes 10:10, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Bbb23. Do you happen to have a few minutes to take a look at Harold S. Koplewicz RE BLP and promo? (see Talk) Best regards. CorporateM (Talk) 16:17, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

I found this eventually by date-searching your worklist. "However, I do not want tags on the accounts". Why all the secrecy? This is not helpful for those of us who are generally conscious to observe editing-patterns. I don't expect you to now look at the talk page where I initially tried to engage with this dedicated-spa showing massive cruft at Guy Martin, but what I was seeing (in what you relate to as the oldest identity) was far from newbie with barely any mistakes, and I concluded it was deliberate use of Visual editor as a ploy to disguise the previous editing experience. I eventually took Guy Martin off watchlist and as I'm on/off Wiki, should there be recent changes, I often wizz through them, which is why it's taken me so long to find. Thx.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 13:51, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

@Rocknrollmancer: There are many reasons why I, another CheckUser, or an SPI clerk may choose not to tag accounts. One of the most common is WP:DENY, but that reason wasn't applicable in this case. I can't share much more with you. Not that I don't sympathize with your reason for wanting to know, but, unfortunately, my obligations sometimes trump other editors' wishes. Sorry.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:45, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

As the first paragraph of the Early life section indicates, Rehnquist's middle name at birth was Donald, which he later changed to Hubbs. This is supported by two highly reliable sources, a book by Linda Greenhouse and a law journal article by Chief Justice John Roberts. 209.34.114.203 has been repeatedly inserting erroneous information into the article ([9], [10], [11], [12]). I have reverted his edits. I also added a quote to a citation from one of the sources to demonstrate indubitably Rehnquist's given name at birth and fixed a deadlink for one of the supportiing citations. Then you came along, and for no good reason whatsoever, reverted my constructive edits. This gave 209.34.114.203 carte blanche to again insert the erroneous information. How are you going to fix this, admin? 32.218.41.26 (talk) 16:16, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

I believe I've found a good middle ground for ensuring no misinformation is being misrepresented, in either iteration of this editing conflict. Just leave it out. Garchy (talk) 16:52, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

That's not much of a solution; it now states he changed his name to Hubbs, without explaining what his previous middle name was. 32.218.41.26 (talk) 17:07, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing, I removed that too. Cited or not, neither iteration seems necessary to the encyclopedic integrity of the article, so long as no misinformation is being represented. Thanks, Garchy (talk) 17:26, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, both Linda Greenhouse and Chief Justice John Roberts thought it was germane and significant information. Besides, you know you'll just be reverted on your removal of information (not by me, but surely by some editor who thinks it's significant). 32.218.41.26 (talk) 17:28, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

That's a possibility I'll deal with. You've also touched upon an issue that Wikipedia deals with - other stuff exists. I don't want to keep annoying Bbb23, so I've replied on the talk page of the article in question. Garchy (talk) 17:35, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

You undid my edits, and since you asked me to explain myself, here I am. However, your only comments for me are within the edit notes themselves rather than via Talk, and they're too vague for me to appropriately form any direct response: "quote is misleading, it's really an article quote not a legal team quote".... "not neutrally worded"... Yet, a) the sources I included are legitimate and reputable, b) the statements are true, fact-based and sourced, c) this is directly related to his career as a judge, so I'm not sure why it should be considered inappropriate. Had he made nationwide news for a different ruling, would that have made a difference?

1) As far as the quotes in the first edit, it is my understanding that referring to a journalist's interview with the attorneys directly involved in the case in reference to a ruling on said case is legitimate. However, as you raised this point, I did add a sports lawyer's article on the case as an additional reference backing up the quotes. While the defendant's legal team chose not to comment publicly, the plaintiff's did. That is a fact which I specifically noted in the original edit, and is neither a biased opinion of mine nor a deliberate choice to leave out of the defendant's side of the story, so I'm unclear as to how that factual reality is somehow misleading.

Unless Wikipedia considers the Washington Post to be an invalid or unacceptable source in general, I don't understand how it would be unacceptable only for this one article about this one case. Could you please clarify? Because if I can't paraphrase news articles from reliable sources, I need to know what I CAN do here.

2) I then removed that section, but you still undid the change I made saying that the following language was "not neutral":

On September 20, 2016, he made national headlines with his controversial ruling that a rape victim would be required to publicly reveal her identity in a high profile case involving NBA basketball player Derrick Rose. [9] [10] The ruling was controversial because pseudonyms are often given to alleged rape and assault victims in order to help avoid re-victimizing them, especially in cases where the accused has a high public profile. [11] [12]

(I would have elaborated on the types of re-victimization that happens to rape/assault victims when their identity is known, but I was afraid that would result in an undo as well, so I left that to the sources I cited.)

In your opinion, where and how, exactly, is that language not neutral?

If you believed that it was "not neutral", why delete the entire section altogether instead of editing it to make it neutral according to your standards?

Please also explain how a person's sexuality is "absolutely noteworthy" as pertaining to his or her career, but his job performance is not.

Thanks. Hope1275 (talk) 13:17, 24 April 2017 (UTC) Hope1275 (talk) 18:34, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

I reverted that edit on the SPI page per WP:DENY (think it's this page I'm thinking of) because it's obvious the above user is also a sockpuppet. Note their edit warring on User:The abominable Wiki troll also, not going to bother warring with them since I assume they'll soon be blocked. Home Lander (talk) 02:41, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure we should be eliminating discussion and communication. Moving it perhaps ... Nfitz (talk) 20:10, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

I reply because I also was one of the previous participants to that conversation. I think that it is way overdone at this point, but have no strong opinion on what to do about it. I would have no objection to hatting it with a warning note or similar... —░]PaleoNeonate█ ⏎ ?ERROR░ 20:15, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

@Nfitz: Moving it where?--Bbb23 (talk) 21:00, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

I replied to the poster on my own talk page. I'm not sure if there should be further discussion on it, in a more formal sense, or not. To be honest, I've been working a crazy week, through the night more than once, and don't have the time to do enough research and present a reasonable case at the moment. All I'm good for is the occasional drive-by comment :) at the moment. Nfitz (talk) 22:21, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

No more drive-bys. If you have a suggestion for an appropriate forum to discuss whatever issues you appear to have and you have a legitimate purpose in mind, let me know. Frankly, I think it's more important for you to get some sleep.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:23, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

I hadn't commented in over a week! Yes, sleep is important - which is why I've had low profile all week - well 'cept Monday supper break ... wasn't short of sleep at that point. I've no intention to take it to any forum at this point - that's not fair for anyone, including me. Nfitz (talk) 23:24, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

And it's all complicated by their post-banning behaviour. One could conclude that they never should have been banned in the first place, but would likely not change anything. So why bother? So it becomes a more philosophical debate. What are the minimum requirements, because the very concept that someone could have language skill that are good enough to be comprehended, but not good enough to edit Wikipedia, seems to contrast with fundamental pillars of this place. There are parts of WP:CIR, particularly on language, that I find offensive, personally - and doesn't seem acceptable in a multi-cultural society. If what one writes is mostly unintelligible, that would be a different issue. But from what I read, that doesn't appear to be the case. So what is the appropriate forum? That's really the only question I have at this point, if we take away the discussion of penalizing, or removing penalties from, a particular person. Nfitz (talk) 23:41, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

There is no appropriate forum. I asked you whether you had one in mind on the outside chance that you had thought of something that hadn't occurred to me. Nor do I want you to again air your grievances about any of the sanctions that have been imposed. We're done here.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:32, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

I hadn't had a good thought - best I had was thinking of discussing it in a way that didn't air grievances - or even necessarily identify the case in question; my best though so far was at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countering systemic bias - because the big downside of losing such editors, is that it's even more difficult to counter the anglocentric bias; but I think the issue is a bit more central than that, and that seems too fringe; perhaps a question for the WP:Non-administrator's noticeboard; though no time soon. As for my grievances about the original sanctions, I think my point has been clear - so nothing else to say there. I had intended to take it to WP:Drama board after the dust settled - but now that the user has gone rogue, the question of what admin action I'm looking for, would be ... none - so no point. Thanks for the dialogue - I always feel that more communication is better, especially if we aren't in full agreement. Nfitz (talk) 14:54, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

I doubt if these IPs (59.89.47.162 and 117.215.226.154) is a new comer here. Is it of the cases one may report here? Thanks. --Mhhossein ^talk 18:36, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Could you please consider my question? Tnx. --Mhhossein ^talk 17:12, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

The answer to your original question is no, it's not.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:18, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. --Mhhossein ^talk 04:08, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

I have joined wikipedia because I think that a discussion in a page was going the wrong way. I you are saying that im a span. You exclude the sucinte bio that I had made. What can I do to prove that I just want to defend a point of view in the publicity of a subject?Rafacasima (talk) 13:14, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Hentsonlasyl appears as if he or she may be our old friend HarveyCarter. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:42, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: Yup, along with four other accounts I found - all blocked and tagged.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:11, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:29, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm not. And the first poster does not have Harvey Carter's IP address range. (Hentsonlasyl (talk) 12:59, 29 April 2017 (UTC))

How would you know? Your account was just created -- unless, of course, you were HarveyCarter. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:29, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Explain your revert. nihlus kryik (talk) 23:42, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Now at ANI: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Tenebrae_and_WP:DISRUPT --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:18, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

His revert has nothing to do with Tenebrae. nihlus kryik (talk) 00:20, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

@Nihlus Kryik: See WP:BOOMERANG --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:21, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

@NeilN: See WP:FUCK. Never did I claim I was infallible. However, my actions don't undermine the actions of another. Vice-versa as well. Just because my hands are not clean does not mean I can't point out other unclean hands. nihlus kryik (talk) 00:26, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the note clarifying the details of edit war without using insults like "crap" as indicated in your original "explanation" for reverting my initial edit. Martindo (talk) 00:49, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

The word "crap" wasn't directed at you or your changes - it was directed at this kind of issue and material, which often gets Wikipedians into interminable discussions on what is "correct".--Bbb23 (talk) 00:53, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

‪Hi, Bbb23! Are you around? This troll, reportedly socks of User:Nate Speed, changes IPs with amazing speed. Currently attacking NeilN's talk page. Could we get a rangeblock, do you think? ‬Thanks! --MelanieN (talk) 02:22, 1 May 2017 (UTC) ‪
82.212.78.17‬, 82.212.78.20, 82.212.78.23‬, 82.212.78.22‬, and 82.212.78.18‬

They have recently attacked my talk page too. Wes Wolf ^Talk 02:27, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Never mind - they got blocked as a proxy server. Thanks anyhow. --MelanieN (talk) 03:02, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi. User:Martindo has filed an arbitration request (after once again reverting the page to his prefered content) regarding the issue of "hispanic" in the Supreme Court of the United States page; the arbitration request lists him twice and me once. I thought I would alert you about the request page, since you also reverted but were somehow excluded from the request. Magidin (talk) 01:36, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Actually, it's a mediation request, not arbitration (at least he's not that foolish). At the moment it's more of a mess than anything else. I wonder why he listed himself twice.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:58, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

I have edited WP for a long time, generally enough to get voting rights each year. I only resorted to mediation once (about a Bob Dylan song) which was rejected outright due to lack of Talk. So, it was my incomplete understanding of the instructions that said to name yourself after a user tag that led to being listed twice. I chose not to include Bbb23 due to casual use of crap, foolish, and similar emotionally charged words, reflecting the attitude that my edit should be dismissed outright. In contrast, Magidin invited me to Talk. Martindo (talk) 02:16, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

My mistake (in confusing arbitrarion with mediation). Magidin (talk) 03:04, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Explain your revert. nihlus kryik (talk) 23:42, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Now at ANI: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Tenebrae_and_WP:DISRUPT --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:18, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

His revert has nothing to do with Tenebrae. nihlus kryik (talk) 00:20, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

@Nihlus Kryik: See WP:BOOMERANG --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:21, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

@NeilN: See WP:FUCK. Never did I claim I was infallible. However, my actions don't undermine the actions of another. Vice-versa as well. Just because my hands are not clean does not mean I can't point out other unclean hands. nihlus kryik (talk) 00:26, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the note clarifying the details of edit war without using insults like "crap" as indicated in your original "explanation" for reverting my initial edit. Martindo (talk) 00:49, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

The word "crap" wasn't directed at you or your changes - it was directed at this kind of issue and material, which often gets Wikipedians into interminable discussions on what is "correct".--Bbb23 (talk) 00:53, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

‪Hi, Bbb23! Are you around? This troll, reportedly socks of User:Nate Speed, changes IPs with amazing speed. Currently attacking NeilN's talk page. Could we get a rangeblock, do you think? ‬Thanks! --MelanieN (talk) 02:22, 1 May 2017 (UTC) ‪
82.212.78.17‬, 82.212.78.20, 82.212.78.23‬, 82.212.78.22‬, and 82.212.78.18‬

They have recently attacked my talk page too. Wes Wolf ^Talk 02:27, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Never mind - they got blocked as a proxy server. Thanks anyhow. --MelanieN (talk) 03:02, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi. User:Martindo has filed an arbitration request (after once again reverting the page to his prefered content) regarding the issue of "hispanic" in the Supreme Court of the United States page; the arbitration request lists him twice and me once. I thought I would alert you about the request page, since you also reverted but were somehow excluded from the request. Magidin (talk) 01:36, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Actually, it's a mediation request, not arbitration (at least he's not that foolish). At the moment it's more of a mess than anything else. I wonder why he listed himself twice.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:58, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

I have edited WP for a long time, generally enough to get voting rights each year. I only resorted to mediation once (about a Bob Dylan song) which was rejected outright due to lack of Talk. So, it was my incomplete understanding of the instructions that said to name yourself after a user tag that led to being listed twice. I chose not to include Bbb23 due to casual use of crap, foolish, and similar emotionally charged words, reflecting the attitude that my edit should be dismissed outright. In contrast, Magidin invited me to Talk. Martindo (talk) 02:16, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

My mistake (in confusing arbitrarion with mediation). Magidin (talk) 03:04, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Shahzadpur, Haryana, India, which you deleted as G5, created by blocked or banned user, on 20 April, has just been recreated by a new user account Kasyap Baahubali, an SPA created on 22 April that didn't start editing until today. A user that might also be a sock... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 21:15, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Thomas.W, bye bye sock and article.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:38, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Currently drafting.

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Flamous7 (talk) 22:51, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi, The page - Shantinath Jain Temple, Seva Sansthan was deleted saying the content attributed more to a family and not to an organization. The content theme was taken from an existing wiki page: Shantinath Jain Teerth. If my page is deleted, should'nt this page also be deleted? Priti Saini (talk) 10:18, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Please can you provide me with the text and then I can do it properly later. Thank you Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 10:50, 2 May 2017 (UTC) Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 10:50, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

@Anarcho-authoritarian: Looks like you don't need it anymore?--Bbb23 (talk) 17:52, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

You're right there. Thanks for the offer in the first place Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 19:33, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Your recent actions have been petty rather than productive. If you think something can be worded better, please do so. I would welcome it. You can also take your opinion to the talk page. I look forward to your contributions! Fixed245 (talk) 01:24, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Be civil. It's your burden to take it to the Talk page per WP:BRD and to obtain a consensus, not mine. Instead you're edit-warring. It can't be worded better because the per curiam articles do not belong in the Kennedy article. You're a new editor; you should approach Wikipedia more gently rather than like a bull in a china shop.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:45, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

What is a "per curiam article"? Frankly, you may be out of your depth on this issue. If you insist on your version, I suggest going to the talk page and talking this out in a civil manner. Fixed245 (talk) 20:10, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

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

Administrator changes

Karanacs • Berean Hunter • GoldenRing • Dlohcierekim

Gdr • Tyrenius • JYolkowski • Longhair • Master Thief Garrett • Aaron Brenneman • Laser brain • JzG • Dragons flight

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC has clarified that user categories should be emptied upon deletion, but redlinked user categories should not be removed if re-added by the user.
• Discussions are ongoing regarding proposed changes to the COI policy. Changes so far have included clarification that adding a link on a Wikipedia forum to a job posting is not a violation of the harassment policy.

Technical news

• You can now see a list of all autoblocks at Special:AutoblockList.
• There is a new tool for adding archives to dead links. Administrators are able to restrict other user's ability to use the tool, and have additional permissions when changing URL and domain data.
• Administrators, bureaucrats and stewards can now set an expiry date when granting user rights. (discuss, permalink)

Miscellaneous

• Following an RfC, the editing restrictions page is now split into a list of active restrictions and an archive of those that are old or on inactive accounts. Make sure to check both pages if searching for a restriction.

---

I pinged you on User talk:Cramyourspam as you are the blocking admin, and am monitoring that page for any response you care to give. --Yamla (talk) 20:32, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

I recently made some substantial edits to The Mary Tyler Moore Show article, specifically the section "Production", heavily citing a recent book^[1] about the production of the Mary Tyler Moore Show. Those edits were removed and the copy reverted to the previous version, citing WP:UNDUE, which I feel does NOT apply in this case, as the book I cited was heavily sourced from contemporary media sources and interviews with the participants involved and can largely be seen and safely assumed as definitive and indisputable. My edits go into deeper detail about the beginnings of the series from the earliest planning stages by Grant Tinker in 1969, and placed into the context of Ms. Moore's career and it's relevance in the late 1960s. Arguably the MTM Show was a comeback attempt by Moore after a disappointing post-Dick Van Dyke Show career and the evidence (even as corroborated by interviews and statements by Ms. Moore herself) points clearly to that. That needs to be made clear and evident in this article and it is not in its current form. Suggestions? Msr69er (talk) 17:16, 1 May 2017 (UTC)Msr69er (talk) 17:12, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

You've already taken the first step, which is to open up a discussion on the article Talk page. Adding that much material from a single source is problematic in and of itself. In addition to UNDUE, I also said it was unencyclopedic. It was written in a colloquial, essay-like style, more like personal commentary than neutral writing. Let's see what other editors say, but I wouldn't add it back unless there's a consensus to do so, meaning if no one responds, silence doesn't mean it's acceptable.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:41, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

I added an "expert needed" template which was also undone. At this point I think it's best that I step away and refrain from any further action on this article whatsoever. This is a large part of why I am no longer an active contributor to Wikipedia. It is far too disappointing and discouraging when things like this happen. I absolutely understand and respect the need to follow protocol, but contributors should never be made to feel as though every contribution, or any good faith effort to improve an article, is a potential rules violation. It sounds like the "be bold" ethos of Wikipedia is no longer valid as this resource has matured over the years, and how disappointing that is.Msr69er (talk) 19:38, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

I will also be opening a request on the dispute resolution noticeboard to seek another opinion on the matter. Msr69er (talk) 19:57, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

WP:DRN suggested I take this first to WP:3O which I have done.Msr69er (talk) 20:35, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

I really want to disagree with you revoking it because I know this guy means well. He wants to improve WP, it's just that he's trying to improve the back-end which he's really unqualified for. But at the same time, I can see how his argumentation can be disruptive to anyone watching that page. I'm not sure if I'm asking you to reconsider and restore it, I guess I'm asking you to just give it a bit more thought and decide if you want to restore TP access.

I worry that this sort of 'harsh' approach is only going to result in him taking the standard offer in frustration, instead of realizing that he's causing problems and reconsidering.

If you do reconsider (or when the block is up), know that I'd support a topic ban on sockpuppetry related issues for him. That is a sanction that I think he could really benefit from. And for the record, I've been helping David Tornheim mentor him for the last few months, if you weren't aware of my involvement. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:11, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Actually, revoking his TP access will probably benefit him. Every time he opens his mouth, he makes things worse. We'll see what happens when the block expires, but if he continues in the same vein, he's headed for a NOTHERE block. I wish you luck preventing that from happening, but I fear it's an uphill battle.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:18, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

It does seem to be rather difficult. As I mentioned, perhaps a carefully thought-out topic ban would be the best route. We'll see. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:21, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

@MjolnirPants: If he's topic banned from sockpuppetry related issues won't he move onto some other Wikipedia process related to his two favorite articles? [13] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:23, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) This user is reminding me of another serial over-explainer who was indeffed a year or more ago. Also concerned about the rights of sockpuppeteers, and going on and on in a similar fashion. I will try to see if I can't retrieve that information before their block expires. Scr★pIron^IV 21:36, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Given what I know about my fellow aspies (and Ender is one, I contend without reservation), I want to say "No". Ender can be reasoned with. Me and David convinced him he was wrong about the argument from authority always being a fallacy (it's not; WP:V is a standardized way of appealing to authorities) with hardly any difficulty. But he seems to get hung up on ethical issues, and he seems to think that the treatment of socks and banned users is an ethical issue that needs addressing. So the truth is that I don't know. I hope not. He's a pretty decent copywriter, and he's wickedly smart. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:43, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello. You recently deleted page Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mellmate. You said "Nothing Here" This was due to it being recently created. Could you undo the deletion?-barrelroll.dev (talk) 18:12, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

I deleted it because neither account had any edits. Please don't open cases like that in the future.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:14, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Ok. If the accounts make sock like edits though, I will be back. Thanks,-barrelroll.dev (talk) 18:18, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Am I missing something? Jose Antonio Vargas was born in the Philippines and is an illegal immigrant living in the US. Does he have any other citizenship that I'm unaware of? THE DIAZ ^{talk • contribs} 23:29, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, you're missing a lot of things, and these issues have been hashed out in the past, and your calling him an illegal immigrant and identifying his nationality as Filipino were both firmly rejected. I suggest you go find some other article to edit.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:31, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Point me to where that happened. THE DIAZ ^{talk • contribs} 23:36, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Nope. You can find it in the history of the article and the Talk page. It probably also spilled over to WP:BLPN.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:38, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello Bbb23. The blocking of User:Shahadusadik and User:Joy Agyepong leaves me puzzled. I know both and have met them at the WikiIndaba conference in Ghana this year and so have all other participants, who will be able to confirm that, see m:WikiIndaba conference 2017/Participants. They are clearly not the same person and work closely together with the Wikimedia User Grupe Ghana. Once cannot be the sock of the other and for both it would be very unlinkely to have connection to this sockfarm. Could you have a look at these 2 accounts again? Regards, --Gereon K. (talk) 12:51, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

This is being discussed in more detail at Katie's Talk page, but I don't see either username on the list of participants.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:32, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

They were both helpers. This is Joy: c:File:Joy Agyepong Wiki Indaba 2017.jpg and this is Shahadusadik: c:File:3rd Training Session and Edit-a-thon.jpg. --Gereon K. (talk) 15:37, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Bbb23, I see you blocked Bijun Yang who is a new user who had created multiple accounts to try and persevere with editing. Obviously we cannot have sock puppetry but I think the newbie will conform once the rule is emphasised. Could you unblock or are you happy for me to do so? Victuallers (talk) 11:00, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't even see an unblock request from the user. Without that, I have nothing to evaluate.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:22, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

I was wrong. I have discussed this with Bijun Yang. This is a false positive. Two new users are both working on the same article. Can you restore both accounts please. I will try to get them to leave a message here if you are not sure whether to AGF my request. Victuallers (talk) 13:45, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

No, and the only way they could post here is to sock. Better for them to post at the Bijun Yang Talk page as themselves.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:49, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure that is very clear from the message on their talk page. I will advise them to edit their talk page and ask for you to reconsider - (but they know only as much as is said here I reckon). Victuallers (talk) 14:01, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

They tried a short time ago to make an unblock request, but they screwed it up. If you wish, you could fix it for them. Why have you even become involved in this (I can't see any connection between what they're doing and you, although admittedly I never heard of you before today).--Bbb23 (talk) 14:06, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm assisting in their WikiEdu assignment. (Once I remember what a talk page looks like). I will see if I can rember how to unblock someone. You might check Ive done it right if you have a me later. Thanks for your work, I can see that these two could easily be the same person. Victuallers (talk) 15:32, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

"If you wish, you could fix it for them" .... I did. I regret if I havent done as you imagined. I am not confident to reset the block. Can I suggest that you re-block it if you want to. I'm very confused by your wishes as you asked me to fix it.... which I did. Can you undo the actions that have offended you. Are you in any doubt that this is a false positive? Victuallers (talk) 16:22, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you could misinterpret what I said, but I do accept your good faith regardless. Here's what I want: a complete explanation of who these two users are and your involvement with them from the beginning. It feels like you've been spoon-feeding me bits and drabs of what's going on, and thus far, it's made little sense. Do you know the users? Were you involved with them from the outset or in the middle or at the end? I need you to flesh this out so I can understand it. More explanation is better than less. After that, I can make a more informed decision of what's best to do.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:11, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

I cannot see the relevance, but may be you can. They are masters students. I'm assisting in their teaching as part of Edu Wiki. They are trying to use their knowledge to improve Wikipedia as an assignment. I have met them, I don't know them. One of them emailed me when they got blocked. I assumed they had created a sock puppet as accused. I was later contacted by both students as they had worked out what had happended. At this point I realised this was a false positive. I am still concerned that these two editors have done nothing and they are locked out of their accounts. Can we sort them out? Its night time here - so I won't be here again till tomorrow. Victuallers (talk) 00:19, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Two concerns I have. First, are you going to monitor their edits from now on? They caused significant disruption to the articles they touched. Class assignments don't justify disrupting articles. It might be better if they worked on drafts rather than in article space. Second, you didn't set this up properly. If you're involved in WikiEdu and classroom projects, there are procedures to be followed so that this sort of mix-up doesn't occur. At a minimum, they should identify who they are on their userpage, what the project is, and include your name as the coordinator (I assume you're not an instructor). I'm not familiar with all the procedures (as I recall, they're overly complicated like too many things on Wikipedia), but something so editors don't suspect they're socks. This is usually not the students' fault but the teacher's or the coordinator's and it's certainly not a pleasant way to be introduced to Wikipedia. I will unblock them as soon as I get some assurances from you about the future. They can wait until tomorrow - it won't kill them.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:35, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. As you will have noticed I told them to work in their sandbox. We have had issues with admins deleting stuff in sandboxes which is difficult to explain to new users. I hadn't anticipated that. Their confidence exceeds their abilities and I am looking at their edits. I will add new user bars to their pages. I'm not sure if adding me as a link is going to help if others are not going to AGF, but I'll try. I hadn't anticipated that new users would be designated as socks. It has been unpleasant for them in particular because they do not understand why actions cannot be fixed quickly. As you say Wikipedia procedures are complicated. Wikipedia is getting very tricky for new users - we imply that its possible to do it without help. Having some help should make it possible. Victuallers (talk) 09:34, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

I unblocked both users and left a brief message on each of their Talk pages. I also removed the sock tags from their userpages. I hope the rest of their experience at Wikipedia is less stressful. I have only one thing left to ask you: what do you want to do about the other "sock", Fakhruddin Patanwalla (talk · contribs · count)?--Bbb23 (talk) 13:10, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Unrelated to the case in the section above, but relevant to a recent block you did of someone else, that user's style reminds me of this one. Just to note it for your future edification. Montanabw^(talk) 04:53, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

In what way?--Bbb23 (talk) 13:22, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

this report? It's been six days, he's added more and more IPs (all in the same two groups as he's used before - either his ISP or an Internet cafe or similar)... and he's been edit-warring and now has stooped to an attempted outing. Jeh (talk) 03:13, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Color me stupid. Sorry about that. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:32, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

@Shock Brigade Harvester Boris: Not a bit of it. Completely understandable.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:53, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

This user, 178.222.116.11 , continues to make edits to articles in bad faith and undoing edits, despite warnings from multiple users. 108.54.93.183 (talk) 18:51, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

You placed a CheckUser block on the editor IAKenny, as recorded at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SlitherioFan2016/Archive#16 April 2017. Obviously, not being a CheckUser I can't see the relevant information, but it is clear from what has been said at User talk:IAKenny that the account has edited from one or more the same computer as the sockpuppeteer, so you were no doubt perfectly right to block. However, I wonder whether it would now be reasonable to consider unblocking, for the following reasons.

IAKenny gives an account of how the editing from the same computer could have come about. That reads to me as a perfectly possible explanation. I have checked every edit by IAKenny, and compared them with a fairly large selection of edits by SlitherioFan2016 and known or suspected sockpuppets, and I have also run the interaction analyzer against IAKenny and all of the other accounts. There is no particular similarity in the nature of IAKenny's editing and that of the other accounts, and there is no similarity in topics that have been edited. There is not a single example of the same article being edited by IAKenny and any other account, and the very few talk page edits in common are entirely consistent with the explanation given by IAKenny. The editing on IAKenny's talk page in relation to the block and his unblock request is not similar in character to edits from SlitherioFan2016 and sockpuppets when blocked.

It seems to me far more likely that what IAKenny says is the truth than that the account is another SlitherioFan2016 sockpuppet, used in a very different way from any of the others, in which case we should unblock. However, even if anyone doesn't agree with my assessment that it is "far more likely", there seems to certainly be enough of a possibility in that direction that we have to assume good faith. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:51, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

@JamesBWatson: I have four unblock requests to review (another one is yours if I recall correctly), and as I told another administrator privately, at the moment I'm not up to it (RL stuff). Hopefully, I'll be able to get to IAKenny by next week. I appreciate your patience.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:29, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

OK, obviously nobody can be expected to always be available to deal with stuff immediately, so that's fine. Thanks for letting me know. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:36, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Bbb23 and JamesBWatson. I realise this unblocking matter has consumed valuable time for both of you. I now have a bit more insight into the trials and patience of the administrators. I am grateful to both of you for the humanity you showed. For Bbb23: I have left a possible solution/wild guess about your remaining unsolved puzzle on my talk page below your unblocking message. I realise you may be too busy to pursue it, but feel free to ask me any questions if you are still curious. IAKenny (talk) 11:39, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks for following this up, Bbb23. It looks as though you put a fair bit of work into it. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:05, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

[In response to your comment]

If the parameter should not be used, then why is it in the template? To date, I have been thanked 7 times for my edits to various pages with these edits using these parameters. The usage of this parameter is obviously subjective. If you have a problem with my usage of an available parameter, then I recommend you talk to the admins about removing the parameter from the Officeholder Infobox. Another point to consider is if you were to look through all of the edits I have made. It has become apparent that there are numerous Congressmen who are foreign born, and therefore their nationality is more ambiguous. You must also consider that information which may be obvious to you and I might not be obvious to someone else. Firstclass306 (talk) 18:06, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Infobox officeholder has no guidance on when to use the field. Just because a field is in a template doesn't mean it has to be used in a particular article. I'm not talking about instances where the nationality is "ambiguous". See Infobox person for some implicit guidance: "May be used instead of citizenship (below) or vice versa in cases where any confusion could result. Should only be used with citizenship when they somehow differ." If someone was born in the U.S. and spent their life in the U.S., it shouldn't be used. I repeat my warning. Go do something else.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:12, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

I wanted to let you know only one account was blocked instead of all. SwisterTwister talk 16:26, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks @SwisterTwister: - Can you assist?. I read above that Bbb23 wanted me to unblock the accounts. That is not what (s)he wanted and we seem to have got into a mess. I have a real world appointment in 20 mins and I want to get this resolved. I am concerned that the unblock is being seen as over riding Bbb23 whereas I read it as a request for me to undo it. Victuallers (talk) 16:35, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @Victuallers: Sorry, me again, not stalking you :) just reblock them, with a note in the block log to say you're restoring a CU block. That should cover you I hope. — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 16:44, 5 May 2017 (UTC) Thats helpful, I think Ive just done the same!!! - thanks - although I'm sure we have two very confused newbies. Victuallers (talk) 16:52, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

No problem. I know I shouldn't try and read Bbb23's muind (but will- sorry!), but I think the communication problem stemmed from misintepreting what was to be 'fixed', that's all- I bet he meant the broken template the editor had used, and you interpreted that as fixing the unblock itself. Well, TGIF eh :) — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 17:03, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Reading my mind is a dangerous practice, not because you're necessarily wrong, but because you might get stuck in my brain, which is not a pretty place. Hopefully, you use state-of-the-art survival tools. Or maybe you're as crazy as I am in which case you'll be just fine.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:15, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Err... I was hoping that leaving a trail of breadcrunbs would get me out OK!  ;) — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 09:46, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Can you take a look at Fakhruddin Patanwalla please. It appears to be still blocked as an innocent sockpuppet suspect. Cheers Victuallers (talk) 12:18, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

I asked you about this user in the section above, but I guess you didn't notice. The user's last edit was on March 24. I blocked on May 5. Unlike the other two, they didn't complain about the block. Looks to me like they were no longer interested in editing. I'll still unblock if you wish, but we'd only talked about the other two.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:16, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Well not noticing was also my fault. Thanks for your patience. I reckon they will want it in a hurry soon. Please unblock as they did'nt do anything (in this case a bit to literally :) ... yet) - cheers Roger Victuallers (talk) 15:25, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

 Done.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:45, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Since you have not replied to my email I sent you two days ago, I'll ask here. ACC has a backlog of account requests needing CU run on them before continuing the request process. I had posted a message at WP:CU/N [14] hoping that some idle CU's could stop by and help. You reverted the post straight out with an edit summary of "doesn't belong here", My understanding of "WP:CU/N" means Check User Noticeboard, I sent you an email asking why is this venue inappropriate for my post, you have not answered, so I ask again, why is asking for Checkuser help at the Check User Noticeboard inappropriate ? - Mlpearc (open channel) 16:19, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

You decided that the SPI Talk page was the "Check User Noticeboard". A bit incestuous, don't ya think?--Bbb23 (talk) 16:54, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

I didn't, the shortcut of WP:CU/N does. - Mlpearc (open channel) 16:56, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

What's your problem? You created that shortcut. I just deleted it and reverted your edit. Leave it alone. If another CheckUser wants to reinstate your edit, fine.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:00, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

@Mlpearc:, Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations is not the "CheckUser Noticeboard", it's the discussion board for sockpuppet investigations, and it's unlikely that anyone following that board has any particular interest or expertise in account creation. This is a silly windmill to tilt at. If you want attention to the backlog at ACC, post at WP:AN. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:06, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm a CU and I've never looked at that talk page, I think. Sorry, Mlpearc. AN is the right place. Drmies (talk) 17:15, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Bbb23, if I might be so bold as to offer some constructive criticism, [15] is not particularly helpful as a response, perhaps next time point people to the right place as well as saying their first point is the wrong place? I also find [16] somewhat rude, considering at that point from what I can tell you'd still not pointed them to the right place. It's just a thought that might have avoided threats and raised tempers this time around. It's possibly also worth mentioning that the historical Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser and Wikipedia:CheckUser both point to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations as the place to go - if we're on a cleanup pass it might be worth dealing with those too, again so we can try and avoid this situation in the future?

While what's done is done, and another experienced editor has been pushed to a wikibreak, can we at least figure out where the right place is, considering @Ivanvector: and @Drmies:'s suggestion of WP:AN doesn't really fit either, considering most administrators don't hold the checkuser bit? Or just screw the bureaucracy of what is or isn't the right place for something that doesn't quite fit anywhere, and just try to deal with the issue?

Anyway, food for thought. [stwalkerster|talk] 18:00, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

@Stwalkerster: please see the discussion to this effect currently ongoing at WP:AN. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:07, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

My apologies, I missed that :) [stwalkerster|talk] 18:17, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Closing with no action [17]is that mean you didn't check run the case i presented enlighten me please? Somajeeste (talk) 02:15, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Terabar has again filed the same SPI that he did few months ago,[18] and canvassed another editor.[19] I should also note that Terabar has referred me as sock of D4iNA4[20][21] recently on other spaces and still keeps calling us a sock of each other despite failed SPI. Now he also calling another person (Rzvas) a sock as well, with whom I may happen to share my IP despite I already declared it.[22] Capitals00 (talk) 12:30, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

@Capitals00: Looks like Ivanvector dealt with the SPI. However, I do have a question. What is the reason you share an IP with Rzvas (talk · contribs · count), and why did the two of you not declare it before a couple of days ago? If you feel the information is private, please e-mail me. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:35, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks and I mailed. Capitals00 (talk) 14:57, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

• WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Faizan
• Faizan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hi Bbb23, I saw you indeffed User:Faizan, not without a reason. However, given that he has made thousands of valuable contributions, I think you could have been less harsh on him - esp. that blocks are supposed to be preventive rather than punitive. For a long-term contributor who just once ventured out to prohibited area, I feel a shorter block would be sufficient to prevent reocurrence. Won't it? — kashmiri ^TALK 01:09, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

In my opinion WP:OFFER might be considered after a year. But his socking wasted the time of a lot of editors and admins. Even Faizan himself is no angel: just checking his last page of contributions shows a 3RR violation on April 30 at History of Pakistan that may have gone unnoticed at the time. EdJohnston (talk) 01:23, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't intend to do anything unless the user makes an unblock request.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:08, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Bbb23 just to let you know. I reverted an edit of yours regarding the year. Whilst the date is unrealible, the year is from a reliable source. Thanks, ChocolateCoatedStrawberry —Preceding undated comment added 12:46, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I just wanted to let you know that a user left this complaint about you at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests. I doubt he'll get very far with this but I thought you should know nonetheless. Cheers. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 07:55, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:27, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Bbb23, I've stumbled upon rather an unusual situation and wondered if I could seek your administrator advice. JohnCD had issued a polite note on 28 June 2016 to a user requesting they remove the fantasy contest from their user page. I was about to contact John, only to find they have sadly passed away. It would appear that User:NAXAlc has still not removed the content from their page. Should I take this matter to WP:AN, or issue a second reminder to the user myself? Wes Wolf ^Talk 15:55, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

I just deleted the page. Easiest.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:30, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Bbb23. Wes Wolf ^Talk 17:50, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Not sure what to do here. The user keeps deleting the POV maintenance tag without a discussion on the talkpage, and I think the user has resorted to using an IP rather than their username to make it look like its a third person? Could you take a look and take action/advise? Thanks! Nicnote • ask me a question • contributions 18:54, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

@Nicnote: There's not much you can do except edit-war, and it's not worth possibly being blocked for that. I don't think the POV template is the appropriate one. I've slapped an advert template on the article, which I think is more accurate. It's also written very badly. If you think the person is not notable, you can take it to AfD, but you'd have to do some homework before doing that. I can't comment on the IPs. I'll keep it on my watchlist for a while.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:37, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Dear @Nicnote: and @Bbb23: The person related to the article and myself are editing and revising the contents of the page regularly to comply with Wikipedia rules. We sincerely apologize for what happened earlier for removing tags without submitting proper edit Summary. We appreciate you both for taking time to help us on the improvement of article. I kindly request you to go through the Article again, We have made numerous changes now in sake of Neutrality and trimmed the contents as much we could. Kindly notify me what we could do on further improvement of the article and kindly remove the advert template and NPOV tags if you feel the article complies with it.--Danielprashaanth (talk) 11:33, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello. AFAIK Najafalibhayo and Akbaralighazi are two separate cases and should not be merged. Akbar is connected to, or more likely is, Rehmat Aziz Chitrali, and Najaf didn't enter the scene until after User:Rachitrali, the latest editor who undoubtedly is Rehmat Aziz Chitrali, was blocked, i.e. the cases from May of this year. The socks after that, including User:Rehmat Aziz Chitrali, User:Rehmat Aziz Chitrali Gold Medalist and the latest batch of socks, are Najaf though, who for one reason or other is going after Rehmat Aziz Chitrali, i.e. the real life person, on multiple language versions of WP, possibly because of some kind of local rivalry, since both live in the same general area and both have an interest in the Khowar language. Cheers, - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 17:40, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

I've updated the SPI based on your comments. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:46, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Spot on. I tried looking last week but couldn't ascertain the motives here because I think they originate on other language Wikis. They could have had a run in or as Tom suggests, regional differences. I have received more emails from Rachitrali who is understandably upset. As far as I can see, everyone here has done the right things and assessed the situation correctly.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:47, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

I did a little research on Mike V's last contributions and discovered why you probably reverted my innocent edits on his talkpage. What I considered rude, was not leaving an edit summary or a note on my talkpage. Darreg (talk) 02:02, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Bbb23, you deleted an image that I just uploaded to James Arthur Ray. The image James Arthur Ray 2017.jpg was uploaded to Wikimedia by the photographer and use was granted. Please undelete, or I can undo your revision. Thank you! Jameswhunt (talk) 18:06, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

That image is all over the web. There's no evidence that the uploader took the image. If they did, it sounds like they are affiliated with Ray. The image is remarkably promotional.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:18, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

See this. Is it worth checking for other potential sleepers? Thanks so much for all your help, as always Bbb23. Regards, Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:38, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

@Paul Erik: I found one sleeper, although I'm not sure he would have used it (created May 14). Anyway, I blocked both accounts and reverted the edits on the article back to your version. Thanks for the heads up.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:48, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello Sir, as pointed out by other editors before me like User:Terabar, User:Zanhe, User:Yintan, the User:D4iNa4 seems to me a sock of User:Capitals00 as they have same editing patterns and similar edit habits. They use multiple accounts to revert information to avoid 3RR. It should be noted that User:Capitals00 already has socks User:InfocenterM, User:BatteriesStaff, and User:OwnDealers. Could you please look deeply into this matter? Many thanks. --Drivarum (talk) 06:22, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

I found User:Delibzr having same arguments for the same page and were blocked for socking. --Drivarum (talk) 06:45, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks User: Drivarum for mentioning me. User: Bbb23, please listen to us. Capitals00 and D4iNa4 are sockpuppets as they are continuously reverting other editors to esacape 3RR as mentioned above by Drivarum. You already know that they both were blocked for sock-puppetry earlier and since then they have not improved their behaviour. You were the one who once blocked him. I reported him two times for the same editing pattern they use but my report was rejected. I request you to kindly investigate this time. Thanks. Terabar (talk) 07:21, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

@Drivarum: Excuse me, I pointed out to Bbb23 that D4iNa4 is a sock of Capitals00? Your memory must be better than mine. When was this? Yintan  21:13, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

No, you didn't. Your only message was to User:OwnDealers, sock of User:Capitals00. Apologies for the trouble. --Drivarum (talk) 05:44, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

How about checking the User Compare Report? Here, their edits can be seen supporting each other and reverting other users to escape 3RR. Terabar (talk) 07:23, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

I find it odd how User:Capitals00 knows that User:Rzvas shares the same IP address? Please, check sir. Drivarum (talk) 07:44, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Southeast Asian religion: disruptive forumshopping. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:18, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

I had CSDed Shri Shantinath Temple and Seva Sansthan, Sangamner. before and you had deleted it then. The editor who created it went to AfC to submit it where it was declined yesterday. She then decided to bypass AfC and create it again. Would it be correct to CSD it again or should it be Draftified.Jupitus Smart 10:15, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

(talk page watcher)This was deleted A7 before. I do not believe it applies as the article reads like it is about the building and a building is not an eligible subject under A7. My suggestion, if you do not believe it is notable, take it to WP:AFD. ~ GB fan 10:24, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

I am not too inclined to take it to AfD as I try to avoid nominating AfD's in areas where I am not knowledgeable about. A7 was probably because the article is about the organisation as well (the Seva Sansthan part is about the organisation). It also has bits of G11 as it exists probably to promote the work done by the organisation (free services provided by the organisation are extolled while also naming the trustees of the organisation). Anyway thanks for the advice, @GB fan:. I have pinged the nominator asking her to provide references. If she does not reply properly, I'll probably stubify the article and still let it stay. Jupitus Smart 11:40, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Just letting you know here, I have no problem with you reverting the report, I consider it as CU judgment. Capitals00 (talk) 10:18, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

The article Selling climax has been proposed for deletion. The proposed deletion notice added to the article should explain why.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

Additional notes

I will likely open an AfD if the template is simply removed. That page has needed proper work for nine years, and a speedy deletion proposal was removed by you in 2015. sarysa (talk) 00:22, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Your reverts are protecting the defamatory statements against the subject, comparing him with a person under investigation by the FBI for porn. Leave the comments I made alone unless you are going to ban Kablammo from that page that he is vandalizing.Hindtoad (talk) 14:54, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I noticed you put a notification on the main pages but not on the talk pages (User talk:Pepe.is.great User talk:Free Pepe), should the talk pages get the update too? Also I think the way you did it might let the Pepe.is.great one write on their talk page again? Morty C-137 (talk) 17:33, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

I often don't put block notices on account Talk pages. As for Talk page access revocation, it's a little weird in Pepe.is.great's case because Boing! said Zebedee had revoked Talk page access but only for the duration of a one-week block, not an indefinite one as I imposed. I put the account on my watchlist, so I can always revoke Talk page access later if it's warranted. Any admin can revoke Talk page access if they believe it's needed.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:02, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, would it be ok if I left a brief note pointing people to the user page side and linking the sockpuppet form, or would you or another admin prefer to do that? Morty C-137 (talk) 18:27, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Please leave it alone. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:37, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

If You have a Question about a source, than post a citation needed. Reverting is incredibly rude.Wjhonson (talk) 21:25, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

What's was this revert for? I ask questions! 83.24.102.46 (talk) 16:45, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I noticed you deleted the page for World Lethwei Championship: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Lethwei_Championship This organisation is the biggest promotion for the sport of lethwei in the world and I provided citations from news articles to prove that. Not sure why it was deleted if I already proved the significance.

If you needed any more evidence, here are some of the top stories from many news sources around the world.

Sport360, 16 February 2017 http://sport360.com/article/boxing-mma/one-championship-mma/223041/world-lethwei-championship-to-be-held-in-myanmar-following-success-of-one-championship/

Yahoo, 15 February 2017 https://sg.sports.yahoo.com/blogs/mma-insider/world-lethwei-championship-to-be-held-in-myanmar-074820250.html

Myanmar Times, 16 February 2017 http://www.mmtimes.com/index.php/sports/24979-new-organisation-brings-new-opponents.html

Headway Sports Journal, 15 February 2017 https://s15.postimg.org/wzxbh8cp7/16722700_10208326980227409_6123219159451760347_o.jpg

ELEVEN Journal, 24 December 2016 https://s29.postimg.org/iaypshmav/Eleven_Journal_241216.jpg

geraldworldlethwei (talk)

• @GiantSnowman: Could you take a look, please? The event looks awfully new to be notable.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:11, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Does it appear notable? No. However it might not have been a CSD candidate. I suggest restore and AFD? GiantSnowman 17:23, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: How about if I restore it (my problem in the first instance) and you AfD it? You don't have to, of course, but I don't feel comfortable AfDing a sports-related article. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:28, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Yep, that works for me! GiantSnowman 17:29, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Please check User:Akanns who has been editing the same way User:Skanba. Look at Skanba's edit and Akanns' edit which are very similar. Airkeeper (talk) 16:42, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Please protect and guide the page Sino-Nepalese War where multiple socks like User:Nerdboi123, User:Aalnqb,etc did multiple edits without edit summary as User:Akanns. The page should be protected as many Chinese accounts are created to vandalize (editing without justification). Airkeeper (talk) 16:53, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

@Airkeeper: Did you know you were included as an alleged sock at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Born A? Perhaps you'd like to comment there.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:01, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Bbb23, you may recall closing down Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/RebeccaTheAwesomeXD a few hours ago, following a quack from an IP. I have a sneaky suspicion that RebeccaTheAwesomeeXD may have created a new user account. This account was created April 16, and posted this question on my talk page asking why I had changed my user name. Strikes me as odd, when my name was changed March 31 (16 days before the new user created their account). And even more peculiar when another IP (who was later blocked for being RTA) posted this same question - again days after my name change. Neither the IP or ZoriAlexandra08 have had prior interactions with myself. It is looking like Rebecca has become WP:LTA, and I'm not familiar with the action to take to handle long-term abuse accounts. Any chance on checking if the new account does belong to RTA, to save time submitting another SPI? Many thanks, Wes Wolf ^Talk 01:10, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

The account is  Unrelated.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:56, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for checking into that. How bizarre though that a new user knew that I had changed my username, and worded the comment as if they have known for years. Wes Wolf ^Talk 02:05, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Why do you insist on removing my requests for deletion? It's a blatant hoax - the species was never described and doesn't exist (also the text is full of nonsensical lines). Remove the darn thang already. keeping it in Wikipedia is just being ridiculous!! You've been suckered into presenting the article for a long time and even having the article translated into Spanish. Take your losses and clean up. Now. - Pudding 20:40, 25 May 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arp (talk • contribs)

@Arp: If you re-add the tag, you risk being blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:45, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Hey! Thanks for deleting Eurygaster confidens. Do you have access to the starting date of the article? If so, it could be worth putting the article up at Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia for documentation purposes. I faintly remember the start date being 29th September 2013, but I could be way off. Jiten Dhandha • talk • contributions • 18:52, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

@Jiten Dhandha: Your memory is spot on.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:23, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Based on their name and edits, Nfyfe826276 (talk · contribs) (and possibly Elinahh (talk · contribs)) seem to be related to this sockmaster. Are they? --Calton | Talk 13:15, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Both blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:38, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi.

This page (Alexandre Gilbert Lévy) looks to be possibly a recreation of deleted page Alexandre Gilbert. I bring it to your attention because you seem to be currently active and I am not sure if it should be a CSD. Thanks. Dan D. Ric (talk) 13:25, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Possibly created by a sock of User:AlexLevyOne. Dan D. Ric (talk) 13:32, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Maybe, but I'm not familiar with that case and the data is  Stale.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:40, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Dan D. Ric (talk) 14:44, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Was this anyone I know? Probably one of the more bizarre acts of vandalism on its own. Toddst1 (talk) 15:01, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

@Toddst1: I don't know whom you know. It's a sock of VHSVideos2006 (talk · contribs · count).--Bbb23 (talk) 15:21, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Bbb23! Any chance of a rangeblock here? These are socks of blocked users RP singh love and Rahul singh love, and they are spamming something (we're not sure what it is, possibly a phone number) into articles about Indian technical schools. They are doing it faster than we can protect the pages - at least 10 such articles so far. Some of the IPv4s are:

• ‪2405:204:c28f:2585:3ee6:14ca:f42:fab6‬
• ‪2405:204:c08a:1e76:543b:41fe:f541:20e3‬ (blocked by Oshwah)
• 2‪405:205:a0eb:d68:3065:6e37:2ba9:c768‬
• ‪2405:204:c186:755f:1e33:4498:6cc0:b89f‬
• ‪2405:204:c28e:5cbb:fbc6:c896:a1a7:6c9c‬
• ‪2405:204:c089:ec12:93f1:79b6:e8c7:d0fe‬
• ‪2405:205:a029:cf15:16a4:22df:b23:4c33‬

Thanks! --MelanieN (talk) 15:00, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

@MelanieN: Although it makes me dizzy to look at it, it's a wide range and in my view too much collateral damage. Sorry.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:20, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

OK, thanks for checking. --MelanieN (talk) 15:57, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

It was not me that made personal attacks, but Kablammo. Lie about it all you want, but he compared the subject of the page to a dishonest lawyer who promotes PORN. There is no evidence that Andrew Straw is dishonest or that he promotes porn and I suggest that you look at Kablammo for the defamation, not me. Wikipedia has a policy against defamation, right? My complaint was fully justified and your warning is misplaced, sir. Hindtoad (talk) 04:28, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Kablammo's defamatory comparison is still on that talk page. Why don't you remove it? Hindtoad (talk) 04:30, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

24.178.29.47 (talk · contribs) There is this IP who is making inaccurate changes in hip-hop related articles. I been keeping an eye on this IP edits for awhile now, and the edits don't generally helping the articles at all, they don't seem to have any concept of proper grammar or the Manual of Style. The IP make very awkward grammatically incorrect edits in album pages and have been warned by several other editors about these edits, but continue to making questionable good faith edits. If you look closely at the talk page of this IP, I try to explain quite a bit why I have a problem with their edits, but they appear to never explain their edits and they have returned to restore the same changes as before without explaining why, and that's not a good look. Is this behavior is disruptive? TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 19:10, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't know anything about the subject matter. Some of the edits I looked at struck me as more weird than anything else.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:36, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

But isn't it disruptive if the IP make unnecessary changes to articles like this without explaining why, and doesn't get a response from the editor when you try talk to them why edits are a problem? It's seems like the editor is ignoring these warnings and keep restoring these changes. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 19:58, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm not going to take any action. If you wish, you can report the IP to ANI. If you do, stress the conduct issue, not the content issue, and make sure it's clear that it's over multiple articles, not just one, which would probably be construed as a content dispute. Or you can talk to another admin who is more familiar with the topic area.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:00, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Alright. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 20:06, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

(talk page gnome) @TheAmazingPeanuts: I hope Bbb23 doesn't mind that I also reply here. Of interest may be the essay Wikipedia:Responding to a failure to discuss. Many consider the failure to communicate disruptive, because it prevents cooperation (essential to build consensus) and can encourage edit warring. — PaleoNeonate — 01:33, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

@PaleoNeonate: I think that might help. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 20:54, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello, at that SPI I mentioned that the socking is obvious to anyone familiar with the sockmaster's particular brand of nonsense, and that I left a note to an admin who has dealt with the case before. Rather than spending time presenting evidence from square one, as if the person reviewing the SPI had no knowledge of the history, I had hoped to leverage existing knowledge. So I didn't expect the checkuser request to be evaluated before the admin weighed in. Now that the admin has affirmed the sockpuppetry, would you please reopen the checkuser request? It is hard to underestimate the extent of the disruption coming from this sockmaster in Saint Petersburg. It's likely that there are socks we don't know about, and that's where checkuser can help.

On the technical side, it's about time these SPIs were merged into Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Antichristos.

• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Systemizer/Archive
• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/8i347g8gl/Archive

I would do this myself, but (1) maybe an admin needs to affirm the sockmaster first and (2) maybe history merging is preferred anyway. Manul ~ talk 11:50, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm aware of the SPI because it's on my watchlist. I am not going to run a check; please stop harping on the issue. Given EdJohnston's comments, I'm not sure why he hasn't blocked the named account. As for the merger, that probably won't happen. Once the block is in place, the SPI should be closed and then archived.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:14, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

I overlooked that User:Attractor321 wasn't blocked yet. Now done. EdJohnston (talk) 14:46, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Few days ago I sent an email to you concerning opening a sockpuppet investigation involving accounts which are indef blocked for socking. I wonder if you plan to initiate it? --Saqib (talk) 15:53, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

No.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:56, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Bbb23. There are some SPI cases which I think they belong to one sockmaster. How can I submit a merge request? --Wario-Man (talk) 05:33, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

e.g. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Blahhhas and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/EMr KnG --Wario-Man (talk) 07:13, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Next time you file an SPI in either case, or if you see that one has been reopened by another editor, you can request a merge at that time with evidence as to why you think the master is the same.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:17, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

OK, thanks. --Wario-Man (talk) 18:01, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Manul ~ talk 21:45, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello. Saqib made the same claim about having received email from Akbaralighazi on 12 May, which I found strange for a number of reasons, from how he had sent the email to why he would send an email complaining about Najafalibhayo to Saqib. There are also other things I've found strange, such as how they found Najafalibhayo's SPI on 8 May and Akbaralighazi's SPI on 9 May, and why they started commenting on those SPIs after never having been involved in the cases before (AFAIK). - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 22:25, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree there are some things that don't make sense, but I don't know that it means anything.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:57, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

I blocked the account for a week after the nuisance edits on Ponyo's and other talk pages, now I got this warning from him after the block expired. I see you've warned the account before. Wondering if there's some sockmaster that I'm missing here as the behavior is unlikely to be that of a long standing good account. Maybe you or Cyphoidbomb know something I don't, it's likely to be an incredible waste of time here, now thinking that just a one week block was a mistake. —SpacemanSpiff 14:27, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

@SpacemanSpiff: No, I don't know if he's had another account. Unless he changes his approach, which seems unlikely, it's just a matter of time before he's indeffed.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:43, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

@SpacemanSpiff: No, it doesn't ring any specific bells. But his behavior has been really weird lately, like suddenly dropping a message on TheRedPenOfDoom's talk page to bring up some ancient beef, even though TRPOD has been missing for over a year and a half. (Detailed on Shah's talk page.) The issue was over the creation of this article on a Pakistani poet called Wasi Shah. I'm sure if you look at the history you'll see why I think that maaaaybe International Editor Shah has a close connection with the subject. Why else would he bring up the article after so long? I also notice some unusual stuff with draft articles. First of all, what's this comment about? It's mostly incoherent. Is it normal for someone with that level of English proficiency to be weighing in on AFCs? And I may be paranoid, but this draft article about an upcoming Pakistani film is rubbing me the wrong way. Am I incorrect that it was created and built by Pakistani IPs during the time Shah was blocked? Can someone double-check that? Is it a coincidence? It started as an AFC submission, then was fast-tracked to live-space after Shah's block expired. What's odd, I guess, is that it's not like he's a regular volunteer in draft articles. He's weighed in on a few drafts in 2017, but I don't see one draft edit in all of his 2016 edits. Anyway, I don't know what to make of it. Maybe it's nothing. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:02, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

I have no idea what's going on, I only noticed the nonsense from Ponyo's and Arjayay's talk pages and then came to the other issues. Should be blocked indef soon, but that's all I can say. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 03:28, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

• • I seem to have found at least one other currently active account, so SPI filed. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 03:45, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Why did you blank a discussion on a talk page? This seems to be a violation of the guidelines on such behavior. Virion123 (talk) 12:38, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

@Virion123: Jytdog has made it very clear that your posts to his Talk page are not welcome. Your persistence is harassment. So stop.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:40, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Jytdog has a record of edit warring and ongoing conflict with other editors. This is one of the reasons that blanking talk pages is prohibited in the guidelines.Virion123 (talk) 12:46, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)@Virion123:Blanking talk pages are not prohibited by guidelines. Prior behaviour is not an excuse - please read WP:AGF. Please stop immediately. Nicnote • ask me a question • contributions 12:56, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Dear Bbb23. Thank you for your note. I would like to apologise to Jytdog. I misremebered the guidelines on blanking one's own page. Persisting in this fashion was improper conduct. I would apologise Jytdog directly but I am concerned that this action might be misunderstood. For this reason I would be grateful if you could do this for me.Virion123 (talk) 14:15, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

@Virion123: Thanks. I'm glad you understand now. Jytdog will see your apology here.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:18, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

seen and accepted. nbd. Jytdog (talk) 14:23, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

however, User:Viron123's next edit, after the one above, was to post the whole thead to the talk page of the Zika Virus article (diff) which was also inappropriate. The things I wrote at their talk page were for a user talk page and were not things I would ever write on an article talk page, but their straight copy/paste job made it look as though I did. I have removed it. (diff) I thought they had let this go. Jytdog (talk) 14:59, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your note. it is always helpful to have a third party review of any such matter.

To review the position this matter started over a minor addition to the article. This was a statement of three facts concerning an outbreak of Zika in Singapore. The facts were from a the Lancet a well known and respected medical journal. The other editor chose to delete these facts. I replied with a post explaining why these matters were of interest to the article. As this discussion was centered on an addition to the article then it should have been posted on the talk page of the article. For reasons known only to this editor he/she chose not to do so.

The other editor also chose to engage in what I think any reasonable person would consider ad homimen attacks. This is a practice of this editor that other editors have commented on previously.

You have stated that it is improper to quote the entire conversation on the talk page. I believe that your are incorrect in saying this. I say this because it is the correct procedure in any dispute to have all the facts available to anyone who wishes to understand the matter. Selective editing is not good practice as it may be seriously misleading.

I added material from this editor's talk page because IMHO it is important to understand the background. This particular editor seems to have a record of disputes and threatening behavior. Since this seems to be another example of the same behavior adding the background seemed to be useful. There was also the faint hope that knowing that this material was available to be quoted again might help to restrain this editor from such behavior in the future. I suspect this is a misplaced hope.

Aside from the embarrassment that this editor might suffer from having his behavior mentioned, I struggle to see any other reason why he would wish to delete this material repeatedly. Perhaps you can offer some insight here.

Since we are - I hope - all civil persons here I would like to replace my original post in the talk page. This post concerns only the reasons why I think this material should be included. I am more than happy to discuss in a civilised fashion with any editor why I think this material is of interest. I hope this suggestion is acceptable. Virion123 (talk) 17:17, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

@Virion123: No, it's not acceptable.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:18, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. As I understand the various policies on WP - and I conceed that my knowledge of them is not as good as I would like - when an editor decides to delete factual information from a reliable source he/she should explain why he.she has done this on the article talk page. Failure to do so would be at best considered bad manners. If anther editor wishes to disagree with this action he/she is supposed to post on the article talk page. The talk pages are not places for ad hominen attacks or other prohibited behavior. I would be grateful if you could expand on your comment. Virion123 (talk) 17:26, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

A further thought: I am mystified why this editor thought that what he wrote on the my talk page were acceptable there and not on the article page. I quote:

"The things I wrote at their talk page were for a user talk page and were not things I would ever write on an article talk page"

I was unaware that there were different standards of civility on a user talk page and on an article talk page. is this some obscure wikipedia policy that I am unaware of? I was under the impression that civilty was one of the instructions applicable to all pages. Please correct me if I am wrong here. Virion123 (talk) 17:22, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Don't focus on Jytdog's edit summary of why he reverted you or on civility or on "truth". The point is your approach is misleading and unconstructive. If you follow my suggestion on your Talk page, you will permit a more content-related discussion rather than having other editors trying to figure out who said what to whom and why. As an aside, you can't use an article Talk page to communicate to another user who's banned you from his Talk page. I assume you're having a content dispute about the article. Concentrate only on that.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:31, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

I think we will have to agree to differ on whether or not my approach is misleading. My understanding is that giving the whole conversation is the correct thing to do. YMMV.

Re content dispute. Your last remark makes me wonder if you have read the entire conversation. That is exactly what I did. When i did this Jytdog decided to engage what I think any reasonable person would regard as ad hominem attacks - an action that is specifically prohibited and something he/she has engaged in in the past. I base this last statement from what other editors have written to him/her. I have suggested here that I repost the original material that started this conversation which was entirely focused on the article. You have stated this this would be unacceptable. I would be delighted to get back to working on this and other articles as I regard this - as I suspect you do - as a waste of valuable time.

If you wish to act as an honest arbiter in this matter - which Good Faith requires me to do - I would be grateful if you would remind Jytdog of the guidelines concerning civility and similar matters.Virion123 (talk) 17:44, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Greetings Bbb23. Could you take a look at edit warring by editor Somajeeste here [23] please? This is regarding their insertion of non reliable sources for population figures for Bosaso. I thought the issue was settled earlier in the month on the talkpage Talk:Bosaso#Bosaso population, but after stopping the disruptive editing for just under a month they started again today. They have already been boomerang blocked earlier in the month for disruptively editing the same page Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive342#User:Kzl55 reported by User:Somajeeste .28Result: 24-hour Boomerang.29. This time round they are citing a website that is no longer operational [24] using a rescued link [25] that just states a number without citing any sources, they were advised by El_C to cite reliable source when they were blocked earlier. Please also note their possible use of a sock to circumvent 3RR as per PRECOCIOUS. Regards Kzl55 (talk) 13:23, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Blujknf32 is  Confirmed to Zakariayps.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:30, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks Bbb23.Kzl55 (talk) 17:53, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

@Bbb23, this is 3rd time he is reporting for unrelated issue, its basically to silence me, what he is arguing is non logical action, hundreds of websites are cited through archives, what is he is doing is clear edit warring for no reason he was warned for edit warring [26] and he is still doing it unacceptable, please look also he is trying to get edit war everything i involved look at this by siding after i removed unsourced content [27] for retaliation is there anyway i could report constant stalking and reverting everything i am involved i m hoping you could do something about it? Somajeeste (talk) 14:49, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

A little bit of silence from everyone would be lovely.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:30, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

I think the two users are the same. How can I request to merge the cases? 154.127.57.34 (talk) 13:21, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

What makes you think that?--Bbb23 (talk) 15:08, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Bbb23, I was wondering if you had any suggestions as to what to do about Hayal12. I noticed you reverted him at Network (film). Hayal's removal of column dividers or hardcoding them to a fixed number of columns is an ongoing problem. Both MarnetteD and I have tried to engage with him about it at User_talk:Hayal12#Column_splitting. He has continued with this activity most recently at In Cold Blood (film) (reverted by CactusWriter, A Clockwork Orange, Sansho the Bailiff and repeatedly at Thoe Go-Between.

Now, it clearly isn't vandalism, and it's not exactly a MOS violation although hardcoding columns is now deprecated. I suppose it falls into the category of a slowburn edit war. Ordinarily I would take this sort of thing to ANI but some admins can get a bit funny if there hasn't been a whole lot of discussion (and to be fair I have probably reverted almost as many of these types of edits he has made). The problem here though is that he is unresponsive and communication is a problem i.e. he has never ever used an edit summary and he never responds to either a question or a notice on his talk page. What I want to know is whether there is any specific protocol for dealing with an editor who isn't vandalising but is making contentious edits and won't enter into discussion? I will be honest here some of his edits have been pretty good, it's basically just this one on-going issue. Betty Logan (talk) 00:19, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

The thing that is hard to make sense of is the editor will remove the columns when there are enough names to merit them and then add them to an article that does not need them. It could be someone who is simply being a contrarian but IMO it is coming near WP:DISRUPTIVE editing. This recent thread Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Prolific and long-term editor refusing to reference.2C or reference inline.2C or respond to any messages comes to mind. Now I wouldn't necessarily say that H's problematic editing is the same as N's but the total lack of response to posts on their page is. MarnetteD|Talk 00:53, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree with MarnetteD; I just also would like to point to the policy WP:CONSENSUS, the explanatory supplement WP:BRD and related essays WP:ENGAGE and WP:DISCUSSFAIL. These all support our view that communication is important... —PaleoNeonate· 02:40, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

@Betty Logan:, thanks for raising the issue. Yesterday is the first time I noticed Hayal12 and their problematic editing pattern. From reading their talk page, I saw that you and MarnetteD had been trying to bring them to discussion for many months -- as well as given them multiple warnings. As each of you have mentioned, communication and discussion is required -- and persistent failure to discuss is grounds for a block. I decided to watch H's edits and to wait and see if/when the pattern repeated. If it does, I plan to block them temporarily in hopes that they will finally use their talk page and engage with you and others. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 14:52, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

• I have blocked Hayal12 for one month for making a very large number of disruptive edits without logging in to avoid WP:SCRUTINY. A byproduct of the block is the editor may actually increase their use of IPs to edit, particularly during the period of the block. However, I can't ignore the violation of policy, and IPs are subject to more restrictions than confirmed editors.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:19, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone for their input. Thank you Bbb23 for the block and for alerting us to be on the lookout for the possible use of IPs. We will see if things brings them to a discussion of their edits. MarnetteD|Talk 19:58, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

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

Administrator changes

Doug Bell • Dennis Brown • Clpo13 • ONUnicorn

ThaddeusB • Yandman • Bjarki S • OldakQuill • Shyam • Jondel • Worm That Turned

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC proposing an off-wiki LTA database has been closed. The proposal was broadly supported, with further discussion required regarding what to do with the existing LTA database and defining access requirements. Such a tool/database formed part of the Community health initiative's successful grant proposal.
• Some clarifications have been made to the community banning and unblocking policies that effectively sync them with current practice. Specifically, the community has reached a consensus that when blocking a user at WP:AN or WP:ANI, it is considered a "community sanction", and administrators cannot unblock unilaterally if the user has not successfully appealed the sanction to the community.
• An RfC regarding the bot policy has closed with changes to the section describing restrictions on cosmetic changes.

Technical news

• Users will soon be able to blacklist specific users from sending them notifications.

Miscellaneous

• Following the 2017 elections, the new members of the Board of Trustees include Raystorm, Pundit and Doc James. They will serve three-year terms.

---

FYI, it seems like a larger rangeblock of 199.119.233.128 is needed. See 199.119.233.252's edit to Jean Chrétien. Same edit, ISP and geolocation as 199.119.233.135 and 199.119.233.189, thanks. Simplexity22 (talk) 04:49, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

There was also one using a new range. I blocked a couple singly and, more important I hope, I semi-protected the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:53, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi Bbb23. It seems blocked IP 50.240.105.177 is back using both 2603:3018:903:3F00:1903:EBA4:C8FC:F286 and NastradamusNas, can you look into this please? Many thanks. Kzl55 (talk) 20:17, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

The named account is  Unrelated to anyone.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:51, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

I could be wrong but blocked IP 50.240.105.177 shares location with 2603:3018:903:3F00:1903:EBA4:C8FC:F286. And 2603:3018:903:3F00:1903:EBA4:C8FC:F286 is named account NastradamusNas per [28], please note the edit summaries. Kzl55 (talk) 21:17, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

I blocked 50. purely based on behavior, not on any technical basis.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:18, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

But if 50 is back under 2603:3018:903:3F00:1903:EBA4:C8FC:F286 and then NastradamusNas, would that not be evasion of block, irrespective of why they were blocked in the first place? Kzl55 (talk) 21:28, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm not taking any more action for the moment.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:29, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough, do you mind answering the question though? Kzl55 (talk) 21:31, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello! Please check on this anonymous editor who keeps on initiating edit wars for weeks now and keeps making groundless accusations on various editors of sockpuppetry. There are no sufficient evidence to confirm they're the same users and yet this anonymous editor keeps on insisting they are and reverts their edits aggressively. It's very disruptive. I hope you can put an end to it. Thanks! 46.237.104.190 (talk) 06:21, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/112.198.73.9

FYI: User_talk:Materialscientist#Unruly_IP_editor --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:26, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for wrapping that up. I didn't notice the SPI, but should have checked for one. Cheers, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:56, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Anna, if it brings you to my talk page, I'm happy.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:00, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:03, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

...A ray of sunshine in a cold desolate landscape... ;) — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 08:10, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi, User:Give_Up created recently and blanking page without reason like vandalism which is very close to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Randikasyap here I'm not sure but can be related to each other, pls have a look, Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.30.35.8 (talk) 17:21, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your contribution to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chidera Okolie (2nd nomination). In the same vein, please check 169.159.127.196 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 169.159.88.79 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 169.159.89.52 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), and Olufunshoolorunfemi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as well, and share your results with a Commons CU. Thank you.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 18:52, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello! I recently filed an SPI at [29], which was closed as all involved IPs are blocked. As demonstrated on that very page, however, and the many previous SPIs on this user, that hasn't done much to impede continued block evasion and disruption. As mentioned on the SPI page, I was bringing it up (as indicated by a previous administrator) to raise the possibility of a rangeblock. I'm inferring from the summary closing of the SPI that this isn't the right venue for that. Is there a different appropriate place to suggest this? (Unless you think that would just be an outright waste of time. I admit I've not participated in a discussion on rangeblocks before, and I'm not entirely up to speed on what qualifies for consideration.) - Vianello (Talk) 23:20, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Vianello: I just took a look, and while the range is somewhat busy, I've anon-only, account creation blocked (soft blocked) 73.81.144.0/20 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) for three months. Registered accounts will still be able to edit via that range, however, so if this user continues disruption via registered accounts, file an SPI and point me to it so I can take a look. There weren't enough registered users on the range to make me unwilling to hand out some IP block exemptions and hardblock the range, if necessary, but I'd rather only take that step if the soft block fails to stop the disruption. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)}  If you reply here, please ping me by using {{re|Ks0stm}} in your reply.  23:36, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

@Ks0stm:Thanks! We'll see. I don't think this user's got any named "sleeper" accounts lying around after the last few batches were blocked, so I've got a feeling that will be sufficient. I do hope they'll consider filing an unblock request and cooling their jets at some point. Incivil and (badly concealed) deceptive behavior aside, I'll concede the actual content of their edits seems largely legitimate from an outsider perspective. But even if they're good, they're not "grant special exemption from the entire block evasion policy" good. Anyway, I'm rambling. Thank you very much for taking a look. - Vianello (Talk) 23:46, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Hallo Bbb23: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kasslert looks very like Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Novonium/Archive (and raises the interesting question of what usernames they were using in April!) I added a note but am not sure what the procedure is for suggesting a connection between an archived SPI and a recently closed one. PamD 07:18, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

You did everything perfectly! The case has been moved and closed. Thanks again.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:18, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello, can you please provide additional details on "secondary details" needed on this page that had a section removed? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stana_Katic

I am fairly new to Wikipedia, but I am attempting in good faith to improve and update the information on this page. I've tried to research the process, follow the rules, and adhere to the style & citation requirements that previous people have told me were incorrect. I had previously provided additional information on updated sources only to see it stripped out as "trivia". Any additional guidance you could offer would be helpful.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StanaTalkRadio (talk • contribs) 21:12, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi, StanaTalkRadio, not secondary "details" but secondary sources. As I recall, only of the charitable endeavors mentioned by you was sourced to a secondary source (Variety, I think), whereas the others were cited to the organization Katic did somthing for. For non-work-related material to be noteworthy, particularly in a celebrity article, you have to use a reliable source other than the organization itself. Lots of celebrities, even just plain old wealthy people, give to charities. We wouldn't want to include all that in every article - it would just be bloat.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:13, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Let's talk about WP:PRIMARY at Talk:Stana Katic.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:10, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

am a not allowed to speak against some russian hacker? 83.185.80.17 (talk) 23:07, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

You can defend yourself if you wish but in English.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:09, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi,
A few days ago, I had complained at SPI about a sock of Harvey Carter. FarnuBak. (you blocked this sock today).

I would have commented this on Harvey Carter's SPI page, but I never understood how commenting works there.

Also, I am interested in getting active in SPI, but I have no idea how to do this. Any suggestions? Kindly ping me when you reply. Thanks. —usernamekiran(talk) 22:48, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

@Usernamekiran: I don't see when or where you complained at SPI.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:03, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

here it is: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/FarnuBak/Archive. —usernamekiran(talk) 23:43, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

@Usernamekiran: Ah, that was more than a few days ago. To comment at an SPI (it can't be archived), post your comments in the "Comments by other users" section.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:07, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Would it be okay if I comment with my observations on open cases in "Comments by other users" section? —usernamekiran(talk) 02:51, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

After looking at this history, I'm wondering if [30] and [31] are tied to [32] ? Picks up at same page after other two are blocked ? What do you think ? Sagecandor (talk) 13:14, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Hey, Bbb23 quick question about this SPI. Two accounts were confirmed to each other in the last batch and not to the third but were they confirmed to the master? (Specifically Sunita and Fagan)? Thanks! CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 18:08, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

The master is stale. They were unrelated to the previous non-stale socks, which is what I was reasonably asked to check.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:06, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello, I made the edit including Nicole Beharie and Zoe Kravitz in Michael Fassbender's dating history that you undid a few hours again. I am new to Wikipedia, but I followed all the rules: there is nothing in the biography of living person's page that indicates that past partners should not be included. I left a note on the talk page describing what I was doing and why. Other past partners of him or on the page so the fact that these two specifically are excluded makes it look like he or his PR or his fans are racist. Can you point to me the place on Wikipedia where it indicates that past partners should not be included? Thanks for your time and attention Butterynutjob (talk) 15:24, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Racist? That's silly. I removed another short-term dating so the only ones left are the current one, which has supposedly been ongoing since 2014 and one that lasted more than a year (only the years are given for these things, which makes it tough to know exactly what's going on). There are guidelines about what is noteworthy in WP:BLP articles and what is trivia, gossipy fan stuff, etc. Celebrities are a particular problem because there are so many tabloids that report every time they look at someone else. It's a judgment call. You'll get a better handle on it when you're more experienced.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:32, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Oh, thank you for that information. Are there official guidelines anywhere on Wikipedia about how long someone needs to have been with a partner for that to be considered a noteable relationship? I think removing all relationships is a reasonable compromise, not disruptive behavior. Butterynutjob (talk) 17:08, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

You're being obtuse and you're headed for a block.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:18, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Darn, I got the wrong template,[33] I think I must have been confused with all the socks. Thanks for fixing it. Bishonen | talk 21:10, 7 June 2017 (UTC).

Hey Bbb23, you previously blocked some of his sockpuppets. Can you check this suspicious new accounts (user:Caliphoshah, user:Yas.sawalha and an ip adress "84.227.13.20"). They all have similar editing behaviors and interests in palestinian/arabian/arab subjects (most of their edits are in "Talk:Arabs"...). + the ip is definitly user:HailesG's ip adress. Regards -Aṭlas (talk) 21:59, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Caliphoshah is  Unrelated. At first glance, the evidence for Yas.sawalha isn't strong enough for me to check. You'd have to reopen the case listing that account and the IP, although the IP's edits are already getting old.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:38, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello Bbb23, I have recently been notified by my security office regarding the situation with my Wikipedia page. I wanted to let you know that I was not involved at all with what happened (I was actually traveling in France to see my Family) and that Thomas user. I do not know who these people (or him?). That being said, I hope we can move forward regarding the next steps required for my page. I might be biased since it is my own page, but I do believe that I am notable. I wanted to have a conversation with you regarding what would be needed to have my page reviewed again. I already have several references including world renown newspapers. I read in the logs that the voters were complaining that we didn't have more references for my DHS role but we are going to publish new documents (7 in fact) on the Federal Register and on DHS website with my title and my work. As you know, the USG is slow in publishing documents. I joined DHS about 8 months ago.

Would that suffice? What else do you need? Please do not block my account as I am the real Nicolas Chaillan and I can prove it if necessary, I can provide my email and cellphone if required. Thank you again for your help. Nicolaschaillan (talk) 00:36, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Maria created a new sock Special:Contributions/Bakinthaday. 183.171.180.83 (talk) 00:42, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

As usual, "yours" + several more.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:22, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi Bbb - is Flashmanianus blocked or not? Seems to have edited his talk page after the block. Tvoz/talk 17:53, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @Tvoz: If I understand it correctly (and there's a first time for everything!), unless the user's talk page access was expressly revoked (and it doesn't appear to have been), then their talk page is the only page they can actually edit. Take care! — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 17:57, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks - yeah, that sounds familiar (although inexplicable in the case of a sockpuppet like this). Tvoz/talk 18:23, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Dear Bbb23,

First of all, I am not sure why this page is deemed a hoax when there are several other pages on micronations present on wikipedia. Secondly, it hadn't been posted and was originally in my sandbox, where I hoped it would remain. Right now I can't even access the page however. I am apparently not even allowed to contest the deletion for some reason. I don't intend to publish the page anymore, but I would like to at least save my previous work onto a sandbox for future use. Is there any way I can do that? GabRin 16:49, 11 June 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GabRin (talk • contribs)

Hi Bbb23,

I could not understand why the page titled Dynamite News was deleted. This page at the URL Dynamite News https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamite_News is an article about an upcoming news portal started by a notable journalist. Several other pages do exist on wikipedia having details about similar organisations. Please help me recover the page and the content. Also addition of this link https://www.facebook.com/SulabhInternational/videos/1309591995769578/ from Sulabh International's verified facebook page should establish the notability of the organisation.

--Neerajkumar100 (talk) 18:03, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Generally, upcoming anything is not considered notable on Wikipedia. Whether the portal achieves sufficient notability after it has a track record I can't say.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:28, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Is the notability not being established by the Sulabh International's link that I provided above ? -- Neerajkumar100 (talk) 18:38, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't think I've ever seen notability established by a Facebook page.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:27, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Hey, I'm asking for your advice because I noticed that half a year ago you imposed a 2 weeks block here against an editor Hocimi for using multiple accounts. This account Hocimi hasn't been used since 16 December when the block was imposed. However, from 25 December to 1 January 2017 a user Ziaozi was active, and since 29 December a user Zingvin has been active. All three have mainly been editing in the field of history, most particularly Dutch history, colonial history and history of science; all three did not bother about creating a user page (Zingvin finally created one last week); and both Hocimi and Zingvin have been very active in creating new but controversial categories. It may not exactly be a severe case of sockpuppetry, because the accounts have mostly been used consecutively, the main harm is the fact that Ziaozi was active while Hocimi was blocked. Is any action required here? Marcocapelle (talk) 19:49, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

@Marcocapelle: I've blocked Zingvin (talk · contribs · count). Ziaozi is  Stale and hasn't edited since January, and, as you already noted, Hocimi hasn't edited since late last year. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:54, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

• Ok thanks, that's clear action. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:03, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Dear Bbb23,

I saw you deleted my page regarding the Japanese Photographer Kosuke (https://christopheguye.com/de/kuenstler/kosuke/biografie). I wanted to ask you if you could maybe give me some advice about how to show the notability of an artist. I read on the guidelines of Wikipedia, that an artist to be notable should have took part to 4 important exhibitions, and I think that this request was correctly satisfied in this case... Am I wrong?

Can you maybe give me some advise? I'm really new in Wikipedia and I'm still learning about rules and functions.

Thank you for your attention! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jennyzürich (talk • contribs) 15:02, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

@Jennyzürich: What's your connection with the Christophe Guye Galerie? And stop editing without logging in or you risk being blocked for sock puppetry.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:22, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

@Bbb23: Dear Bbb23, I'm sorry if I did some mistake (?)... I thought it would be interesting to give more informations about the Zurich art scene since I'm from there and I started by this gallery, should I than change topic?

You haven't answered my question. What I think you should do is create drafts and submit them through WP:AFC. Also, if you do have a WP:COI, you should declare it. Otherwise you may be accused of undisclosed paid editing. Finally, I don't know why you think an artist is notable if they "took part [in] 4 important exhibitions". See WP:ARTIST.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:58, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

@Bbb23: I really like the works that are displayed in this gallery and I'm often there because of my work, I didn't thought it could represent a matter of COI. Anyway thank you for advise, I will therefore submit my drafts to Wikipedia before publishing them. Concerning the 4 exhibitions I read something about it under https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aiuto:Criteri_di_enciclopedicit%C3%A0/Artisti.

Although sometimes interesting, other wikipedias' guidelines have no force here. Please learn to WP:SIGN your posts to talk pages and other forums.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:25, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Maybe I misunderstood what CU was. Still socking, wouldn't you say? Cassianto^Talk 22:07, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

@Cassianto: Don't know what your understanding was. :-) I didn't analyze the behavioral issue, but, hopefully, a clerk will.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:09, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Guerillero was very quick to block me at 17:32 on 24 October 2015 for accidentally editing whilst logged out, despite the fact that I admitted it was me and that it was an accident; yet here we have some idiot openly abusing multiple accounts, admitting it in his/her comments, and then, seemingly, getting away with it. Cassianto^Talk 12:59, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Please can you explain to me why you deleted my Page for Forum 90 FC on 12/6/2017 @ 19:55 - what do I need to do differently ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RichMephan (talk • contribs) 10:10, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

It has no credible claim of significance per the deletion criterion and in its own twisted way it's promotional. It has some remarkably silly statements in it: "Richard Maltby is most likely the all time leading goal scorer for Forum 90 - however he kept no records of how many goals he scored, this is probably partly due to the fact that he joined at such a young age he couldnt count higher than 10 in his early seasons." and "Rich Mephan completes the top 3 goal scorers, netting 97 times during his 10 year spell albeit he played a whopping 39 minutes of football during his first two seasons at the club as he failed to break into the team, a combination of being hungover on most sunday mornings and also being a bit shite contributed to his lack of minutes between 1998 and 2000. It also didnt help that manager Tim Lamb didn't like him at the time."

I suggest you go somewhere other than Wikipedia and mess around.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:41, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello Bbb23. Yesterday you blocked ReallyThinBread (talk · contribs) for sockpuppetry. Now another account with a remarkably familiar name (BreadyMurphy (talk · contribs)) has started editing the same article. Would you like to do the honours? I also wonder whether it's worth putting the article on semi-protection for a month or two to discourage new accounts? Cheers, Number 57 16:06, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

@Number 57: Blocked and tagged. I didn't revert their edits because I really don't know anything about football. As for as reverting and semi-protection, you should do what you think best.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:26, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

user:Moicgucci, user:Cajunerich, user:Rindslicit all suddenly appeared, roughly single-purpose accounts with subject overlap with a rather prolific blocked sock-user, user:HughD.

Article is Parking crater, full history

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

https://tools.wmflabs.org/guc/?user=Cajunerich Note this is supposedly from Europe.

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

Where should I take this, and should I formally notify the Dramatis personæ? Anmccaff (talk) 05:53, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

@Anmccaff: Reopen Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HughD. Notifying users is optional.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:37, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Anmccaff (talk) 16:44, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

This guy has a habit of poking around anything that refers to Law & Order. The only reason I put the ref on Tony Goldwyn was to prove he really was the director of that 2006 episode. I will admit I was curious why there were no citations at all in that table... — Myk Streja ^[who?] 00:43, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

You normally only need citations if something is questionable. I'm sure most of us use IMDb as a source for many things just to make sure someone really was in an episode or film, but the convention is not to put them in tables. It'd be a lot of clutter and technically IMDb is not considered a reliable source. It should certainly never be used for biographical data.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:47, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Hey! Noticed you've blocked User:Your reason here's socks. There's an open SPI where he dragged my never-used User:OtherUser account into this bogus SPI case. Your input would be appreciated there! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Your_reason_here Sorry for the messy text; editing from mobile. —Duncan^{What I Do} / _{What I Say} 00:46, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

I finished up with it as far as I'm concerned. Is there anything else you need?--Bbb23 (talk) 00:56, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Just caught that. Nope, that's all. Thanks for your assistance! —Duncan^{What I Do} / _{What I Say} 01:00, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your extensive editing of Robert Kiyosaki. Much improved.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:35, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm not the first. We'll see if it sticks.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:37, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your help with cleaning up the page. Sagecandor (talk) 01:17, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

In your opinion would it be possible for any sort of range block? This is getting ridiculous with the number of socks he's been creating and rapidly and pp, including pc isn't working. As soon as one is blocked, another comes to the same article(s) so even CU sweeps for sleepers don't seem to be useful in this case. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 12:38, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Every time I check I look at the feasibility of a range block.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:50, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

I assumed as much but figured it couldn't hurt to ask. Luckily he makes it easy to track his next interest because he often comes into -help on IRC. ;) CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 13:01, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

You last deleted this so I thought I would bring it you your attention. Needs WP:SALTing too. A related SPI is here from Chrissy. Thanks, Nicnote • ask me a question • contributions 19:38, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

@Bbb23: Oh, and btw, regularly changing IP's - is that technically WP:SOCKing or just frowned upon because of Dynamic DNS? Nicnote • ask me a question • contributions 18:39, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay. I don't know how to answer your IP question directly as it doesn't make sense to me. Editing with IPs can constitute block evasion/socking.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:20, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

I mentioned the Washington Post article (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/pence-hires-outside-counsel-to-deal-with-russia-probe-inquiries/2017/06/15/c40ef55c-51f5-11e7-a973-3dae94ed3eb7_story.html) as I'm not sure how to format a link to include it on the page, and the connection between the man who headed the FBI and is now the focus of scrutiny in accounts of interaction being, at least at one point, close enough to make the newly chosen personal lawyer to the VP godfather to his (Comey's) daughter, does appear to me noteworthy, although I readily accept there may be cause to place that information somewhere in the general history rather than the 'Personal life' section. Please could you at least consider whether that should, in some manner, be reintegrated into the two entries. Thanks, Alexander Jiskran (talk) 15:38, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

I have no wish to "integrate" it as I don't think it has any relevance to anything.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:07, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi, would you mind taking a look at the users involved in recent editing at York City F.C.? I see you have blocked some users who have edited the article recently for abusing multiple accounts, and some of the more recent edits are in the same vein as the users you blocked. So I am wondering if you would mind checking these accounts for evidence of sock puppetry, and also telling me who the sock master is? Thanks, Mattythewhite (talk) 10:56, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

The accounts I blocked identify the master on their userpages. If the disruption continues, let me know, and I'll consider semi-protection.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:51, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

They've resumed, looks like they're using another IP to evade the previous warnings. Mattythewhite (talk) 18:47, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Why did you delete Pyay United Futsal Club. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Modernrocker4 (talk • contribs) 04:27, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: Was I wrong? You might also want to take a look at the many articles Modernrocker4 has created. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:48, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Nope, you were right, not notable. The players he has created pass WP:NFOOTBALL (even though they are in poor shape) but the other clubs/leagues are not, I've redirected them. @Modernrocker4: I respectfully suggest you stop creating any more articles.GiantSnowman 13:55, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Pyay United Futsal Club is a 2017 Myanmar Futsal League champion. You can see [34] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Modernrocker4 (talk • contribs) 15:52, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

What is happened my 2017 Myanmar Futsal League and 2016.. Why did you combine on Myanmar Futsal Legaue. I can't find them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Modernrocker4 (talk • contribs) 16:03, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree he is unqualified at this point, but I question your speedy removal of his nom from the page. Voting "Oppose" is a more con=mmon response. See the talk page of RFA where I opened a thread about this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edison (talk • contribs) 21:46, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello, I am writing to ask why you removed the "sledgehammer" GA icon? Was this detected as suspected spam? De88 (talk) 22:12, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

The article's GA review was done by a sock puppet. I deleted the review as well.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:13, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Is it possible that I can go ahead with and nominate the article myself? I was the one who contributed to the article and it looks in-tact or am I not allowed? De88 (talk) 22:15, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Absolutely no reason why you can't nominate the article. Good luck!--Bbb23 (talk) 22:16, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Oh, okay. Thank you so much for replying. It is unfortunate this happened but hopefully the GA nomination will pass once again. Let's just hope the reviewer isn't another sock puppet. De88 (talk) 22:38, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Greetings. The editor in question obsessively edits Association football/soccer articles-single use editing. Extrapolating from 4 soccer articles over the last 2-3 years, I've identified at least fourteen possible socks, with one being a (nearly) daily usage sock. I'm not at all skilled using the editing tools of Wikipedia, and not too interested to learn. Nonetheless, this individual may be champion class puppeteer. Given all that, there are two pieces of evidence I'd like to present. On a recent day, this editor's (shifting back and fort between the two primary user names is clear and easy to describe accurately. The second evidence is unusual, but I think, very strong. On the puppeteer's Talk page, he and sock #1 have "walls of text" "conversations" about soccer subjects—really verbose, lengthy entries with complete agreement between the ?two different? editors. I've seen nothing else like it in Wikipedia. The puppeteer's name is also an undisguised adaptation/extension of several very similar banned user names, all probably the same individual. Given my description, would my application for an investigation be likely to be accepted? If not, do you know of an editor who specializes in sports, especially soccer, sock puppet issues? I'm also going to post at Project Football. Regards Tapered (talk) 07:04, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

On second thought, I'm not going to post @ ProJect:Football just yet. Tapered (talk) 07:09, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Have you read my reply @ Sockpuppet Investigations? It's coherent, at least. I'm not trying to fob legwork off on the clerks or anyone else. I'm all in now that I've filed for an investigation. Tapered (talk) 01:05, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm going off-wiki in a moment. I'm not blaming you for anything, just explaining what you need to do to convince someone there's socking. It's often hard for editors to do that, not just for you. G'night.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:31, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Not taking anything personally. Yesterday I spent time looking at the current crop of puppeteers. 'My' suspect's pattern and behavior seem different than any of that sample. There's nothing particularly unique about the individual diffs compared to other competent editors. Ask yourself this question, please: what's the likelihood of two different editors choosing to edit a single category of articles in the same time frame each day and never overlapping, with some changeovers being very close in time? The fact that its extremely unlikely is the crux of my case. If I'm wrong, at least I'm wrong about a Black Swan—it's happened to plenty of better people. Tapered (talk) 05:05, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Bbb23 When I enter diffs, do I want to enter all 14 for the times noted in the time line log? Would it help my case to add more logs with more diffs or without diffs? Might it be a good idea to drop this first attempt and start a new request with what I consider my most compelling argument—my previous entry here? Tapered (talk) 21:37, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Don't start a new request; if you have another "argument", put it in. I've already told you about the time log issue. We're going in circles.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:58, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Added the sort of diffs that I believe your were suggesting. Have a look, please. Tapered (talk) 23:18, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Could you please make it clear that you added those diffs today? It looks like they've been there since June 14.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:24, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Wasn't sure of procedure, so left it out. Tapered (talk) 03:13, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Since I last wrote, I've spent a couple of hours perusing the Sockpuppet investigations: if you were typing at my keyboard, would you request Check-user for 'my' investigation? Thanks for any reply. Tapered (talk) 06:32, 19 June 2017 (UTC)