User talk:Bbb23/Archive 44

Archive 40

←

Archive 42

Archive 43

Archive 44

Archive 45

Archive 46

→

Archive 50

About Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Skiyomi

Hello,
The user with the accounts Wild Draw Four = Acquiescence2 = Skiyomi = Sierpnia is a cross-wiki vandal + troll (with lies: see this list and another one). So: I have participated in several requests at Meta-Wiki (here, here and here), and I have been checking the activities of the suspected IP ranges, and I check all the cross-wiki edits everytime a new account is found.
I am not familiar with sockpuppet investigations on the English Wikipedia, and I know that checkusers can not give too much information. But I am surprised by your result, or by the lack of details in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Skiyomi/Archive. Is it possible, for you, to confirm a connection with:

1. the user:Rilancia? The duck test is clear, and Eltafez said "I did have another account, Rilancia".
2. the user:Seiyena? The duck test is clear, Seiyena promised to "correct errors in the Chess article" when Sierpnia promised to "get involved in The Board Game Wikiproject on Wikidata", and the hypothesis "Rilancia =? Seiyena =? Skiyomi" has already been done on Meta-Wiki.
3. the user:Topmaniac? The duck test is clear, and Topmaniac has admitted to be Skiyomi / Wild Draw Four.
4. the IP ranges 96.31.192.0/20, 209.239.96.0/20 and 216.49.96.0/19? The duck test is clear, and these ranges have been mentioned in old requests, for instance here and there.

I do not want the checkusers to "go fishing". But I would like your confirmation of the accounts where I think that the duck test is clear, so that I can check the cross-wiki edits, and confirm the bypass of the blocks, and confirm the extent of the sockpuppetry, and confirm a potential change of habits by the vandal. And I would like your confirmation of the IP ranges, for a better management of the global blocks on Meta-Wiki.
Moreover, in your answer to the request of 22 June you said "No other accounts seen other than ones already blocked/locked" but you did not name the accounts. If you have seen an account not mentioned in the requests but already blocked on the English Wikipedia, did you check its cross-wiki edits?
Regards --NicoScribe (talk) 23:00, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

There was - and is - no need to do any of the things you ask. In addition, I can't confirm IPs as it would be a violation of the privacy policy. All of the blocked accounts are globally locked. Why would I check them? To the extent you're asking me to confirm edits on other projects, I don't have that ability. To the extent you're asking me only to look at them, it would be a waste of my time. I did what was needed to confirm an unblocked account. That's the end of it.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:09, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. But now I have many general remarks:

1. I am sorry about the IP ranges. I know that check users do not generally reveal a particular IP address, but I thought that it was OK to confirm IP ranges coming from duck tests, due to the text "Where the user has been vandalising articles or persistently behaving in a disruptive way, data may be released to non-checkusers to allow the making of IP blocks or rangeblocks" from Wikipedia:CheckUser. For Skiyomi, the IP ranges are already blocked but I suppose that their settings can be changed to avoid creation of other disruptive accounts.
2. When PlyrStar93 requested the sockpuppet investigation on 22 June, Rilancia was already globally locked. You answered with "No other accounts seen other than ones already blocked/locked". So basic users, like PlyrStar93 and myself, do not know whether "the technical investigation is negative" or "you do not want to check blocked users", for Rilancia (and for Seiyena, and for Topmaniac). Without your technical evidence, we still spend much time having doubts, and still spend much time analyzing many edits to consolidate a duck tests, and still spend much time analyzing many edits to evaluate a change of habits, and we can not confirm the extent of the sockpuppetry (I suppose that abusers with 20 accounts are treated more severly than the ones with 5 accounts).
3. Technically speaking: when you do not check an already blocked account, you do not know the IP used by this blocked account, so you can not check this IP, so you do not know whether other accounts have made (disruptive) edits from this IP. Am I right?
4. So, about blocked accounts, you said "Why would I check them?" and I disagree: I think it would be very useful, for the reasons above.
5. Again, I am not familiar with sockpuppet investigations on the English Wikipedia, so can you point me to a policiy/guideline/RfC/something else stating that checking an already blocked account is not needed?
6. I have been unclear: I did not want you to confirm edits on other projects, and I did not want you to look at them. When I request a sockpuppet investigation, I do not expect the checkusers to cancel the cross-wiki edits. When I request a global block/lock, I do not expect the stewards to cancel the cross-wiki edits, too. In both cases I intend to cancel the cross-wiki edits by myself.

I do not want to bother you. I just want to be efficient against vandals + trolls. --NicoScribe (talk) 14:22, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't want to be difficult, but I am not going to spend any more time on this. I am not here to be a tutor on checking and the handling of SPIs.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:27, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Well, I am sorry. These are general questions, so I will open discussion(s) in Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations or Wikipedia talk:CheckUser, when I have more time. --NicoScribe (talk) 14:57, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Move my evidence

Hey, I noticed you deleted my spi. I didn't realize Ktrimi had already posted one. Could you move my evidence to his? I don't have the time to grab all the diffs again, I gotta run. Thanks a ton! -- Calthinus (talk) 17:07, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Please sign with your new username. It's very hard to track you otherwise.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:14, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Sure. Sorry about that. Calthinus is my main account, I (embarrassingly) ended up using this as a result of wikibreak enforcer. If I sign like this is it good? Also, is there such thing as an account merger I could request somewhere?---- User:Calthinus (talk) (Kalinthos) 17:17, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

I understood that you lost your password to Calthinus, meaning you'll never be able to recover it and you'll continue to use Kalinthos to edit. I suggest signing it so Kalinthos comes first and Calthinus second in parentheses. No, you can't merge accounts.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:22, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Okay and thanks. I wanted to change this accounts name to "Calthinus*" too but my request was rejected. Sadly a name ending in -os is not the best for editing on Balkan topics it seems-- so I think I will try to recover the Calthinus account. When I do, what would be best, should I put a note on my user page along the lines of "additional contribs can be found here?---- Calthinus (talk) 17:45, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't know how you can "recover" the account unless you had an e-mail address associated with it, which I assumed you didn't or you could have recovered it easily before this.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:50, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

I changed the password some time in May or early June and lost it. I haven't put in the effort to recovering it, and might be able to get back in. And I might have the email address too (don't remember which one it was). -- Calthinus (talk) (Kalinthos) 17:51, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Just a head's up

Hey Bbb23: I thought you should be aware of this here. I made my first response to the sock IP on that talk page before I noticed that they had dropped the charade and made their regular account clear on my talk page and elsewhere. Indeed, I didn't get my own messages posted until after you had already blocked their regular account. I've updated my comments to them on the IP talk page to urge full compliance with the block, but there's a lot of IDHT going on here, so who knows if it will have any effect. Given their gung-ho attitude so far, I feel it is a distinct possibility they may, despite my advice to make no further comments, try to circumvent the blocked talk page access on their regular account with more accusations and appeals on the IP talk page--so I thought you should be aware. Snow ^{let's rap} 23:48, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Snow Rise, I've revoked TPA on the entire range.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:28, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

No problem. You know, the pity is, I think they were at least partly right about the content issue; I don't see any cause for why the Colectivos are mentioned in that article, when all reports are that the event was caused by feuding prom students and there seems to be no political dimension to story. Had Augurar not come out swinging with far-fetched accusations but rather focused on the content (well, that and not abused multiple accounts, or committed to all of the rest of that nonsense) I think they would have prevailed in that content discussion and achieved reasonable alterations. Instead, a full scale meltdown. What a shame. I better have a plan for how to try to steer them towards consensus discussion when they get back priveleges next week, because it seems they have mistaken me for an ally in the "great cause" and I suspect they will come straight back to seek my aid at that time. I'll do my best to channel their zeal into a constructive RfC, but I'll let you know if I see anything that suggests more multiple account shenanigans or anything else blatantly disruptive. Honestly, I'll be surprised if I can convert this one into a contributor who follows policy rather than their personal mission; that is to say, I think your first block here may just be a prelude to a longer one. But I'll give it a shot, nonetheless. Snow ^{let's rap} 01:30, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigations/Middayexpress 25 June 2018

He's up to no good again.[1] Wadaad (talk) 09:35, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

He is edit warring.[2] Wadaad (talk) 16:24, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Immediate recreation of Fawry

You deleted Fawry as A7 and it appears to have been immediately recreated. Just wanted your advice on what to do next? Could you tell me if the new version is identical to the old one? ☆ Bri (talk) 16:31, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Previous creation of this article was part of an SPI last year--don't know if this is related and the accounts from that are too stale for a proper CU, but noting for the record. --Finngall ^talk 17:14, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Michael N Fouad (talk · contribs · count) is  Confirmed to MF521113 (talk · contribs · count) but  Unrelated to Ain soph (talk · contribs · count). The recreated article is a continuation of what Michael N Fouad started as he'd only gotten in a sentence before it was tagged and deleted (I don't wait on A7s). Finally, the article is not eligible for G5.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:21, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Wow

Look at all the weirdness I missed. Thanks for the cleanup and running herd, and for protecting the 'pedia. It's appreciated. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 16:26, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

@CorbieVreccan: No kidding. I was taken by surprise on that one. I couldn't believe they would do anything that disruptive or stupid (I can't figure out which). At least they're gone now. Let me know, though, if a new account pops up that looks similar to you. Meanwhile, I'll leave you to the bizarre world of Jim Morrison and "friends".--Bbb23 (talk) 17:53, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

LOL, um, I actually try my best to avoid it. For obvious reasons. Seems like every few years it gets really beyond the pale on those articles and I reluctantly wind up doing cleanup. And it usually goes something like this. There's still the other account that user was egging on. Activity says Meat to me. That one is still on a 36 hour block, and not indeffed yet. Indef seems inevitable for that one as well. It's also clearly a WP:NOTHERE. Talk page activity is 100% WP:ICANTHEARYOU. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 18:06, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Poofdragon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). Whether Meat or Sock, SPA and NOTHERE. IMHO. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 21:32, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

@CorbieVreccan: Poofdragon and Paltryforhire (talk · contribs · count) are  Likely, now blocked and tagged. Operator8090 (talk · contribs · count) is a technical match; can you see a behavioral connection?--Bbb23 (talk) 22:11, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Similar behaviour, though granted there's not a lot to go on, would include a brand new account going straight to talk and discussing policy, with what appear to be copy and pasted "reasons" taken from other users. Then multiple edits to the same talk page comment, including copying and pasting in an entirely new "reason." This is certainly a sock of someone. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 22:25, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Additional behavioral: Strong opinions and battleground behavior about BLPs employed in the music business. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 22:35, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Given that the "lost password" resulted in a NOTHERE indef for the new (Nyaja) account, I think we should reinstate this and link them to keep a record of the also-indeffed and admitted prior/alt account. Given all that's transpired, I think it was socking all along. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 22:46, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

User talk:Clarkzero

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Clarkzero&diff=847527095&oldid=847525579 Seems rather pointy to me... --Tarage (talk) 04:29, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Obnoxious and childish but I've seen worse. At least it's not in huge color letters.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:01, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Oops

You beat me to it. Fat fingers small phone. Thanks John from Idegon (talk) 13:22, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Hehe.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:44, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Possible sockpuppet of long-term puppeteer

Would you take a look at Wikipedia:Edit filter/False positives/Reports#Thurzajones, where someone tripped an edit filter designed to block RJCola, and see if it's block evasion or a false positive? —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 22:07, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Same with Wikipedia:Edit filter/False positives/Reports#81.141.34.56 further up. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 22:11, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Good grief, and Wikipedia:Edit filter/False positives/Reports#Paulg222. And to think I wasn't aware this filter existed five minutes ago. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 22:12, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

I think I can say they are false positives. DuncanHill (talk) 22:17, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, but someone who can view the edits and filter in question would probably be slightly more qualified to make that assessment. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 22:24, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Issues fixed for now.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 22:55, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Maneesha Chanchala

Hello, an IP is consistently removing G4 tag from this article. Please check, whether this one qualifies for G4 or not. Previous discussion took place here. Thanks Hitro talk 12:49, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

The deleted article is less detailed than the new one. However, you can restore the g4 tag if you wish to be reviewed by another administrator.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:14, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you

Well that's embarassing. Thanks for fixing the SPI, I think I fat fingered when I was copy/pasting info into the page. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:08, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Heh, I just left another "reproach" at the SPI. In my view, your interpretation of INVOLVED was rather cramped, but I'm checking, and I can already see more accounts than you listed. Best.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:10, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm playing the better safe than sorry card here, just in case someone says that I was overstepping my authority. Also good to have someone make sure I'm not missing something. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:12, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

quuuaaaaak

I honestly cannot believe the lack of, well something...Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Manda_1993 this is the biggest and loudest quack I have ever encountered... and the Indonesian is not even translatable JarrahTree 13:50, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the finalising that JarrahTree 14:13, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Twitter

I feel this is a valid RFC. @Davey2010: (up until he dragged me to WP:ANI) suggested he wasn't doing anything wrong and would continue to aggressively archive talk pages until there were no discussions left. The last discussion thread he archived on Talk:Twitter was two months old. WP:CONSENSUS on these talk pages is automatic archiving after about 30 days. RFCs are designed to achieve consensus, so I was assisting Davey2010 in determining if users of the talk page were OK with him blanking it that often. Your removal of the RFC was improper. Also, I do not appreciate his prolific personal attacks (3 by my count now) including accusation of me being a sockpuppet. He can bring a WP:SPI if he feels that way. 2600:8800:1880:91E:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 01:53, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

RfCs must be neutrally worded. Your RfC was loaded and attacked another editor. I think it's perfectly valid for any experienced editor to wonder if you are operated by a registered account. You have far too much knowledge to make it likely that you are "just an IP". Be careful. Although some of what you've said thus far has merit, your approach is aggressive and not conducive to resolving disputes in a collaborative fashion. If you continue along those lines, you risk being blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:10, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Wrong - I never said i would archive until there were no discussions left - I said I would archive stale/unreplied-to discussions .... there's a big difference, As far as I'm aware there is no policy that states "discussions should be left for 30 days" however that point is well and truly moot because I clearly stated on my talkpage (diff that "Looking through my contributions I would say overall my arhcivings have been fine however I do agree a few are being archiving a bit too early and as such I should leave a month to 3 months worth on the talkpages which I'll start doing from this point forward" (emphasis mine) so the best course of action would've been to say "Right okay fair enough Dave" and then proceed to monitor me ..... not make a huge big song and dance over something I happily resolved minutes after you raised your objections,

If you wasn't happy with the way I handled it you could've gone to ANI but like I said I realised my mistake and offered to put that right so all of this dramah really wasn't needed. –Davey2010^Talk 02:14, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

So you went to ANI anyway. Cool, OK. 2600:8800:1880:91E:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 02:15, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes because you were creating multiple RFCs thus IMHO disrupting the project - Had you carried on discussing we could've perhaps resolved your concerns amicably. –Davey2010^Talk 02:18, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Bbb23: I have no intention on continuing on this course. I don't feel it's productive to clash with belligerent editors who engage in NPA. I prefer to edit in peace. 2600:8800:1880:91E:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 02:17, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Two. I created 2 (two) RFCs. And RFCs are discussion, by definition. "Request For Comments". They are a dispute resolution method designed to bring in wider comment from the Wikipedia editor community. I seek dispute resolution when I feel that the current discussion has reached an impasse. I did not seek to unilaterally abuse you or the Project, I sought more discussion, and for that I was reverted and dragged to ANI. Well, you got your wider discussion. So that's all well and good. 2600:8800:1880:91E:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 02:21, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

• Just in case either of you feels the urge to post anything further, don't. We're done here. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:26, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Good hand account?

See this (especially the edit warring report). I think Nsmutte likes to play these good-hand/bad-hand games. Pinging Bonadea for their opinion. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:37, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Blocked and I removed the AN3 report as well. Regards.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:51, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:54, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

CU

Jimmy Mcthrone (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
I noticed this new account on my watchlist. The first and only edit so far is identical to edits made by several confirmed socks of VJ-Yugo on that article. The account is new, and I do not know if I should open a SPI with only one edit. Can you have a look at it? Ktrimi991 (talk) 19:45, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Blocked plus FreeToMoveAlong (talk · contribs · count). Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:58, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

I did not expect him to insist on the same edit again. Thanks Bbb23. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 22:47, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

SPI closure

Can you please cite the policy which suggests that sock puppetry that occurred 1 year+ cannot be investigated [3] My Lord (talk) 14:27, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Reports at SPI are closed at the discretion of the CheckUser, administrator, or clerk.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:30, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Sock puppetry is one of the most severe policy violation whether it occured now or years ago. It's decisions are also decided whether there was abuse or not. No denial here that abuse here that's why "discretion" needs to be supportive of policy. Extent is clearly too large and must not be ignored. Noting these policy based factors, I request you please reopen SPI. My Lord (talk) 14:40, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Sock puppetry is just one of many ways of disrupting the project. Generally, we are interested in recent disruption, not something that occurred years ago. I will not reopen the report.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:43, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

WP:AN notice : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#SPI_closure_citing_abuse_as_not_recent concerning this closure. My Lord (talk) 15:21, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Another one

Hi! I'm afraid we have another sock puppet of Marry Swim at Aleksa Šantić. A long protection might also be useful. Surtsicna (talk) 19:45, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Dealt with. If the block evasion persists, I'll consider protection. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:53, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

• And if you could stop with vandalizing article, that would be really great, not pushing your agenda etc. 212.178.251.13 (talk) 19:48, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Winston Sterzel Sock puppets

• 小粉红龙 --AlternativesLebensglück (talk) 05:29, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
• ChromaFlux --AlternativesLebensglück (talk) 09:34, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Littlemixfan!

I filed an SPI report. Can you check this? 183.171.122.247 (talk) 13:12, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Well...  :) —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 13:20, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Additional comment has already per update. 183.171.122.247 (talk) 18:20, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Make the Girl Dance

Please copy the article Make the Girl Dance to my user namespace. I will edit orographic mistakes out, show its relevance and recreate it. I thought relevance is only seen so strict in German Wikipedia. Alex42 (talk) 17:47, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

 Done. See User:Alex42/Make the Girl Dance.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:01, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. Alex42 (talk) 21:52, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

My page "Gangreen (hip-hop group)" was mistakenly deleted

Recently i created a page dedicated to one of the famous underground hip-hop groups of 90's - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gangreen_(hip_hop_group). I spent a lot of time creating it. Page was speedy deleted with this reason: A7: Article about a band, singer, musician, or musical ensemble, which does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject. What it means? If I understand correctly, this mean that the group did not make a special contribution to the music culture. Right ? Ok, what contribution to the music culture did these groups: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Firm_(hip_hop_group) ? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EMC_(hip_hop_group) ? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I.O.U._(hip-hop_group) ? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/InI_(hip_hop_group) ?

Gangreen - It's exactly the same hip-hop group that deserves to have her story here. They were more popular than all these groups. I spent a lot of time to create this page and not one day. Nobody paid me for this page, it's the information I collected over the years. Please respect other people's work. Please let it be! Felix Montana (talk) 18:50, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

@Drmies: You know more about bands. What do you think? The article had sat for a while with an a7. No one deleted or declined. Putting aside the poor writing, I read the article and thought the only thing it had going for it was its length. Tons of redlinks and lousy sources. But if you think it should be restored, I will. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:03, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Felix Montana: Read WP:NOTE. Popularity has nothing to do with it, you need to cite reliable sources that are independent of the group but still specifically about them. Discogs is never a reliable source and random Youtube videos are usually not either because anyone can create entries on either site. Forum posts are not reliable sources for that reason, either. Other articles that may or may not have problems do not justify creating more articles that fail to meet basic notability standards.

Also, read WP:OWN. You don't own anything here. If you don't want anyone else to edit what you put up here, don't put it up here. Respect our policies. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:06, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree, but these links on YouTube and discogs are the only thing that this group has unfortunately, so I added them here. Thanks for your attention! Felix Montana (talk) 19:19, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

@Felix Montana: If that's all they have, then they're not notable and don't get an article. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:21, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

I will add something new if i found, just my second article here on Wikipedia. Thanks for add @Ian.thomson:

• Ha, I say no. Can't find much of anything, and that shouldn't be surprising with their one album. That one song is OK though derivative of the Wu. It seems the name should be written Gang Green, as in Gang Green; not to be confused with Gangrene (group), of course (which doesn't have much more sourcing...). Drmies (talk) 19:57, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

• Apparently Felix doesn't listen very well as he recreated the article. Based on the comments here, I deleted it again and told Felix he should take it to WP:DRV if he wishes. Thanks everyone.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:38, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

@Bbb23: I re-created it because you were silent, i did it before you answered here, plus I'm newcomer here and don't know all the rules. But if you deleted my page for the first time by mistake, then why did you delete it the second time? Why I must take it to WP:DRV? I did not do anything wrong! Please return my article! Felix Montana (talk) 21:39, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

@Felix Montana: I wasn't silent. I don't delete articles "by mistake". I deleted it because I felt it met the criterion A7. DRV will permit a discussion of the merits of my deletion and whether it should remain deleted or be restored. Again, it is not your article, and no one is accusing you of doing anything "wrong". This isn't personal. Please remember to WP:SIGN your posts.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:34, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Also, Felix, we have since explained for you why we were supposed to deleted that article and how to write articles that do not get deleted. You are now no longer ignorant of those rules and cannot use past ignorance to justify continued disruption. Even if you still were somehow ignorant of those rules (which would be a problem), that does not excuse those of us who know the rules from following them.

At any rate, the material you had will not help you write a successful article. You are wasting your time trying to get the old copy back, you will be better off writing a new version that summarizes mainstream journalistic sources. If there are no mainstream sources (as you've suggested), then that group does not deserve an article, period. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:42, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Now at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2018 June 30, and this is your pro-forma notification. —Cryptic 11:59, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Experienced vandal

Pitsboris (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Hi Bbb23. This account was created less than 30 minutes ago and immediately reverted me on two articles. After one editor reverted them, the new account responded with an edit summary "rv Ktrimi991 sock". A newbie usually does not know the meaning of "sock" on Wikipedia. The main candidate to be the sock master is VJ-Yugo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Can you check the Pitsboris account? Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:18, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

There has been a rash of vandalism on articles with the same technical characteristics as Pitsboris, but the vandalism is so diverse and in very different areas with different patterns, that I simply can't say that the accounts are operated by the same person. So I took the easier way out and blocked Pitsboris as VOA.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:07, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Just to be clear, Pitsboris is not VJ-Yugo.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:11, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Bbb23. Much appreciated. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 22:16, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Thoughts

Do you have thoughts on the possibility of protecting User:Solomon203. This is now the third user that has messed with the tags based on the theory that you and Katie got it wrong. I don’t want to unilaterally protect here since it’d be a bit of an IAR thing. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:25, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

(tpw) Meh, I think full protection would be fine. I wouldn't blame them since Solomon203 has been unlocked and unblocked everywhere else except for enwp. I received an appeal request from Solomon203 but haven't had the time yet to review. I'll post a note on Chinese Wikipedia later. Alex Shih (talk) 00:52, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Alex, if you've received an appeal from that user, it'd probably be helpful to forward it to func-en for review by a wider audience. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 01:42, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Full protected then. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:48, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Suspicious account

TEMMPR-3444 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
This account was created on 29 July, 15 minutes after Adoniosis' creation. Today, 16 minutes after Adoniosis deleted the notification for their block from their talk page, TEMMPR-3444 started to edit. The first edit is creation of their user page, the second edit is remaking a deleted edit of one of blocked socks of VJ-Yugo. Can you have a look at this case? Ktrimi991 (talk) 19:15, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Another heads-up

Hey Bbb23, I thought you might want to know that our friend from last week, Augurar, seems to be back at it. Fresh off the block you gave them, they seems to be renewing their harassment of User:Jamez42, whom Augurar has been insisting "must be" a paid anti-government propagandist, based on their content disagreement; Augurar followed Jamez to two articles that they (Augurar) have never edited before, apparently specifically for the purpose of reverting Jamez. I hate to be the bringer of annoying news, but I thought you may want to be made aware, since the bad faith and disruption are pretty blatant and this seems almost certain to be bounced back to ANI anyway. But hey, at least they aren't socking this time....progress? Snow ^{let's rap} 13:29, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

@Snow Rise: People don't usually change their spots. I've left notices on both Augurar's and Jamesz42's Talk pages about the general sanctions applicable in the Syrian Civil War articles. Arguably, Augurar has already violated 1RR, but not all administrators take that view, i.e., that his first edit was a revert. That's all I'm doing at present. Obviously, if you feel there are continuing conduct issues, you are welcome to take the matter to ANI. Just bear in mind that stalking is always a dicey allegation to prove, and it usually has to be egregious for an admin to want to take action, although a warning might be easier to obtain than an actual block.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:17, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Nah, I don't have significantly strong feelings as to the resumed conduct to bring an ANI on the topic, though I suspect Jamez does (and will). I just happened to notice the suspicious behaviour because Augurar reached out to me here and his comments in the latest post made me suspect that he was not as done with his fixation with Jamez as he claims (he also has some interesting things to say about you there, which I didn't mention earlier so that you would be shielded from accusations of sour grapes if you did decide to block). Having gotten that vibe of continued fixation off of his comments, I went to look at his contributions and, sure enough, it seems that within hours of his block expiring he was following Jamez to articles he had never edited before and which are wholly unrelated to the topic areas in which they first tangled. I hear you about WP:HOUNDING being one the most notoriously difficult bad-faith behaviours to prove, but I actually think he's been caught dead-to-rights on this one, given the time frames involved and his overt (and frankly bemusing) comments about what a corrupt and abusive "agent" Jamez is. Factor in the socking previously involved in the matter, the continued personal attacks, plus the DS context and I think this would be a slam dunk at ANI. But all of that said, I'm not keen to insert myself into the matter (beyond informing you, anyway) if Jamez himself is not yet making noise about the activity. I do think it's almost certain to return to ANI soon, but if you don't think it's actionable on the present circumstances, this is about as far as I'm willing to take it on my own initiative. Snow ^{let's rap} 17:51, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

One last notation, though: It seems Jamez42 is aware of Augurar's presence on at least one of those articles: Talk:Yemeni_Civil_War_(2015-present)#Drone strikes. Jamez must surely suspect he is being stalked, but to his credit, he is resisting the urge to make a statement to that effect. It may be because Jamez himself has noted that it appears that numerous IPs within the range that Augurar was socking from have been involved in the article previously. That gives Augurar the potential excuse of being on the same articles incidentally (I tend to doubt it given the timing, but he could make the assertion nevertheless). But it also raises the likelihood that Augurar's pattern of socking is quite substantial. Anyhow, that's it for my sleuthing. We'll just have to see if Augurar checks himself before this resolves into a new complaint (but I'm not holding my breath). Snow ^{let's rap} 18:14, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

@Snow Rise: As a "reward" for apologizing for the extra Talk page notifications (sigh, someone who knows how irritating they are), you get a question. How come you speak French, Italian, and Spanish fluently?--Bbb23 (talk) 23:48, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Oh, I'm not sure I would describe myself as exactly "fluent" in any of the three; my syntax is imperfect and I struggle to keep up with spoken conversations when they move into highly technical areas outside of general interest topics. But I do consider myself above an "intermediate" speaker, so I figure the level-3 boxes are the most accurate. As to why I speak a decent bit of each (and other languages), it's because my very first degree was in linguistics. ;) It's actually the field where I did my first empirical research before moving in to other areas (which are also represented on my user page)--this first degree was quite a long while back, mind you. Having a degree in linguistics doesn't make you an automatic polyglot of course, but I was busy learning bits and pieces of various languages around that time, for obvious reasons. I also used to spend substantial amounts of time in Southern Europe, back when I lived in the EU, so that's a big piece of why the Romance languages stuck a little bit more than the other languages I tried to acquire. Snow ^{let's rap} 00:24, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Well, if I went by your userpage, after your first degree in Linguistics, you acquired seven more degrees, which would make you a professional student. I lost interest in being a student in the middle of high school. It didn't help that in my first year at unversity the psychology professor spent the first 10 minutes of every class doing football cheers. I stopped going to his class.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:33, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Ha! Not quite seven, but I've got a decent string of letters to put after my name should I care to. :) Now see, it's all about having the right instructors; my first psychology professor in my initial year at uni was brilliant and fundamentally transformed my understanding of the field as an empirical exercise. Although to be fair, his class was as much neuroscience as psychology. Anyway, less cheerleading and more "now let's look at what happens when you damage this part of the brain...". And genuinely one of the funniest people I've ever met in my life. I was not supposed to take the course first year and was a little bit in over my head; I remember working so hard and long on the capstone paper for that class and I have to think, looking back now, that it must have been awful! But bless the man, he gave me decent marks. Maybe he saw where I was headed. Snow ^{let's rap} 01:10, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – July 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2018).

Administrator changes

Pbsouthwood • TheSandDoctor

Gogo Dodo

Andrevan • Doug • EVula • KaisaL • Tony Fox • WilyD

Bureaucrat changes

Andrevan • EVula

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC about the deletion of drafts closed with a consensus to change the wording of WP:NMFD. Specifically, a draft that has been repeatedly resubmitted and declined at AfC without any substantial improvement may be deleted at MfD if consensus determines that it is unlikely to ever meet the requirements for mainspace and it otherwise meets one of the reasons for deletion outlined in the deletion policy.
• A request for comment closed with a consensus that the {{promising draft}} template cannot be used to indefinitely prevent a WP:G13 speedy deletion nomination.

Technical news

• Starting on July 9, the WMF Security team, Trust & Safety, and the broader technical community will be seeking input on an upcoming change that will restrict editing of site-wide JavaScript and CSS to a new technical administrators user group. Bureaucrats and stewards will be able to grant this right per a community-defined process. The intention is to reduce the number of accounts who can edit frontend code to those who actually need to, which in turn lessens the risk of malicious code being added that compromises the security and privacy of everyone who accesses Wikipedia. For more information, please review the FAQ.
• Syntax highlighting has been graduated from a Beta feature on the English Wikipedia. To enable this feature, click the highlighter icon () in your editing toolbar (or under the hamburger menu in the 2017 wikitext editor). This feature can help prevent you from making mistakes when editing complex templates.
• IP-based cookie blocks should be deployed to English Wikipedia in July (previously scheduled for June). This will cause the block of a logged-out user to be reloaded if they change IPs. This means in most cases, you may no longer need to do /64 range blocks on residential IPv6 addresses in order to effectively block the end user. It will also help combat abuse from IP hoppers in general. For the time being, it only affects users of the desktop interface.

Miscellaneous

• Currently around 20% of admins have enabled two-factor authentication, up from 17% a year ago. If you haven't already enabled it, please consider doing so. Regardless if you use 2FA, please practice appropriate account security by ensuring your password is secure and unique to Wikimedia.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:22, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Blocking without tags

I noticed that JBM1971's sock are being blocked without tags. Any particular situations when that is the preferred approach? I ask because I have been dormant for some time and may not be uptodate with the current norms in the area. Abecedare (talk) 21:49, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

They'll be tagged after the merge I requested takes place.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:54, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks. Abecedare (talk) 21:58, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

User:Shibuya Kid

You beat me to the block by mere seconds... thanks for handling that ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:20, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Aaaand you beat me to protecting the AFD as well ;-) (I'm looking at now to see if seven days has passed; if it has, I'm going to close it). ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:22, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

@Oshwah: I was just about to suggest that but hit an edit conflict when replying to your first post here. We're both too fast. --Bbb23 (talk) 15:25, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Indeed we are quite fast here :-). The AFD has been closed - it's a keep. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:27, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

@Oshwah: As King Caspar said in Amahl and the Night Visitors, thank you, thank you, thank you.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:37, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

No problem; always happy to help ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:43, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Calore123

Calore123 (talk · contribs), blocked for sockpuppetry, has requested an unblock. They have agreed to refrain from any further sockpuppetry, have agreed to a [[WP:1RR] restriction, and a topic ban around India and Pakistan. You are the blocking admin. Admittedly, I tend to end up disappointed in cases like this (unblock, then the person pretty quickly violates the restrictions), but blocks are easy to reinstate. This user has been editing for about a year now and only ran into block-worthy trouble in the past few weeks. Would you permit me to WP:AGF here and lift the block under those restrictions? --Yamla (talk) 23:30, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

@Yamla: I didn't respond here because I figured you could see what I was doing on the user's Talk page. I don't think this is a good candidate for unblocking. Although the socking may have been recent, he came to the attention of the two admins I pinged before that, and I doubt that he would have had he not already been a disruptive editor. I tend to agree with Drmies: I have little faith. Frankly, I think you ought to reserve your good faith for a user who is more likely to justify it.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:00, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Yeap, I was following along. I just haven't had a moment to respond there yet. Thank you for looking into it. You have convinced me. --Yamla (talk) 21:14, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Avonbrunton

Hi B, I noticed that you blocked Avonbrunton as part of a CU. Any chance you could look into this again? He added some heavy puffery about Aamir Khan, declaring him the world's biggest movie star, like here and here. I've seen an uptick of this from other users like here where Birsanagarwala adds similar crap, and here where BollywoodEditor does the same thing. Looking at Avonbrunton and Birsanagarwala's edit summaries, I see some similarities, like "Added notable work about the movie" and "added essential data about the movie" and "i have added notable attribute about the anchor of the show" and "I have added noted attribute about the owner of the production house". I don't quite see the same pattern with BollywoodEditor, but they haven't done much editing. Avon and Birsan look fairly similar though. Thanks man, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:33, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Birsanagarwala (talk · contribs · count) is  Confirmed. Saurabhshimgekar (talk · contribs · count) is  Likely. BollywoodEditor is  Unrelated. The first two are blocked and tagged.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:59, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Gracias. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:12, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorting two sockdrawers. Could use a confirmation on new probable sock.

Metcalf89 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Mr. Young at Heart (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) - already indeffed as a sock of User:Emmy Expert, but most recent edits were with this account.
Higher Ground 1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) - already indeffed as a sock of User:Chitt66; most recent use.

Let me know if this would be better sorted at SPI. We've already got an ongoing investigation at ANI: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Long-term disruption, copyvios, trademark-vios, plus 8 solid months of total refusal to interact with other editors (Permalink) and have a pretty solid assessment of the behavioural patterns that have given all of these away. But it would be helpful to know which drawer to put this one in. Would you mind glancing at this one to see which match, if any? I don't know if we're dealing with dynamic or static IPs, or if this may actually be the missing link that means this is one big sockdrawer. Thanks. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 19:23, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't believe I can help much. Nor do I see that it matters which drawer you put them in. They're all blocked, so it's more academic at this point. Filing a report at SPI will probably get you nowhere because it will likely be summarily closed.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:06, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

I just blocked them. The patterns are clear at this point. One drawer or more, doesn't really matter. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 23:31, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Tirritating

Can we put SineBot on delay? 30 seconds or a minute would make a big difference. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 00:27, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Sing it out! "It Only Takes a Moment".--Bbb23 (talk) 00:32, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

"...only takes a moment, to feel alright..." Never had you pegged for a Mel & Kim fan. Get fresh at the weekend! Drmies (talk) 00:41, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

I think these two users are connected

Johnhexer and Vijayabhaskar02 seem to have same vocabulary and style of writing. I noticed it in a recent interaction at an AfD where both of these users used exact phrase "As a member of Wikipedia" and Johnhexer's first statement in Afd matches the statement on Vijaya's first line of user page "to contribute verified content to the community." Thanks! Dial911 (talk) 17:52, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Links would be helpful.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:02, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

See Johnhexter's comment in this discussion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/StuMagz and user page of Vijay https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Vijayabhaskar02 Dial911 (talk) 18:05, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

The two accounts + Tanneruvenugopalam (talk · contribs · count) are  Confirmed, blocked and tagged. I would normally drop a note at the AfD, but that thing is a mess!--Bbb23 (talk) 18:48, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, leave the note. Thanks for the help! Dial911 (talk) 19:43, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

No, I meant I am not leaving a note. It would get lost in all the clutter anyway.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:45, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Haha, even I meant the same. Leave (dropping) the note. Dial911 (talk) 19:55, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

More for your drawer

Regularfinn (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

No clue who this is, but pretty clearly Bookwormboy2 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) you CU blocked yesterday. Just letting you know in case its one you run sleeper checks on. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:58, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni: None I could find on a quick check (I want to sign off for the evening). BTW, Bookwormboy2 is WhenDatHotlineBling (talk · contribs · count). Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:18, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

More sock puppets on Patrick Treacy page?

You blocked some sock puppets on the page Patrick Treacy and I reverted the page to the pre-sock-puppet content (although I suspect that some of the earlier contributors might have been sock puppets too). Someone swept back in (using a similar sort of naming convention to a previous sock: Mcmanusbr as compared to Oliveroc) and reverted and now someone else (again adopting a similar naming convention as previous socks: Tariqsaeed2018 as compared to Joyland2017) has come in and made further edits that burnish the subject's reputation. I suspect it's socks again. If you look at the discussion on the talk page, you'll see that pages about this particular subject have a "history".

PreviouslyFiscalspace (talk) 16:03, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

CU-blocked user Canadianji

Hello. There's also another account, Skarduji (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), that you might want to block, since it's obviously related to Canadianji, and tag-team vandalized Skardu with them a few days ago (Canadianji, Skarduji). Cheers, - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 13:42, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I already know about that account and others, but I haven't yet blocked them. There are enough of them I need to reopen the SPI to list them. Plus, I wanted to eat breakfast.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:04, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Faizanali.007

In case my message is ignored,[4] I am informing you here that the connection of Faizanali.007 with International Editor Shah was largely believed by admins,[5] and had been used as basis to decline unblock requests of International Editor Shah. Kindly re-open the SPI if its possible. Lorstaking (talk) 18:34, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Can't log in

Hi Bbb23, it's User:Prisonermonkeys here. I'm having a bit of trouble with my account and I'm told you might be able to help.

A few weeks ago, I got a notification that someone had tried to log into my account. As it tured out, I wasn't alone; hundreds, if not thousands of accounts were affected. I changed my password as a precaution and didn't think much of it until this week.

I edit exclusively from a mobile device and this week I got a new phone. I tried to log in, but realised I had forgotten my password. I then tried to recover it, only to be told that no e-mail address is registered to my account. At this point, I'm more stoopid than lyin', so I'm wondering if there is anything thst can be done short of creating a new account (or if not, if I can create a new account and have my old editing privileges restored). 1.129.106.204 (talk) 09:00, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

As far as I know, there is no way to recover your old account unless you had an e-mail address associated with it, which I don't believe you did. Ajraddatz, assuming you're a good person to ask, am I right about that? That means your only recourse is to create a new account. Once that's done, you should put a notice on the userpage of the new account and of the old account establishing the relationship between the two accounts so other editors know. Once you've created your new account, let me know, and I'll be glad to give you the same permissions you had with the old.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:10, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Bbb. Seems odd that I don't have an e-mail tied to the account; it's so common that I just assumed that I did. Anyway, truth be told, I could probably use a break from Wikipedia. I've been editing almost non-stop for nine years now and while there's one or two articles that I'd like to see through to GA or even FA status, I don't have any long-term projects in mind. 1.144.107.161 (talk) 20:27, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Question

Since you are an expert regarding what is appropriate ;-), I have a question: As you know, I am banned from editing anything related to automobile; now, the article Automobile redirects to car. Does that mean that I can safely create articles on rail transport vehicles? Best regards, --Johannes Maximilian (talk) 23:43, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Another sockpuppet early-today

Breaking news on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/FrancoLeymas - Early today:
ArgosBeta24, currently is one of the fourteen sockpuppets by FrancoLeymas. I check early today in the Spanish Wikipedia, this user was blocked indefinetly for abusing multiple accounts. Overall, 14 sockpuppets was blocked indefinetly since January 31, 2018. --Ikeone 00:38, 12 July 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ikeuno (talk • contribs)

User:LegendBalr

I see from the block log that User:LegendBalr was blocked by user as a sock of User:Jasleen Ahluwalia. At present nothing is showing up on the User page of the sock. I have an interest in that I have tagged a page created by the sock as a speedy deletion of an article created by a blocked user, but any admin checking this out would see no evidence of the block. Any help would be much appreciated. Regards  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   19:14, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Speedy delete now all sorted. Thanks  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   20:00, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Could we get eyes on this VPP discussion

Hey Bbb23, could I get you to take a look at the above-linked thread? It's an RfC that one of the WP:PW editors opened to try to bring some clarity to the pro wrestling clean-up effort. There's a whole recent history of conflict here, involving clean-up efforts by project regulars and brigades of socks and meat puppets coming off a Reddit forum called SquaredCircle. This lead to an AN discussion where the topic of Pro Wrestling was put under general sanctions. The regulars at the WikiProject then attempted to create a default approach for dealing with one of the persistent content issues related to the articles in question, but were informed (by myself and an admin, NeilN) that (per WP:Advice pages) they would need to have that discussion in a central community space for it to have the effect of useful consensus, and they have complied by hosting a new discussion at VPP.

However, the SquaredCircle users have been monitoring the situation and coordinating from Reddit, and put out a call to action to swamp the discussion with opposition. Most of the users who have responded to that call to arms have actually been quite civil in their behaviour. They are registering new accounts and voicing a lot of opposition that is not based in policy, which is going to complicate the closer's job considerably, but their comments are generally good-faith and not over-the-top disruptive. But there is one user that I think is in severe need of a final warning from an admin (and then, I suspect, the business end of the general sanctions block hammer when they almost certainly ignore that warning). You'll recognize the user pretty quickly, because they are going around screaming "IDIOT" and the like and ranting in ALL CAPS. (If there is any doubt, they are also the user who opened the subthread to which my link directs, and their IP address starts with '2602'). They've been approached by at least a half a dozen editors asking them to tone things down, keep their comments focused on the issues, and avoid personal attacks, but none of it has done much to restrain the problematic behaviour. At this point I think they'd be at the end of any reasonable amount of WP:rope even if this was not a general sanctions topic. Blocking (if necessary) would require a range block, so let me know if you are not experienced with that and I will bring this to another admin--but the range is a fairly narrow one, so it should be possible to remove them without too much collateral blocking. Let me know if you don't have the time and I'll of course take the matter to some other unfortunate mop. Thanks! Snow ^{let's rap} 20:53, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Looks to me like another admin already dealt with it.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:06, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Bah, so many IPs in the range, I missed that. I knew Ian was watching the situation but because he kept giving warnings, I figured that he was being overly cautious about not handing out an WP:Involved block. Thanks anyway, Bees--sorry to waste your time! Snow ^{let's rap} 21:09, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Multiple accounts

Why do Wikipedians made Socks and also how do you become a pending changes reviewers ARMcgrath (talk) 21:16, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Because their feet get cold. A lot more experience than you have.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:27, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

So people abuse account because to get out of blocking which is I think why you answered My first question. Thanks for that and I’ll wait at least a few months to apply for one. Anyways thanks. ARMcgrath (talk) 21:30, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Actually, I confess I was making fun of you just a bit, which I shouldn't do, but it's an odd question, and I found it hard to take it seriously. Still, I should be nicer. People create socks for lots of reasons: to evade a block, to avoid scrutiny, for the sheer "fun" of it, to troll, and the list goes on.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:37, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

I’m going to be honest I’m not good at taking jokes. Which is fine lol. So guess we both had fun on this chat. Have. Good day fighting Socks ARMcgrath (talk) 21:45, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Checkuser questions

Sorry about that edit on User's talk page, I see how that wasn't appropriate for the place. Am I allowed to ask you those questions here, or would it fall under WP:BEANS? I'm just curious, no harm intended. byteflush _Talk 21:45, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't feel it's a good use of my time to tutor you on checking. You might find another CheckUser more amenable to responding to your questions, which, by the way, weren't just questions but a combination of questions and opinions.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:07, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Fair point. Thank you for replying, and sorry I wasted your time. byteflush _Talk 22:26, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

I didn't say you wasted my time. I said that answering your questions would not be a good use of my time, which is not the same thing. Unfortunately, you stirred up a bit of a hornet's nest at SuperJew's Talk page, the access to which I have now revoked. That's the problem with undoing others' edits; it doesn't necessarily go unnoticed, and they grabbed onto your comments like glue and then went overboard pinging admins right and left. Oh well, it was probably going to happen sooner or later.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:52, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Oh, sorry about that (well, both of those). Reading my previous comment again, it could be interpreted as a snarky, sarcastic "sorry for wasting your time". It wasn't meant that way; I realize that you have a lot of other stuff to do, so writing an answer to my opinion on the Checkuser process (which I'm not totally familiar with) could actually be seen as wasting time. That's what I meant. =) I've also noticed that it escalated to TPA revoke; it was not my intention, I was just giving an (well, ill-informed, I guess) opinion. byteflush _Talk 22:59, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Suspicious editing history of multiple users

Hello, Bbb23 I know you are an admin. I found out one Adamgerber80 recently made a fake complain that I created another account. I didn't of course but the complainer isn't even involved in the article. I got suspicious and looked through their edits over the past days. The block gave me time and them supporting each other on the same articles including mine on Sino-Indian War made it seem very fishy.

Turns out some users like MBlaze Lightining, Capitals00, D4ian4, Adamgerber80 have very similar behaviour both in how the make an edit and comment. They often support each other on the same articles and discussions even if they aren't involved sometimes, talk in the same way, back up each other's reasons for their edits verbatim, support each other on discussion, have same style of fighting others to get their way, try to act like they are the master of the article and know better, make fake claims often to attack and revert others like they did to me, tell to discuss but rarely ever start one themselves, have the same style of talking and reasoning etc.

I went through SPI cases and it tunrs out no technical connection has been established and despite there being a lot of history of them supporting and having similarity somehow those doing behaviour investigation turn out a blank. But if anyone tried to view all their editing patterns, once can easily conclude they aren't what they seem to be, they seem to be one person and some of them are known to have created multiple accounts in past. I don't know how these people have been let go for so long. Tootifrooti11 (talk) 13:40, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Anther similar behaviour I forgot to add was their reporting others as vandals even if they did no vandalism and reports of sockpuppetry to shut others down regardless of whether their claim is true or not. Tootifrooti11 (talk) 13:49, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Singapore Sling

Hi, Bbb23. Sorry to bug you so soon after the SPI but would you mind re-evaluating or leaving it open for behavioral evaluation? The editor, Smartiperson, overlaps significantly with the other two, one who was unblocked on the condition that they requested edits and disclosed their COI with Raffles Hotel Singapore, per their own admission here. They also repeatedly introduced spam and copyright violations, as did Smartiperson. Add to that, Smartiperson has uploaded several items belonging to RHS on Commons but also had this edit summary among others, indicating they are either another employee of RHS, a meat puppet or potentially the same. Thanks and sorry for bugging you! Also pinging Mz7 as the original blocking/unblocking admin. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 18:11, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

I usually only close SPIs that are unrelated when it's so clear they can't be the same person that I don't want the user blocked for socking. An administrator can still unblock them if they wish, but I won't make it easier, and I particularly don't like them being tagged as a so-called suspected puppet. In this instance, the master and already-known sock share all their technical data, including location and user agents. The new user is editing from a different continent with completely different user agents.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:19, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Content of "‪Speedy deleted" page

Hi Bbb23,

You recently removed a new article on 'Fluix' product, now unavailable at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fluix&action=edit&redlink=1

Is there a way to retrieve its content, so we could work on it further and make sure it meets the standards? Thanks!

Yours, D — Preceding unsigned comment added by Denchik37 (talk • contribs) 12:47, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Hi Denchik37. Who is "we"? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:53, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

And please could you reply to the message I've left at your talk page, thanks. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:55, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

New user DrMayy

Hi Bbb23. I noticed that a new user, DrMayy, has been making edits on Nicholas II that suggests a level of knowledge about editing that I don't normally associate with a brand new user. This may just be paranoia but when one of your very first edits is to alter an important hidden note, it set off some bells. But like I said it may be nothing or maybe an experienced IP who just finally decided to sign up. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:48, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

@Ad Orientem: The master is Guilherme Styles (talk · contribs · count). Also found Stillhiding (talk · contribs · count). Both blocked and tagged.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:34, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Like -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:36, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Regarding Faizanali.007

Hi @Bbb23 and Abecedare: I have no issues with the closure of this SPI or wish to pursue any other action against the user. However, I do have some concern about the users understanding of the copyright policy on Wikipedia. I did check their current talk page and the talk page of their earlier accounts and IMO this issue has not been resolved correctly. Thus, the user has continued to upload images with CR violations even after being on Wikipedia for 5+ years. I don't think this was out of malice or with wrong intent but because the user may not, even now, correctly comprehend it. From my memory, I do remember that one needs to clearly state their understanding about Wiki's CR policy on you talk page after you have been tagged with violating it multiple times. I am not doing this out of retaliation or trying to get back at the user, but ensuring that they continue to contribute positively. I am pinging Diannaa my go to admin for CR advice. @Diannaa: In your recommendation is this required for this user? I will defer to whatever you guys decide. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 17:15, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

• I had seen that SPI since Nauriya has been also filing frivolous SPIs against me and I have no interaction with him. I was blocked for my 2nd or 3rd copyright violation, but why Nauriya is still surviving regardless the deletion of 52 out of 118 uploaded images deleted for being copyvio and the SPI comments were showing lack of understanding of copyvio. Furthermore, the blocking policy (Wikipedia:Sock puppetry#Blocking) on sock puppetry say "If a person is found to be using a sock puppet, the sock puppet account(s) should be blocked indefinitely." Nauriya should be asked to use his main (Faizanali.007) account, not Nauriya according to that policy. Thanks. My Lord (talk) 17:25, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Not sure I have much to add beyond what I said at the SPI. I won't speak for Bbb23, but I believe User:Nauriya would qualify as the "main" account for the user given that it is most current and most active; in short, I believe the current set of accounts blocked is appropriate.

And while the copyvio uploads are a concern and something to keep an eye on, I'll note that the issue with the most recent violation was a relatively subtle one that many users misunderstand and even disagree on. Additionally, the previous upload that was deleted was deleted at the user's own request (since they had uploaded another version of the poster). Therefore, I will step-in only if there is any future socking/copyvio/proxying or similarly disruptive activity. Of course, if another admin examines the evidence and decides that immediate blocks are needed, that would be fine with me. Abecedare (talk) 19:00, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

@Abecedare: I am fine with whatever account the user wishes to use and to be clear I am "not" advocating a block for the user. Just saying that user should elucidate their understanding of CR policy. I present an example here of another user who was denied multiple times User_talk:PukkaParsi#June_2018 because their understanding of this policy was broken. I am sure the user is experienced enough and will do so correctly (once prompted) and this seems to be more of a sanity check to prevent future issues. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 19:35, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Bbb23: just as an fyi. Abecedare (talk) 17:34, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

@Abecedare: Thanks for both the heads-up and for dealing with it.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:43, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Bbb23: only loosely related to above, but would appreciate your input, basically on question of whether my proposal is too lenient compared to norms at SPI. No wading through the voluminous evidence or CU required. :) Abecedare (talk) 18:48, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Blocked user template

What's the problem with adding a {{blocked user}} template to the user pages of blocked users? Funplussmart (talk) 18:48, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

If the blocking administrator, in this instance me, wants to put that template on the userpage, they can do it. You're not an administrator, and there's no reason for you to act like you are.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:23, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Okay I tagged all of the pages i created with that template for G7 speedy deletion. Funplussmart (talk) 21:19, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Two of them didn't meet the criterion. On one I rolled back your edits, and on the other another admin did the same thing. The rest I deleted. Thank you.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:12, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Filter trip

Hey BBB, figured since your block of TheBellaTwins1445 is still active, I should advise you of this filter trip by an IP which may be of interest. The IP also made this pending edit. Home Lander (talk) 16:11, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Possible SP

Hi, doing some checks on Commons, I've found a strange relationship between user Helomer and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Anonymus 88 (editing the same kind of files, if not exactly the same files). I dunno if you can check on en.wiki as well… Cheers, Ruthven (msg) 15:57, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

@Ruthven:  Confirmed + StevenBenemet (talk · contribs · count). You might want to ask a steward to globally lock both accounts.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:30, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Doing that right away. Thanks Bbb23! --Ruthven (msg) 19:48, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Page deletion

Hi Bbb23. I've just seen the article for Aryan Juyal pop up on my watchlist, saying you've deleted it under G5 (blocked or banned user). However, I'm 99% sure I created the page (hence why it was on my watchlist). Please can you confirm who did create the page? Thank you. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:27, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

@Lugnuts: My apologies. More than one error on my part. I thought I was deleting Arjun Juyal, a page created by a sock. I didn't realize it was a redirect (you made it into one) and ended up deleting the target, the article you created. Sigh. I've restored the article; do you want to keep the redirect or shall I delete it?--Bbb23 (talk) 14:36, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

No worries - thanks for fixing that so quickly! The redirect is fine. Thanks again. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:44, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Vanrich

Hello again. I just noticed the checkuser block (but don't know who this user was a sock of). What I'm wondering is if extant project-space redirects to User:Vanrich/TooMuchFuckingDetail should be deleted. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 16:20, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Any page created by Vanrich otherwise eligible for g5, may be deleted per g5.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:00, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Doesn't matter anymore; I took care of it.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:03, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Chris H of New York.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:11, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 17:35, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

A cupcake for you!

For the prompt action. Sreeking (talk) 01:24, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

SPI on old accounts

Hello! Regarding Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Frogg92477, what is the reason for closing SPI on few months old account? Is it because of lack of data retention for CU or just because it is not worth the effort? This is not my main Wikipedia, so I'm not familiar with SPI process here. Thanks! --MarioGom (talk) 18:29, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

@MarioGom: Not worth the effort. Not really a "few months", almost a year. If they resume editing, feel free to reopen the case.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:32, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

@Bbb23: Ok. Thanks. --MarioGom (talk) 18:35, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Cleaning up puppetry

Hey Bbb23, sometimes I go along as revert everything a puppet did, once the puppet is blocked. I've got a chronic sockpuppeteer, one of whose accounts you shut down recently, who created two articles. Now, I know one isn't supposed to just blank an article. Is there some sort of way to get rid of an article if the only contributor is a sock? This sockmaster has produced such a prolific mass of stuff, often highly unreliable, that I'd rather not have to sort through the articles they create. Alephb (talk) 22:15, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Who are you talking about? Links would be helpful. I rarely answer abstract questions.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:21, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Oh, sure. Some editors don't like to explicitly discuss socks. Direct is better. I'm thinking of this: [6]. Alephb (talk) 22:25, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

I've deleted the pages.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:54, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

(talk page gnome) @Alephb: Just in case you did not already know, you can tag with WP:G5 any pages you know have been created by socks (and not significantly edited by others; if it's an error, admins can decline rather than delete). But sometimes what you did by contacting an admin is ideal, they can implicitly consider those pages under G5 while deleting. —PaleoNeonate – 23:12, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

I did not know. I figured there was probably some process though. I've been involved in the process when an article is deleted on its merits, but I didn't know there was a specific puppetry tag. Thanks. Alephb (talk) 23:34, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

IP address block exemption request

I will be going to an undisclosed country for a period of time that represses freedom of speech that I enjoy in the country that I currently live in. In order to express myself freely, I will need an IP address block exemption that will allow me to edit without fear of surveillance by an oppressive regime. Not only that, I will need to provide commentary on sensitive political subjects that will require complete anonymity. Will you please consider an IP block exemption for this account?

-Noto-Ichinose — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noto-Ichinose (talk • contribs) 15:50, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

No, you are too new a user to be given an exemption.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:17, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

How long do you have to be a member in order to receive exemption status? This is relatively urgent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noto-Ichinose (talk • contribs) 21:31, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Why don't you wait until you're affected by the block of an IP you're using? A discussion in advance is generally a waste of time.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:54, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

ANI boxes

You removed ANI box at Three-check chess AFD because inappropriate. (Thanks?) What about at Talk:Three-check chess and WP:RSN [7] (also inappropriate)? --IHTS (talk) 11:16, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

I mean here. (Is that inappropriate too?) --IHTS (talk) 12:57, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

One was removed by another editor, and I removed the second just now.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:49, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank u. p.s. The editor who put them there has enough experience to know that is improper, wouldn't you say? Thanks again. --IHTS (talk) 11:14, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Quack?

Hi, could you take a look at Debtrena? They're acting quite suspiciously. I've indef blocked them for being WP:NOTHERE already, but it could very well be a sock. Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:05, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

@Anarchyte: See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wikiexplorer13.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:52, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Eranrabl/SuperJew

I've just seen today that these two have been blocked for sockpuppetry and was quite surprised. I've interacted with both of them for several years, and I have to say I'm inclined to believe what they're saying about not being related.

In particular, I think the claimed behavioural evidence is weak – editing in the same topic area means they are bound to have significant crossover – I have edited three times as many of the same articles/templates/etc that Eranrabl has (296) compared to SuperJew (87), whilst there are 720 articles/templates/etc where both SuperJew and myself have edited. Based on what was written on Eranrabl's page, this would be 'pretty damning behavioral evidence' of me being a sockpuppet of one of them, but in reality it's just because we are all members of WP:FOOTY.

Also, I don't see any purpose to their supposed sockpuppetry – for example, they've never commented on the same discussion.

I have no idea about the technicalities of how you identify this, but it really doesn't add up to me. I hope you'll reconsider their block as I don't see how it's benefiting the project. Cheers, Number 57 14:43, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

SuperJew has been advised to appeal to ArbCom. I've already spent enough time on this personally and don't intend to change the status quo. I'd rather let ArbCom decide.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:48, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

G'day Bbb23, I'm wondering about this sockpuppetry block. Because neither of the accounts had been involved in any form of discussion directly, or more importantly any form of vote, surely the evidence isn't damning enough to warrant an indefinite ban from editing? Have either accounts done anything that would be deemed "inappropriate uses of alternative accounts"? Surely innocent until proven guilty is the correct course of action here, especially as neither account has breached the values of Wikipedia. Also, had Eranrabl or SuperJew admitted that one name were merely an alter ego of the other, would that have resulted in a ban? I feel like this is akin to banning someone like Damon Albarn from creating music because he 2-D. I do appreciate that you've probably had more than enough of this conversation and I appreciate you taking the time to read/reply to this and helping informing me of the rules/protocols. - J man708 (talk) 15:47, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Not going to respond? - J man708 (talk) 18:36, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Troll alert!

User:Abhijeet25104! this account was initially created by someone for trolling pakistan related articles- pls check those edits from this user- not a single constructive edit visible—89.0.253.78 (talk) 11:56, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

can you take a look at something

Toddst1 (talk · contribs) he is Deleting a LOT of Stuff in Articles and I don't think all of it is right ... Jena (talk) 15:13, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

I believe Jena is referring to this among others. Toddst1 (talk) 15:56, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Talk:McCormack & Erlich

Hey there, you deleted an article McCormack & Erlich as it met CSD, but the talk page remains. Would you mind cleaning that up as well? Xevus11 (talk) 21:37, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

The Talk page was added after I deleted the article...but I've deleted it. Thanks for the heads up.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:44, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

On JHHN8878

Greetings! I recently emailed you asking for your opinion about whether JHHN8878 and RUE4533 were sockpuppets of an LTA. You stated that you didn't believe so but indefinitely blocked both of them as sockpuppets of each other. The user has now created a third account (WRRE4767) and replied at Wikipedia:Edit filter/False positives/Reports, explaining that he thought the system had flagged his first account and was blocking his edits because he blanked the page he was trying to edit, and attempted to circumvent this by creating a new account. I accept this explanation in good faith (people trying to get around edit filters like this is common), and I believe that at the time of the block, the user had done nothing forbidden by our sockpuppetry policy. Now, of course, he has evaded a block, but I also accept this in good faith; as he was provided no explanation as to why he was blocked nor how he should appeal it, he no doubt didn't know what else to do. Would you be willing to lift your block(s) on this user, provided he agrees to stick with one account going forward? I would greatly appreciate that. Thanks, —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 02:51, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

I blocked the latest account. The user will have to go about this the right way, including making an unblock request.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:31, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Confusion

Bbb23, I am confused about your actions of deleting my section on Becky Sayles's talk page. I only wanted to let the user know that I modified many changes on the article that user created. Instead of undoing my stuff and briefly complaining, "Does not make sense" can you at least help me? I have been seeking an adoption for more than a week now and nobody that I have reached out for has contacted me back! As you know from our last discussion (which did not conclude very nicely) I really took your own advice about looking for articles to improve instead of delete, which is exactly what I did! Now, I'm not trying to create some kind of rant or unfriendliness here on Wikipedia but I need some guidance and your swift administrative actions aren't helping. As Jimmy Wales had once said, "Wikipedia is about collaboration" so please, I beg for help as I would like to help Wikipedia. Yanjipy (talk) 18:41, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Your changes to the article's citations were constructive (not so much the templates you added), but (1) you shouldn't have posted a message to Becky's Talk page and (b) you shouldn't have posted a message at your own Talk page. You made edits to an existing article. You described them as having "reviewed" the article. That's a term we use for a new article, not for an article that has existed for years. You didn't need to post any message to Becky's Talk page. Also, Becky hasn't edited Wikipedia in over a year, so even talking to her about your changes makes no sense. As for the talkback message on your talk page, you don't notify yourself that you are editing another person's talk page. The talkback message is to let another user know that they are being talked about. My actions were not administrative; any editor could have undone your posts. Finally, there is no need to ping me when you post a message here; I am automatically notified. I hope that helps.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:49, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your response but could you answer this question about why the people who I have contacted for adoption such as, DESiegel, Hazard-SJ and John from Idegon haven't responded for more than a week now?Yanjipy (talk) 19:30, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

My guess is that Hazard-SJ hasn't responded because they haven't edited in weeks, and before that, their editing has been very sporadic. Not a good choice for a mentor. BTW, your attempted pings of the three editors didn't work. To ping successfully, you have to sign in the same edit as the ping. You wrote your entire message and signed as a separate edit.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:57, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

I would greatly appreciate if you could possibly direct me to a user who you recommend as an adoptee. Yanjipy (talk) 21:10, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

About UserDe

UserDe has recently become active again (Not only in the English wiki, but global, now in progress), using google to check site:vi.wikipedia.org Xinjiang raid You in evident.Wuliao Prison incident can find that he has an account, this account is called Gomenasa. From his editorial record can Found that he abused the IP of 217.103.150.88 and used the different identity to delete the sourced content in New Tang Dynasty Television (Canada).--117.19.71.55 (talk) 00:46, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

I have no clue as to what you want.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:26, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Pratish Devadoss

A link for you that might fill in blanks: [8]

Best,

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:18, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

If you mean Abe21476, there's not much I can do with it technically as that account is stale.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:23, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm tired and completely spaced. I guess you knew about the draft and VGNMarketing account. This was just an FYI in case you didn't know. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:29, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

No problem. I know how that feels. For me sleep is often elusive. I hope you get some rest.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:31, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Could you have a look...

... at this issue please? See [9]. TIA. - DVdm (talk) 18:41, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

A clerk will look at it.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:49, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi, any news on this? This entry (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Licorne) is open for for a week now. Could it have been somehow overlooked by the clerk? See [10]. TIA. - DVdm (talk) 13:36, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Reports claiming IP socking are often open for a long time. There's nothing I can do about that.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:46, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Ok, good to know. Thx. - DVdm (talk) 13:47, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Another suspicious "newbie"

Hi Bbb23. "User:Myra or someone" has just appeared out of no where, and appears to be the latest in a string of SPA accounts trying to open the door on Dorothy Kilgallen to various fringe conspiracy theories regarding her death. Could you have a look when you get a minute? Again I may be wrong. But their behavior as a brand new editor is casing my sock detector to start flashing a yellow light here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:54, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Someone already checked. Without more, I see no reason to repeat it.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:05, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. At least I am not the only one who is suspicious here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:11, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

It's a new generation of editors, whose first post "ever" can be a perfectly-formatted >1K bytes, including refs, wikilinks, and a {{blockquote}} template ;) —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 14:12, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

• And yet another... Foal Breeze seems unusually familiar with how we do things for such a new user and they are picking fights with highly experienced editors quoting WP:PAG. Hmmm... -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:17, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

• My assistant is dealing with it.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:25, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:33, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

P.S. How do I get an assistant? Is there a list somewhere to sign up for one? ;-) -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:41, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

You find an editor and behind their back you call them your assistant. Who's to know? And it makes one sound so important, n'est-ce pas? (the French is a pompous and somewhat remote allusion to my assistant).--Bbb23 (talk) 21:44, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Sacre bleu! --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:57, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

FYI

Hi there. I see you do a lot of work with SPI's. Today I left a message about a sock on the Commons (see "Just a heads up..."). It's interesting that an administrator there made a connection between two Wikipedia SPI's: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dragonrap2/Archive and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/123lilbrad/Archive. I'm mentioning this to you because this editor made such a mess, and was active on the Commons just today. Cheers. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:42, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Troll

Re: this. I'm not sure how a support means I am a troll, but please don't do this again. I am neither troll nor sock, so please don't delete my !vote again. UtterBuffoon (talk) 20:18, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

RfA

You had removed a vote from a questionable account,[11] now we have another similar vote[12] right after your removal. D4iNa4 (talk) 19:48, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Now that earlier voter has restored his vote.[13] D4iNa4 (talk) 20:19, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, D4iNa4, as I have mentioned before. I am neither troll nor sock. Please (both of you) remember AGF. UtterBuffoon (talk) 20:25, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Strange behavior

I've been keeping my eye on the Team Unicorn page and associated pages, since they seem to have some COI editing going on. One of the editors I noticed (who I should stress does not appear to be connected to the SPAs that do the COI editing) is User:TyMega, who has very strange editing patterns. The account has only been around a couple of months but has racked up hundreds of edits, most of which don't appear to be anything other than minor rearrangements of words (e.g., changing "singer, artist and actress" to "artist, singer and actress"). For instance, please see today's changes to Alanna Ubach starting with this edit[14], which involved 26 edits over a 19-minute span and which left the lede of the article basically unchanged in substance from the pre-edited version. I don't know exactly what this user is up to, but they have never communicated with any other editors, they primarily edit only C-level celebrity articles, and the vast majority of their editing follows this pattern. They aren't doing anything overtly disruptive that I can see (so no need for something like ANI), but neither do they seem like they're genuinely here to contribute. I'm mystified, unless they're just trying to rack up an editing history/count for some reason. Grandpallama (talk) 19:12, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Tammy

Tammy000001 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Tammy0000001 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Hi Bbb23. These two accounts that have almost the same username have made the same changes to Amber Yang. As the first account has not been active since before the second one was created, is this socking? Both have made only unhelpful edits as a matter of fact. Ktrimi991 (talk) 22:30, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Steph at AUM blocked?

Uncooonnected bystander, but curious as to what got Steph at AUM blocked. From recent Q&A at Teahouse, appeared to be a college student new account who needed some advice, but not a wack-a-mole response. David notMD (talk) 17:41, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

There's compelling evidence that the user is a sock.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:16, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes.. :) Would you please identify the master? Understanding these relationships is useful for identifying further socks, etc. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 23:48, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

It would be of no help in this instance.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:13, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Hm. OK thanks. Jytdog (talk) 01:02, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – August 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2018).

Administrator changes

Sro23

KaisaL • Ymblanter

Guideline and policy news

• After a discussion at Meta, a new user group called "interface administrators" (formerly "technical administrator") has been created. Come the end of August, interface admins will be the only users able to edit site-wide JavaScript and CSS pages like MediaWiki:Common.js and MediaWiki:Common.css, or edit other user's personal JavaScript and CSS. The intention is to improve security and privacy by reducing the number of accounts which could be used to compromise the site or another user's account through malicious code. The new user group can be assigned and revoked by bureaucrats. Discussion is ongoing to establish details for implementing the group on the English Wikipedia.
• Following a request for comment, the WP:SISTER style guideline now states that in the mainspace, interwiki links to Wikinews should only be made as per the external links guideline. This generally means that within the body of an article, you should not link to Wikinews about a particular event that is only a part of the larger topic. Wikinews links in "external links" sections can be used where helpful, but not automatically if an equivalent article from a reliable news outlet could be linked in the same manner.

Technical news

• The WMF Anti-Harassment Tools team is seeking input on the second set of wireframes for the Special:Block redesign that will introduce partial blocks. The new functionality will allow you to block a user from editing a specific set of pages, pages in a category, a namespace, and for specific actions such as moving pages and uploading files.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:31, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Das Dipanjan

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Das Dipanjan

Stale when comparing new sock to master, of course. However, is the new sock connected to other accounts? Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:58, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

@Anna Frodesiak: Unless there is a history of multiple accounts being created, which there isn't, a check of a single account is almost never done at SPI.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:16, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thanks. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:11, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

My Accounts

I use all 3 log-ins to increase my sandbox space, considering that I cannot fit multiple pages onto one sandbox. There is no private information on any of my accpunts. AyodeleA1 (talk) 10:54, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

@AyodeleA1: That's not necessary. You can create multiple sandboxes with one account. Just create them as subpages in your userspace, calling them, for example, sandbox1, sandbox2, and so on. Also, it's troubling that you don't declare the third and oldest account and the fact that it's not obvious because it's not the same username pattern. Moreover, that account left a wikilove message on one of the other account's talk pages, which is truly deceptive. Congratulating yourself? Why don't you pick one account that you'd like to edit from and I'll block the other two?--Bbb23 (talk) 16:00, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

SchroCat

At present you have indefinitely blocked all three of SchroCat's accounts that I am aware of. Is it your intention to stop him editing, or are you insisting on him creating another account to edit with?

I remain unclear on the grounds that you are using for all of the indefs. As I understand it, SchroCat wishes to edit, but wishes to edit pseudonymously; and as far as I have been able to ascertain he has not abused the conditions set out in WP:VALIDALT: Clean start under a new name: A clean start is when a user stops using an old account in order to start afresh with a new account, usually due to past mistakes or to avoid harassment. If your interpretation is different, then I'd be grateful if you would make clear where you believe breaches have occurred, particularly if you are using that the justification for blocking all of his accounts.

Moving forward, I'd like to ask you what outcomes you want from these blocks? Is it your intention that SchroCat becomes de facto site-banned (without a community- or ArbCom-imposed ban)? or are you looking for a way for him to return to productive editing? If the latter is the case, then I do feel that you ought to make clear the steps you expect from him to make that return; particularly the manner in which he could make a clean start without you banning yet another account.

Thanks in advance for your consideration. --RexxS (talk) 13:28, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi Bbb23. This issue drags me out of a terrifying, possibly exciting, few days of sailing where I was sure we were bound for the deep, but I couldn't let this pass with out looking in. My minute interactions with Schro were not necessarily blissful but this I will say, he is a productive editor and this isn't a fair sanction. When single admin have the power to indef editors-a power I personally don't think they should have because its too easy to make a mistake with ultimate consequences - then they must be absolutely certain of wrong doing that is big enough to remove that editor from Wikipedia. That isn't the case here; many editors are questioning this move. Like Rexx above, with out his eloquence, I would ask that you reconsider and take another look at the facts. Best from the north Atlantic.(Littleolive oil (talk) 23:00, 4 August 2018 (UTC))

This sounds much more aggressive than I meant...Simply said, maybe take another look? I do hate to lose productive editors in cases where there may be misunderstandings about what occurred. Best.(Littleolive oil (talk) 02:23, 5 August 2018 (UTC))

I am disappointed that you have so far seemingly ignored my request above. Without even an acknowledgement that you are looking at the matter, I am left with the impression that you consider you don't have any responsibility to answer polite requests to explain your administrative actions that are unclear, despite WP:ADMINACCT:

"Administrators are accountable for their actions involving administrator tools, as unexplained administrator actions can demoralize other editors who lack such tools. Subject only to the bounds of civility, avoiding personal attacks, and reasonable good faith, editors are free to question or to criticize administrator actions. Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed."

If you would prefer to have the discussion at another forum, then I'm willing to bring the matter to WP:AN for wider scrutiny. --RexxS (talk) 16:41, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

(tps) Hi, RexxS. Sorry to interrupt. The committee is reviewing a direct appeal from SchroCat. The RfA vote was a breach of WP:VALIDALT as it was a clear case of avoiding scrutiny, regardless of the intention. I think moving forward, a determination will be made on the block length of the main SchroCat account, given that they are willing to reflect on the mistakes they may have made. Regards, Alex Shih (talk) 16:55, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, Alex. I'm glad that the committee is considering the matter, and I hope they will look favourably on a long-standing editor who has contributed a lot to our project, without any previous issues of socking that I'm aware of. I know that SchroCat and I haven't always seen eye-to-eye on occasion, but I have always valued his excellent content contributions, and I'd much prefer it if there were a way to return him to productive work in a manner that meets both his concerns and those of folks like Bbb23. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 17:16, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Recent RfA nukage

Someone used a 4 month sleeper for that? Wow. The stakes must be higher than it looks. Qwirkle (talk) 19:18, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Speaking of which, should I also strike the masters vote, as they were trying to game the process?💵Money💵emoji💵^💸 23:19, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

No.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:11, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

How do I add check user YES after the fact?

Bbb23, I found two more likely socks. I forgot to change the check user flag to yes. Can this be done after the fact? SPI in question is here [[15]]. Thanks Springee (talk) 17:24, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

In the report you just filed, change {{SPI case status}} to {{SPI case status|CU}}.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:32, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

OK, made the change but it doesn't appear in the CU requested list. Perhaps that is just an update lag. Springee (talk) 17:46, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

The list is updated only when the moon is full. --Bbb23 (talk) 17:48, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Mountain Sheep

Hey there! I would like to ask for a follow-up to your declining of my CSD for Mountain Sheep. I've been following the article for some time and rewrote it a while back (at the time foolishly through original research). I've been checking through my watch list lately and found several articles not holding up to the most basic notability guidelines. This is, for one, indicated by exactly zero sources being available on the page and its text consisting of just three sentences (after acquired insight, the third sentence is wrong, even). Furthermore, there are no reliable sources out there that do more than just mention the company (which you can check through our project's Google CSE). Hence, and because your edit summary only read "decline a7", I wondered why exactly you declined my nomination. Regards. Lordtobi (✉) 17:31, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Take it to AfD if you wish.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:35, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

I am aware that AfD would be the next step. That does not, however, answer my above question. Lordtobi (✉) 17:36, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't want to sound rude, but I would really appreciate some kind of closure to my question, as it could influence my view on the article (since you found it to be keepworthy). The article has since also gone up on AfD, if you are interested in expressing your thoughts there. Lordtobi (✉) 19:13, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

I didn't think it was necessarily "keepworthy"; I thought it wasn't an A7, a big difference. I scrutinize more carefully articles that have existed for some time, and I felt that the community should decide whether it's notable. As an aside, when you nominate an article for deletion and then have something to add later, you should add it inline below the last vote or comment as a comment. You shouldn't alter your nomination statement. I left it alone, but it may be confusing to others how you nominated an article after others voted.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:20, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Deletion of page: McCormack & Erlich

Hi there, I noticed that you deleted the page I created of the above title, and when I responded to you, I don't think that I responded correctly, so am now hopefully doing so and ask that you can help me to improve this article. I would like to contest your deletion of this page under the A7 criteria as the organization's work is clearly of significance as reported by established media outlets CBS, Bloomberg and legal news service Law 360 - all well established outlets with credible reporting histories. The fields of racial, sexual and disability discrimination in the workplace are hugely important areas of social importance in our age and this organization is tackling these issues - as do many other organizations that have wiki articles and work in these fields. Wikipedia policy on speedy deletion states: “Contributors sometimes create pages over several edits, so administrators should avoid deleting a page that appears incomplete too soon after its creation." since the page was deleted before I had a chance to contest it, I am appealing to you for your help to try and improve the article. Thank you for your time, Wikistanape (talk) 02:14, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

About User-4488

67.188.179.66 is going back again in 8/13.He attack my zh.wikipedia.org's User page with UserDe.And I believe that it will do something wrong like he just doing in vi.wikipedia.org zh.wikipedia.org and es.wikipedia.org.--Tr56tr (talk) 09:59, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Possible sock of Malintharanga

Hello Bbb23, can you please take a look at user Sri Lankan Artists who recreated Maneesha chanchala previously created by Malintharanga (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) you blocked as checkuserblock-account. Sri Lankan Artists was registered a month after Malintharanga was blocked and recreated his deleted article in one go. Since Malintharanga was CU blocked I'm unable to find the master to fill the SPI so bringing it to your attention. Thank you. GSS (talk|c|em) 06:42, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

@GSS: You can tell who the master is by the tags on the userpages. There is no SPI. Sri Lankan Artists is  Confirmed. Thanks very much.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:36, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Oh, I see, Thank you for taking care of this. GSS (talk|c|em) 15:14, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Star Wars: The Clone Wars (2008 TV series)

I wanted to ask your opinion on the article for an independent view, User:Spshu is doing mass changes to the article, I am not sure I agree with all of them and I am not the only person to try and restore what he removed. I really don't understand why having the release data for the DVDs is regarded as promotional. He has removed some sources which I believe are reliable sources. Would appreciate if you could have a look, cheers, regards, Govvy (talk) 19:00, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Also it's starting to look like an edit war on the page history. Govvy (talk) 20:24, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

I've fully protected the article for one week. All that battling and not a single edit to the Talk page. Not good at all.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:30, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Cheers, maybe it will cool down after a week. Govvy (talk) 21:29, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

No talk on the article talk page is due to Govvy and Oknazevad's behavioral issues (thus posted to their inidividual talk pages) of failing to recognize RS, WP:PSTS and V indicate non-primary third party sources as the preferred sourcing; they claim primary sources are the superior sources and revert the change to secondary review sources. This per WP:DISRUPTSIGNS, the removal of reliable sources is considered a sign of disruptive editing. Spshu (talk) 17:12, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

@Spshu: None of what you say is a good reason for not discussing the dispute on the article Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:15, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

FeArtProf

All of five edits, one of them being this. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:46, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

No rush. After taking a look at their contribs more closely I've blocked them as NOTHERE but I strongly suspect they are a sock. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:52, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

@Ad Orientem: Architect 134 (talk · contribs · count). G'night.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:26, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:54, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Sockmaster

Hi, Bbb23. You blocked Foxbridestar a few months ago following a CheckUser, but no sock master was identified. I have come across two other accounts which are likely the same person, but without knowing the sockmaster, I can't file an investigation to get it looked into. Is it possible to obtain the identity? ℯxplicit 05:01, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

@Explicit: Assuming you believe the behavior of the two new accounts is similar to the behavior in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Boyhoodjams, you should file there. If not, you should create a new case with Foxbridestar as the master. Either way, please refer to this conversation.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:17, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Deletion of a page per G5

Hi Bbb23, I'm a (relatively new) WP:AfC reviewer, and I watchlisted a page I accepted yesterday, 1863 in Germany, which was recently deleted by CSD G5 in accordance with its respective sockpuppet investigation. I've noticed that other similar pages, such as 1860 in Germany, have been kept, presumably because it was created by a different user (one who is not a sockpuppet). As a completely uninvolved third party, I wouldn't say that I'm writing here to request the page be undeleted, but rather, inquire if there was something wrong with the page in general that led to its deletion beyond simply being created by a now-banned user? I'm rather careful in the pages I accept through AfC so far, and so given that a page I accepted has been deleted, I was wondering if I had done anything wrong in choosing to accept it. Thank you very much for your time! --HunterM267 ^talk 01:51, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

You did nothing wrong.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:20, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Closing AFD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emerald Buddha 46 BC

You have deleted the relevant page. Are you going to close the AFD or should I? --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 18:09, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

You or anyone else can.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:10, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Closed. Can you check if you're satisified with the reasoning. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 18:13, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Oh and you forgot to leave a blocked notice on the puppet's talk page. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 18:15, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Closure looks fine. I didn't forget to leave a block notice. The notice is unnecessary and I intentionally didn't place one.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:21, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

OK cool. I'm going to unwatch this page now. So please ping me if you need to reply to me. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 18:34, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

@Tyw7: Bbb23 explained that he purposefully did not include the block notice, so this is unnecessary (though I note it was done before Bbb23's clarification above).--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:55, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Yeah it was added before. Remove it if you want. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 18:57, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

I removed it, but you should have done so after my comments.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:58, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Adding a National Team parameter to Infoboxes of athletes

Hello Bbb23, I have a question which goes back to this. Because adding nationality parameters to athletes (in this case swimmers) is considered disruption because the article might already have information about the athlete's birthplace, is it also considered invalid if I add national team parameters to infoboxes for athletes even if the article contains information about their birthplace already? Thanks. – Yanjipy (talk) 19:25, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm not trying to dodge your question, but there are various conventions when editing sports articles, and I'm not familiar with most of them. Try asking your mentor.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:20, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Questions

Since you know exactly what is appropriate and what is not, I have two questions:

1. Can I safely add a photo (this one) to the article throttle despite being tbanned from 'automobile'?
2. I had convinced Alex Shih that 'air-blast injection' is not related to automobile (as seen somewhere deep inside his talk page archive) so I have actually written that article, however, I want to ensure that it doesn't violate any policies/bans, so, hereby I am asking you to read it and 'check' it; reading the article takes around 7 min. Can I send it to you via e-mail? Post Scriptum: Alex is out of town and cannot reply apparently (which is why I am asking you; I have no idea whom else I would ask).

Best regards, --Johannes Maximilian (talk) 22:12, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

It's news to me that I "know exactly what is appropriate and what is not", but, nonetheless, although Alex Shih may be on holiday, he's still responding occasionally to posts to his Talk page. In any event, I don't see what is so tough about your topic ban that you have to have it constantly re-interpreted for you.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:40, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

The problem is that I have been blocked for telling another editor to refrain from adding original research to automobile articles, apparently, it was a topic ban evasion. Who guarantees me that I won't get blocked for adding a photo to the article throttle? Someone could easily make up some arguments for a block again, but another block will be indefinite. --Johannes Maximilian (talk) 23:22, 10 August 2018 (UTC) Post Scriptum: If you don't want to help me, just say no and I will ask someone else (despite not knowing whom I would ask yet); I seriously don't want to annoy you with this. --Johannes Maximilian (talk) 23:31, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Ask someone else if you wish.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:34, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

I have asked Leyo. Thank you for your patience though. Have a nice evening, --Johannes Maximilian (talk) 00:55, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Questions on SPI

Huh, while I may understand the rationale for this, I do not understand why the tag is removed entirely. The user was confirmed as per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Branflakes452701/Archive#29_July_2018, so a tag would have ensued as per WP:SOCKTAG (Unless otherwise directed to, the sock puppet needs to be tagged, if it has not already been done). It was not done, so I assumed that it had been forgotten (as it had not been otherwise directed to). If I need to notice/ask an administrator as a technical requisite for the task to be done, I would gladly do it (though at the time it seemed a bit slow for something that could be done with one click, so I was bold and did it myself since it meet the required criteria). Nonetheless, I don't see the point in removing it altogether and leaving it in blank (note that, as a result of your notice, I have proceeded to revert my own edit at this account, which had been simultaneously detected as a sock). Nonetheless, shouldn't a tagging be needed? Specially when this person is clearly becoming more prolific on sockpuppetry as time goes on, since both accounts are confirmed.

I also fail to understand this either. I requested it precisely because I was pointed towards such a possibility by the admin who closed the preceding SPI. Seeing how another (and then unnoticed) sock account was detected thanks to a CU as well as the increasing amount of sock accounts by this person, a CU seemed appropiate, though I will not request for it in possible future sock encounters as per pointed out here.

Thank you in advance. Impru20^talk 19:16, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

If you think a tag was inadvertently not placed, then contact the blocking admin but don't tag it yourself. Tags are discretionary. Asking for a CU because other accounts were found in the past is a valid reason for making a CU request, but that's not what you said.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:39, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Ok, I will keep this amount of advice for future situations. I will try to contact blocking admins in this SPI for those cases where accounts were confirmed but not tagged, as the amount of detected socks and the continued persistency could eventually turn this into a LTA-worthy case. Impru20^talk 22:11, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

SchroCat

Its been over a week now and the block remains in place. Its not likely that the indeff will be infinite, so can we please take a position. Indeff'ing a long term contributor carries a burden, to that person's friends, and to the community in general, and thus far I'm not getting that. Clarity is needed, and for the record I agree with everything RexxS said above. Right now it seems like we live in a "here but for the grace of X go I" nonsense universe. Ceoil (talk) 23:17, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Template:Infobox MLS franchise

Hi Bbb, was the deletion of this infobox intentional? It appears to be used on 25 different pages. Home Lander (talk) 23:55, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

It was created by a sock. Was it a good idea in the first instance? If so, I'll restore it.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:57, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure because I can't see it, but it is causing redlinks to appear at the tops of pages - see Sporting Kansas City for example. I suppose I could just unlink the template from everywhere. Home Lander (talk) 23:59, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

I took your example, restored the template and compared the infobox to with the template and before the template, and I believe it's the same except with the template had a few more fields filled in, like MLS Cups and a couple of others. I don't think it's doing any harm and perhaps some good (I know absolutely nothing about American soccer), so I'll leave it restored. Thanks for bringing all this to my attention. Socks shouldn't be allowed to create templates as it's sometimes dicey to G5 them. Is there a bot that removes those redlinks I wonder?--Bbb23 (talk) 00:06, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't have a clue about soccer either; I just happened to see the deletion in recent changes and thought it looked like a possible misclick, so I ran the tool to see where it was transcluded. I agree that it doesn't seem to be doing any harm. Home Lander (talk) 00:12, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Speaking of bots, where is a list of active bots? The one I found is historic and not maintained. Home Lander (talk) 00:14, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Special:ListUsers/bot, I think.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:19, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Yep, that sure lists bots - but even inactive ones. I'm going to ask at the village pump to see if a list exists somewhere showing all active bots only. Home Lander (talk) 00:24, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Bottom line: If a bot hasn't botted in over a year, a cratbot should debot it.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:26, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

No kidding. Home Lander (talk) 00:28, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Sockpuppet by User:Vnonymous

I had found a user suspect that is User:Vnonymous's sockpuppet (You van see this link). This user's behavior is very similar to the previous one. And that user had use his sockpuppet to review his GA at George Town, Penang and Penang page, can you review it and block that account to prevent more vandal to Wikipedia, Thank You. angys (Talk Talk) 13:34, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Blocked. Thanks much.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:53, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

These [16] and [17] where that user uses his sockpuppet to reveiw, can you cancel this？ angys (Talk Talk) 14:12, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

You'll have to bring that up somewhere else.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:15, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Again, I found an user's behaviour which is like the sockpuppet before and trying to clutter the discussion. angys (Talk Talk) 09:21, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Plus, that user use IP to revert my edit at this, this and this, may require protection. angys (Talk Talk) 10:09, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

About the checkuser you done against Vnonymous

I am suspecting he is using IPs to avoid blocks. May you please check or reopen to see if there are anymore sockpuppets?--1233^Talk 14:49, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

If you wish to allege that IPs are socking, then you should reopen the SPI.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:55, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Possible sock

Hi Bbb, could you have a look at User:Epsomathlete, who has recreated an article that was self-created by User:Oscar248, and whose most recent sock User:Parkrun1999 you discovered about 3 weeks ago? Thanks, all a bit too complicated for me! Melcous (talk) 21:33, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I am not Alex Gurteen but do run with him at my local athletics club. He expressed his disappointment at the page deletion, so I thought I would recreate it. He seems like a good enough athlete to get a page. Sorry if I have misinterpreted Wikipedia policy Epsomathlete (talk) 21:40, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Self admitted meat [18] "He [blocked subject] even wrote down info for me to put in the article." Meters (talk) 22:09, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Meat, what does that mean? Even though he (friendly) was badgering me to make the article, I thought it was a good idea and added the stuff he said as I though it would make the page more accurate. Epsomathlete (talk) 22:16, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Ok, I now that I know what meatpuppetry is, I would point out I am not recuited and he only encouraged me about the article after I offered to create it. I don't see what leaving out relevant info he gave me would achieve. However, I get he should't still be trying to edit if he is blocked. Epsomathlete (talk) 22:33, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked. Thanks folks.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:20, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Bbb - for this and for all you do around here. Cheers Melcous (talk) 03:06, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

SPI

Does the evidence need to be on wiki for a case of SPI to be considered? There is a lot of paid editing and accounts behind these two accounts. There is clear evidence off Wiki with the name of Vention.io mentioned along with a job and a contract to create it. Bradgd (talk) 17:41, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Presenting evidence of paid editing is not the same as presenting evidence of socking. Some paid editors use socks, but many do not. You also should be careful not to run afoul of WP:OUTING.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:46, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

There is evidence of paid editing linked here. There is also a case of SPAs thrown away after the job ends. If I sockpuppet investigation is the wrong place, what should be done to address this? I'm pretty confident that investigation will lead to a lot of paid gigs. Bradgd (talk) 23:23, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

SchroCat

Hi, got an email from SchroCat saying although he's been unblocked he can't edit because of an autoblock on UtterBuffoon. Can I lift it? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:00, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Euryalus? None of this should be directed to me.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:05, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

UtterBuffoon isn't unblocked. The appeal upheld the validity of all the blocks but unblocked one account (SchroCat) with specific conditions agreed between the committee and the editor. If there's an autoblock presently preventing the SchroCat account from editing then feel free to lift it, but please don't unblock the other accounts. -- Euryalus (talk) 14:17, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Addendum, now this has been appealed please feel free to send queries to me as a random representative of Arbcom. -- Euryalus (talk) 14:19, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

New Sockpuppet of Banned Sockpuppeteer

Hello, User:TheBellaTwins1445 was banned due to constant abuse across multiple accounts. He has registered a new sock puppet account and is continuing his abusive edits under User:LuisElioth2002. The User page is the exact same as it was when he was using TheBellaTwins1445. He's removing a good amount of content as he was before. 2603:9000:A60F:D800:58E6:50C3:39C7:8559 (talk) 14:29, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Blocked, thanks very much.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:49, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Sockpuppet CU result - "A mix between possible and likely" - what does it mean?

Hello, I read that you used this phase in the Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tarim116/Archive investigation for an account, could you explain what is the meaning of it? C933103 (talk) 13:31, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

What is your interest?--Bbb23 (talk) 14:07, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

One of those involved user have edited some articles that I have become interested in. When I want to look deeper into edit history I discovered this case, where the wording used here seems to be uncertain. And then I recall a few months ago I heard about rumors of how IP assignment by Chinese ISP could have lead to wrong result despite what appears to be connected from CU results, (with most topics edited by those users are related to a region in China so I guess it might be relevant), I would like to know how much "possibly" or how much "likely" was the result for the decision to be made, in order to avoid possible mistreatment that would reduce the number of contributor to wikipedia in relevant topics.C933103 (talk) 16:11, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Policy-wise, I'm afraid I'm unable to tell you what you want to know. The technical finding means exactly what it says. I will caution you, though, not to make assumptions about the underlying technical evidence. Finally, the account was blocked based on technical and behavioral evidence.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:21, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

I see, thanksC933103 (talk) 17:23, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Sorry for the pings!

If they are annoying I won't do them going forward. Springee (talk) 17:20, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:20, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

ModerateMike729

Hey there, saw your closure with Molarcons being a sock of a different editor; I would like to note that they claimed to have been ModerateMike729 in edit summaries a couple of times "You already got me blocked yesterday, etc." Now they could be lying for... reasons... but is it possible that ModerateMike is also a sock of the sockmaster you referenced in closing?Simonm223 (talk) 14:07, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

No to all. Architect 134 is a notorious joe-jobber/impersonator. He comes in, attaches himself to another editor, and makes it look like he's that person.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:10, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Well that's not very friendly at all, is it. Thank you for the explanation. Simonm223 (talk) 14:12, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

LOL. I don't think the sock's goal in life is to be friendly.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:16, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Gotcha.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:02, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Is it ever? GAB^gab 16:56, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Nigrrrantha

Another quacking sock of Atmnn / Veganvegan you blocked a while ago. Cheers. — kashmīrī ^TALK 20:15, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Blocked plus one other. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:26, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Sock?

Is the edit summary in the creation of Brentongomes' userpage an admission of sockpuppetry? Looks like it to me... --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 21:49, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Maybe. It's hard to tell because it's obviously written by a kid in very poor mangled social media English. It wouldn't hurt to keep an eye on him if you wish, but I don't know who it is. Thus far, he hasn't really done anything.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:36, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Sock of a blocked user

Hi Bbb23, I've recently noticed the user Javiero Fernandez edit warring with several users quite soon after registering to Wikipedia. They've now moved on to music articles and "controversial" topics like slavery, black people, etc. Quite honestly this is an area that's rife with socks because editors get so riled up and all believe they're right. I was thinking they could be a sock of the user "Sleeping is fun" but as a sockpuppet investigation was never launched for this user, connecting them seems unlikely. Can you maybe run a CU on them to see if anything shows up? Thanks. Ss112 06:29, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Tarook97 (talk · contribs · count).--Bbb23 (talk) 15:52, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Can yo help

I’m asking you to help me with something. Which is user Latinpac1 has sent me emails threatening to ban me for reverting edits that aren’t contrasted and vandalism. He sent me two and a discussion is currently in place. What you want me to upload them or send them to Wikipedia. Thanks and regards A.R.M. 16:03, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

I've disabled the user's e-mail.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:12, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you A.R.M. 18:54, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

SPI

Notes' multiple use of signatures is similar to the posting by ChiChi at the Tea House,[19] making it appear both accounts have the same editor. I doubt that an editor of Chip.berlet's experience would have written them. I note that Chip.berlet is founder of the Political Research Associates and the suspected sockpuppetry took place on an article about Kapya Kaoma, who is a senior researcher at PRA.[20] Since the PRA has over thirty directors, researchers, associates, etc., named on their website, it could be that the IP address is shared among multiple users, all of whom would find the article of interest. I doubt that Chip.berlet would intentionally use multiple accounts or persuade colleagues to open accounts. I would give him the benefit of the doubt. And while he probably should have declared a COI, he has always been open about his actual identity. TFD (talk) 22:47, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

I'll wait for Chip's response to my comments, but thank for your input.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:48, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. TFD (talk) 00:31, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

SPI - Nyc media research

Hi Bbb23. Thanks for your work at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nyc media research. I have noticed a new account, Portales Do Or Die, adding similar content at Brownside, which is an article that SoCalKing was editing before the block. Is this new account another sock? Thanks. — sparklism ^hey! 05:46, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, now blocked. I reverted their last edit; if it was a helpful edit, feel free to restore it. Thanks for bringing this to my attention.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:55, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Sock

Hi Bbb23, I've recently noticed the user R&B…in the future is a block evasion by MariaJaydHicky. Can you maybe run a CU on them to see if anything shows up? Thanks. 183.171.120.213 (talk) 13:54, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Sure. Blocked and thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:23, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Checkuser rerun

Hi Bbb23, I'm not that familiar with how checkuser works, but is it possible to rerun whatever search you performed here to identify the fourth, unused, account, to see if there are new ones? There's another account I'm suspicious of, but with only one edit so far I couldn't reasonably open an investigation. I thought perhaps requesting a generic rerun of that search might be appropriate. If not, I'll just watch the account and raise an actual SPI if I think the behavioural evidence warrants it. › Mortee _talk 00:25, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

What's the new account?--Bbb23 (talk) 00:35, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Mightfo. › Mortee _talk 00:36, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't link because I thought doing so pinged the user, and I wanted to avoid that since it's really just an instinct, hence not reopening the SPI. (Tried to add a null edit to say so, but it seemed not to stick). Perhaps {{u}} does that but a direct link doesn't? That'd be good to know. › Mortee _talk 00:43, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

No worries. You could always cheat. Link the user in your post without signing it. Then sign it in a second edit. No ping.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:46, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Ha! I'll try to only mention people when I'm confident enough to ping them, but that's a great tip. Thank you. › Mortee _talk 00:49, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

(talk page gnome) @Mortee: and in case it could be useful there is {{noping}} ({{lu}} also doesn't ping). —PaleoNeonate – 01:21, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Good point. I did know that one, just didn't think to use it this time. I'll err on the side of more links rather than fewer in future. › Mortee _talk 01:24, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

I take this back, in any case. I was being paranoid because of a coincidence and some unrelated IP edits elsewhere. Sorry to have bothered you unnecessarily. A few edits later I don't think this is at all related. › Mortee _talk 14:53, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Input needed

Can you take a look and comment here? (Background) Abecedare (talk) 15:27, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Possible shock

Hi Bbb23, i want to let you know that User:Editor General of Wiki is possible shock to User:Mar11, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mar11/Archive. Explanation: point 1: User:Mar11 always edited article Ayman Sadiq, see in the history, he didn't add anything new but he always removed facts from the article. that mean he may have any personal negative relation with the topic. well, this is not a prof that i can show you but the master tagged with shock in 6 June and User:Editor General of Wiki has been created in 8 June, and later on User:Editor General of Wiki nominated the article for deletion. *Point 2: User:Mar11 and User:Editor General of Wiki's talk page styles are same. lol, i don't know how to make an SPI case and i'm not sure either if they are related or not but i just informing you to take time and see if they are related. Thanks.--119.30.32.130 (talk) 19:50, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Megan's Law website as reliable source - where to discuss?

I am aghast at the idea that we should discuss whether a particular list of sex offenders meets BLP/RS standards at the talk page of a BLP of a person listed. If it's not a reliable source, the person should not be associated with the list in any form. The general question can and should be resolved on a general notice board, and the discussion you closed recently seemed to be in a suitable location. There may be a better one, but certainly a BLP talk page is a bad, bad choice. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 00:42, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Natly 88

Hi B, is it worth doing any CU stuff on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Natly 88? It's been going on for years, there have been multiple accounts open at once, but I'm not sure if anything could be traced back to the original guy. Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:36, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

I suspected a check of this account would be of little value. I ran a quick check a moment ago (just for you), and I was right. Frankly, I think you do a better job of identifying these socks than CUs do.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:36, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Any idea..

who this could possibly be? I have been racking my brain and can't make any connections but within the first 24 hours here they NAC'd 2 AFDs and now a third in less than a week. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 13:26, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

I have a vague memory of someone inexperienced doing NACs of AfDs, but I can't remember the user's name.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:21, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

@Chrissymad and Bbb23: Sorry to butt in but I do remember one editor who has done this in the past. Josh.172 (talk · contribs). I had a run in with one of their socks VitalPower (talk · contribs) who had done a premature close of AFD here and had other weird behavior at AFD's. However, I have not examined this editor in any depth and cannot say if they are the same person or not. Adamgerber80 (talk) 20:33, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts, but the new user is not Josh.172.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:45, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

AN/I

I just wanted to let you know, that was an edit conflict, not a post-close parting shot. Agricolae (talk) 22:46, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

It occurred to me, but it wasn't a particularly constructive comment, so I undid it.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:48, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

No, I agree with you there, I was just tired of being talked down to. Agricolae (talk) 23:01, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Hello

Hi Bbb23. Hope you're doing well.

I noticed you appropriately blocked Aldous Hooplah (and Andrevan) for socking after running a checkuser. I had a query with respect to the same. At the outset, this query is just for my future inputs and should not be taken in any way whatsoever as a question on your action (there is none, please). (Pinging Tony who commented on Andrevan's talk page). Please also absolutely ignore this question if it looks stupid (I already feel it looks as such).

Now the query: I noticed that the blocks were in relation to or in consequence of the socks editing at Alexandria_Ocasio-Cortez, an article which you have edited in the past (not major changes, but yes, edited). Procedurally, is it alright for administrators to undertake checkuser and blocking actions in such cases? Or would this be a common sense move (any other administrator/checkuser would have reached the same conclusion as yours)? As I said, this is purely to understand the trivialities involved in such cases.

Most warmly, Lourdes 09:50, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Accopulocrat

User:Leavemydaughteralone and 2001:558:600A:45:81EC:7995:93DF:CAE1 editing on California Genocide and other genocide pages are clearly socks of User:Accopulocrat and User:Underwritten. 202.51.93.50 (talk) 06:58, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

RabidMelon

Hi, I see you made a change re: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/RabidMelon/Archive, but I can't totally tell what the change was. I believe an old editor is starting with biased, unsubstantiated edits, again. Not sure if the change you made closed the Sock review I asked for or just moved it somewhere. Can you let me know? ButtonwoodTree (talk) 14:21, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

I deleted the page you created. I don't know what you were thinking, but you clearly don't know how to file a proper report. You can try again, but this time follow the instructions at WP:SPI. Also, with your experience, you should know that when you post a new section to someone's Talk page, it goes at the bottom of the page, not the top.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:29, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Bbb23, thanks for your response. Please forgive my ignorance re: SPIs, et. al. Although I am a long-term editor, I am not much of a complainer and haven't often availed myself of Wiki's grievance procedures. Perhaps you'll consider my ignorance as an indication of the good faith intent I bring to Wiki and assume in others re: their edits, as opposed to an affront to your valuable time. Warmest regards.....ButtonwoodTree (talk) 14:40, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

No worries, I don't assume bad faith on your part. Just a bit surprised is all. And my time isn't all that valuable. --Bbb23 (talk) 15:03, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Boehm

Note, the close left the page like this, with {subst:Afd bottom}} at the bottom. All I did here, was add the missing left bracket. Jytdog (talk) 21:38, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Good thing, too, because it made me realize I'd done something else wrong when I closed it, so I had to reclose it - same way, just hopefully done properly. Shows you how often I close AfDs.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:41, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Although, honestly, I don't see how I could have left off the left brace because it wouldn't have looked the way it did. It would have shown the template as unexpanded. So, I'm not sure exactly what you thought you saw. When templates act properly, you can no longer see the template itself except in a comment.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:44, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Please look at it, here. Same diff as above. Do you not see this {subst:Afd bottom}} at the bottom, with one bracket on the left? When I added the bracket and saved it the bottom footer was auto-completed, as you can see in my diff above. Jytdog (talk) 21:46, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes. Maybe it's just my day for being a fuck-up.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:48, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

I have plenty of those. I "thanked" you for the close and deleting the page, and I thank you again! Jytdog (talk) 21:58, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

You're welcome. I have thank notifications turned off, btw.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:01, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

/me wonders if it's because of his "thank-spam" at SPI. —PaleoNeonate – 01:16, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Helping a disabled user

As you have so curtly dismissed my request for help and guidance, perhaps you will now deign to tell me what is the right venue for it? I was directed to that page from the help desk. I'm beginning to lose patience here because I don't think I'm getting any help at all.

I am trying to find out how this site can assist a disabled user who has a considerable amount of material, built up over many years, which would benefit the site if added. I see that you are an admin and I am considering the creation of a second account so can you tell me what I should do or where the right venue is? Thank you. Izzat Kutebar (talk) 00:01, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Hi Izzat Kutebar, thanks for your query. I would advise against creating a second account for this purpose: the wording of our policy forbids the creation of shared accounts, which is what it sounds like you're proposing. I'm sorry that you've been bounced around to several pages already, we can be a bit bureaucratic at times, but if you don't mind I'd like to move this one more time, to the idea lab, a page where more editors might be able to offer input as to how we can accommodate this disabled user without you being bothered by users being pedantic about policy. I'm sure we can find a way. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 00:10, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: I'll accept your advice. I considered the second account so as not to be taking credit for my friend's work. Shall I open this at the idea lab or are you doing it? Thanks. Izzat Kutebar (talk) 00:23, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Izzat Kutebar—My first suggestion would be WP:TEA. And I think you should pose the question yourself. I doubt if anyone else could pose the question for you. I also apologize to see you running around like this. But as you can understand it is an unusual problem. I wish you well with what you are trying to accomplish with this request. Bus stop (talk) 00:30, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I'm getting short of time now so I'll take it forward tomorrow. I'm not happy about all the, as you say, running around. What is the point of a help desk that doesn't help and what is the point of admins like the unresponsive owner of this page who dismiss a question out of hand without offering a way forward as the two of you have tried to do? Thank you to both Ivanvector and Bus stop. Izzat Kutebar (talk) 00:38, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Sock puppetry

Hi Bbb23 and @DMacks: Can you please have a check on User:RajEditor as I suspect it's a sock of Ivan Disouza ( check the SPI) --✝iѵɛɳ२२४०^{†ลℓк †๏ мэ} 17:43, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

DMacks, who is familiar with this case, can take whatever action they want. From my perspective, you'd have to file a report at the SPI.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:54, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

I blocked, reverted all edits, and also turned up User:Josephlilakar as another one (and blocked and likewise nuked all edits). It's a crosswiki case, and I also cleaned up several other sites, so they should also be globally locked. I don't think we have been rigorous as updating that SPI (instead RBI), given how obvious, repeated, and easily nuked it all is. DMacks (talk) 20:32, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Filed at SPI with slightly bit more detail. DMacks (talk) 05:14, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

An indulgence

IPwnedJzG (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) sole edit was doxxing, now suppressed. I hope this is not some regular editor but just a passing troll, however, givent hat outing is a Bad Thing is it permissible to use CU to verify? Guy (Help!) 19:16, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

It's already been done by another CU.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:38, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Guy (Help!) 05:17, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

French Sockpuppet

Hi,
Iam B-noa sysop from fr:wp. Last year, you are looking for an abusing multiple accounts with == Pittbook ==

Pittbook (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Populated account categories: confirmed · suspected

For archived investigations, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pittbook/Archive.

Please note that a case was originally opened under Archive 44 (talk · contribs) but has been moved to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pittbook. Future cases should be placed under Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pittbook.

. That French Sockpuppet was banned on french wikipedia and now it uses the doxxing to create pseudonyms (Brassouilettepetitc (talk · contribs) - Benoitbr (talk · contribs) - Brassouille (talk · contribs)) and specialized in harassment, like on my User talk the August 27.

I do not understand too much the function of the Sockpuppet investigations there, so I allow myself to file my request here (sorry). Usually, it use proxy or VPN (usually 185.232, 185.189). If you can make something, it would be nice. Thanks. --B-noa (talk) 16:32, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

@B-noa: Hello again. It's been a while. Two of the three accounts you mention are  Confirmed. Benoitbr, which makes me think of La Boheme, is  Possilikely (a mix between possible and likely). I've blocked all three. I also deleted the post to your Talk page. Only admins can therefore see it. If you would like it suppressed so only oversighters can see it, I can request that. These three accounts, just as the previous ones from a year ago, use nothing but proxies. That makes checking harder but obviously not impossible.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:58, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Hello ! Thanks for your action. We encounter the same difficulties, but the habits remain. Thats OK for me. If you can keep an eye on my personal page, it will be perfect. --B-noa (talk) 18:02, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Me

Unleashes a Princess Stomp™ of such proportions that it rips a hole through the time-space continuum.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:28, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Input welcome

For my concerns here. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 20:42, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Where is the right place?

You reverted my edit to the clerk's noticeboard because that is apparently not the place to put up that kind of notification. So, what is a place where I can get the attention of the SPI clerks to tell them about the templates? funplussmart (talk) 23:47, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Probably WT:SPI. I'd fix the grammar first, though.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:58, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Ok thank you. Do you mean fix the grammar in the thread or the templates themselves? funplussmart (talk) 03:55, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

The text inside the userbox: "This user is an Sockpuppet Investigation clerk on the English Wikipedia." Should be "This user is a Sockpuppet Investigation clerk on the English Wikipedia." Also, I remember somewhere else you mentioned the icon. What is it supposed to depict? I assume the W is for Wikipedia? And the squiggle next to is maybe a duck?--Bbb23 (talk) 13:09, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Typo fixed. funplussmart (talk) 16:50, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2018).

Administrator changes

None

Asterion • Crisco 1492 • KF • Kudpung • Liz • Randykitty • Spartaz

Optimist on the run → Voice of Clam

Interface administrator changes

Amorymeltzer • Mr. Stradivarius • MusikAnimal • MSGJ • TheDJ • Xaosflux

Guideline and policy news

• Following a "stop-gap" discussion, six users have temporarily been made interface administrators while discussion is ongoing for a more permanent process for assigning the permission. Interface administrators are now the only editors allowed to edit sitewide CSS and JavaScript pages, as well as CSS/JS pages in another user's userspace. Previously, all administrators had this ability. The right can be granted and revoked by bureaucrats.

Technical news

• Because of a data centre test you will be able to read but not edit the wikis for up to an hour on 12 September and 10 October. This will start at 14:00 (UTC). You might lose edits if you try to save during this time. The time when you can't edit might be shorter than an hour.
• Some abuse filter variables have changed. They are now easier to understand for non-experts. The old variables will still work but filter editors are encouraged to replace them with the new ones. You can find the list of changed variables on mediawiki.org. They have a note which says Deprecated. Use ... instead. An example is article_text which is now page_title.
• Abuse filters can now use how old a page is. The variable is page_age.

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee has resolved to perform a round of Checkuser and Oversight appointments. The usernames of all applicants will be shared with the Functionaries team, and they will be requested to assist in the vetting process. The deadline to submit an application is 23:59 UTC, 12 September, and the candidates that move forward will be published on-wiki for community comments on 18 September.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:23, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Monarawila

Hi Bbb23. While looking at an IFD, I noticed File:London Buddhist Vihara UK.JPG (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). This file was uploaded by Masako Kawasaki (talk · contribs) and claimed to be his own work. Later, Photos by Anuradha (talk · contribs), which is a self-declared alternative account of අනුරාධ (talk · contribs), edited the file to say that අනුරාධ was the author. අනුරාධ is blocked as a sock of Monarawila and so presumably Masako Kawasaki (talk · contribs) and අනුරාධ (talk · contribs) should be as well. I'm assuming these accounts are too stale to use them to find more socks, but just wanted to let you know in case there is action you would like to take. --B (talk) 17:17, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

@B: I generally don't care about accounts that haven't edited in years.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:49, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Deleted Page- Similar and relevant to others in the industry

We created a page, Maverick Pro Wrestling, as it is relevant to other, similar pages in the sports entertainment industry. The organization is referenced on many other Wikipedia pages and contains a history of the business, performers list, and venues. We plan to add additional information. Can I please get some feedback as to what qualifications were not met and how to improve? This organization is notable and page information is historically accurate. Other pages for performers and promotions in the same genre of entertainment are allowed, such as: Independent wrestling promotions in the United States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_professional_wrestling_promotions. Can I at least have it returned to my sandbox for future edits? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Da beerguy (talk • contribs) 16:44, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Who's we?--Bbb23 (talk) 16:54, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, "I" created the page. I manage an insurance business and we always use "We" in emails instead of "I". Force of habit.

Removed? Why?

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/216.56.0.0&curid=58408583&diff=858169418&oldid=858166825 The anon is using multiple IPV6 addresses. Aren't all of the addresses needed for an range block? Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:04, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, but the range shouldn't be named as the "master". You made quite a large mess of both cases you opened. I deleted only the worse of the two. I was tempted to delete both, but I'll let a clerk handle the other.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:09, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

How did I make a mess of either? Being vague is not going to pass here. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:36, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) You made a mess by opening two separate duplicate reports. Twinkle does allow you to list more than one sock in its SPI dialog, you should make use of it. Making two reports like this with the same evidence is just, well, sloppy. Even so you could have condensed/combined them, Bbb23 just kind of did it for you. And also, it's not necessary to list every address (especially not as separate reports!) with IPv6 when the first four (hextets? bits separated by colons) are the same, we make assumptions anyway. And lastly, your aggressive posturing is unwelcome and unhelpful. I'll take a look at your report. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:44, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

I see. You're wrong. They were two separate addresses.

The one that is still there is 2600:1702:1690:E10:CD5E:9035:699C:7D5 while the one that was removed is 2600:1702:1690:E10:75B8:C380:B2C1:980E. I'll restore based on an honest mistake. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:03, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Walter Görlitz, as Ivanvector said, they're basically the same address, because both start with "2600:1702:1690:E10:" - in IPv6 people are assigned a range of IPs starting with the same 4 hextets, which function as one address. One person (/router) is given a variable IP starting with "2600:1702:1690:E10:" Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:09, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

I understand how IPV6 works, but how sock investigations work on V6 addresses is not familiar to me so it would be best if those who do know the later be a bit more communicative to avoid attacking others. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:11, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

No one attacked you. If you can't behave on my Talk page, don't post here.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:19, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Aprimo page change

Hi. I'm trying to remove the redirect for Aprimo to the Teradata page, as Teradata no longer owns Aprimo and Aprimo is its own company now. I'm trying to create a separate page for Aprimo and have requested the redirect be removed on the Teradata talk page, but am not having any luck. You have responded to these changes, can you help me facilitate this?BeckieSch (talk) 20:06, 5 September 2018 (UTC)BeckieSch

You're going about this all wrong, and you're going to end up being blocked for disruption and promotion. First, leave the redirect as is. Second, stop creating other redirects. Third, and most important, create a draft of Aprimo and use WP:AFC to submit it to experienced editors. If it's deemed suitable for an article at Wikipedia, the redirect may be addressed at that time.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:24, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Emanresu99

Regarding the above now closed SPI, it appears TaxPapa was never formally username changed from Wikitaxeditor, as that account is not blocked. It seems that the userpages just got redirected. Could you block Wikitaxeditor? Thanks. John from Idegon (talk) 23:19, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

What makes you think the account wasn't renamed? It looks renamed to me.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:47, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Shouldn't messages left as an auto function of using the AfC reviewing script automatically post on the new user talk page? John from Idegon (talk) 00:25, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

I have no clue what you're talking about. How about looking at this?--Bbb23 (talk) 00:30, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Ok....sorry to bug ya. Thanks for all you do at SPI. John from Idegon (talk) 00:37, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

SPI

Thanks for the feedback. I'll be sure to do that in future. --McDoobAU93 13:47, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Appreciate it.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:07, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Possibly jumping the gun...

...but No (talk · contribs) seems to be picking up right where Friendshipfan (talk · contribs), aka Bambifan101 (talk · contribs), left off. They don't have an extensive number of edits just yet. DonIago (talk) 02:34, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigations/JoeyPknowsalotaboutthat

Sorry for not getting this right. I'm not new to WP but new to reporting sockpuppets. I've tried again, hopefully more in line with procedure. At the end of the day, it is still only my suspicion though, I don't really know how a sock is conclusively proven. Lithopsian (talk) 10:02, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

You learn quickly. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:16, 7 September 2018 (UTC)