User talk:Bbb23/Archive 48

Archive 45

Archive 46

Archive 47

Archive 48

Archive 49

Archive 50

→

Archive 55

Unblock Request for Translation Class Students

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi, this is Yassie, who are mainly writing articles about American cities on Japanese Wikipedia.

It is regarding your blocking en:User:39age2 and multiple accounts for "sock puppetry". However, actually they are not sock pappets, but all college students, who are taking class instructed by professor, ja:User:さえぼー (Pronounces Sa-e-bou). They are learning translation from English to Japanese by doing that for Wikipedia articles. Their IP is that of their college. See also: https://15.wikipedia.org/people/kitamura-sae.html Yassie (talk) 02:03, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Since Yassie's comment is slightly confusing (but thank you very much, Yassie), I have to add that only User:さとみよ is my student among Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/39age2/Archive, and the problem was the university's IP was completely blocked. As for the other accounts, I do not know anything about them. My students are listed here. They could not edit Japanese Wikipedia at all because of IP blocking, but now we can edit Wikipedia. --saebou (talk) 08:04, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Hey, do you hear me?)

They are not sock puppets. They are just students who are taking translation class in their college. In other words, her class is prevented by your wrong block. Therefore I am requesting you to unblock them. Yassie (talk) 02:15, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It's late, and I want to go off-wiki. Nonetheless, I've unblocked all of the users who had made contributions to en.wiki. Many had not, and I have not unblocked them. If for some reason they also need to be unblocked, let me know here and I'll do it tomorrow. I did not take the time to remove the tags on the userpages. Feel free to do so yourself if you wish to. In the future, please have the participants put something on their userpages that indicates they are participating in an edit-a-thon. This sort of thing causes many people to waste a lot of time when it could easily have been avoided. Adding: don't ever take that tone with me. You're lucky I took the time to unblock.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:19, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Participants are listed in ja:利用者:さえぼー/2019年夏#参加者・翻訳記事一覧(2019年夏). I list their accounts as following:

• User:さえぼー (Instructor)
• はせこ
• ましふく
• User:さとみよ
• Lovellly
• 桃コ
• ミルクコロン
• だんちらひ
• あやふく
• すやん
• ナイト・オブ・たまねぎ　
• バルタン星人

Also, their IP needs unblocking. Yassie (talk) 02:41, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Yassie, I've taken care of unblocking the rest of them, as far as I can tell, and I'm working on removing the sock tags next. Please feel free to drop a note on my talk page if I've missed any. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:08, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

• May I ask you something, Bbb23? Do you really think all the beginner Wikipedians participating in non-English editathons should create their own userpages in English Wikipedia just to avoid being blocked, although they have no intention to edit English Wikipedia? My students did not edit English Wikipedia at all, my editathon class is held in Japanese, and they were listed in the project page in Japanese Wikipedia. If you seriously argue that, such an opinion is too English-centered and does not follow Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.

And would you clarify the criteria for blocking Japanese Wikipedia users? User:さとみよ never edited Wikipedia, and just created an account to prepare for the editathon class. And the user's IP, which is used by Musashi University, was completely blocked, and we were not even able to edit Japanese Wikipedia for a while. I would like to know why the whole university was blocked. --saebou (talk) 05:02, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

@さえぼー: I'm sorry but we aren't deities that know everything. User:Bbb23 is human and he didn't know there was an editathon since you didn't mention it anywhere. As the accounts have already been unblocked, please leave him/her alone and think to yourself that us editors aren't able to know everything, including your editathon. --BoothSift 05:57, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

@Boothsift: You said "you didn't mention it anywhere", but I have a project page and the list of participants in Japanese Wikipedia, and my class was featured in Wikipedia 15. I also presented an academic paper on this project in Canada in 2017. I have mentioned my project many times. I think you meant that the project was not mentioned in English Wikipedia, but no one in my class touched English Wikipedia at all. I am not sure why many of you think Japanese Wikipedia events should be notified in English Wikipedia. --saebou (talk) 07:42, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

@さえぼー: I think you should instruct your students either not to edit the English Wikipedia or to disclose on their user pages that they are participants of an editathon, pointing to the course page on the Japanese Wikipedia, before ever editing the English Wikipedia. Otherwise they would be editing articles about similar topics within a certain period of time from the same IP range, which is indistinguishable from sockpuppetry. If you need further help, consult Wikipedia:Student assignments and Wikipedia:Education noticeboard. Nardog (talk) 06:53, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

@Nardog: As I already mentioned, User:さとみよ never edited English Wikipedia at all. The user prepared an account for the editathon class, and was blocked without doing anything. I told my students not to edit English Wikipedia without my instruction. My project is strictly limited to Japanese Wikipedia. The whole university was IP-blocked although they did nothing in English Wikipedia. --saebou (talk) 07:11, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

I see. So there was a sockpuppetry from your university's IP, was there not? Either that or Untr0 etc. were also working on an assignment for another class at your university, which means the block was totally justified. If it was a class assignment they should have made a course page and disclosed the relation. As it is standard protocol to do a CheckUser to see if there are any sleeper accounts and as IP addresses are shared, this kind of collateral damage is bound to happen. So it was the right course of action for the admins to block the accounts and IP from your university, and it was the right course of action for you to request unblocking.

The only way the admins could have known さとみよ was a participant in your editathon before the block was to look at their global contributions or SUL stats and check their contributions on the Japanese Wikipedia, which is in a language they probably don't understand. So could they have known? Technically yes. But note that CUs receive dozens of SPI requests every day, and さとみよ was only one of the many accounts that were blocked as a result of that SPI. Your complaint should be directed at whoever edited the English Wikipedia using multiple accounts from your university, not the admins who had to swiftly deal with them. Nardog (talk) 08:48, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

@Nardog: You say that the administrators in English Wikipedia only focus on English Wikipedia. So, why were my students blocked from even editing Japanese Wikipedia? Because User:さとみよ was blocked, my students could not make sandboxes in Japanese Wikipedia because they were IP-blocked. User:さとみよ could not edit Japanese Wikipedia, either.

And what I am complaining about is Bbb23's comment: "In the future, please have the participants put something on their userpages that indicates they are participating in an edit-a-thon. This sort of thing causes many people to waste a lot of time when it could easily have been avoided". This comments is too English-centered, because we are doing an editathon in Japanese Wikipedia. --saebou (talk) 10:15, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

@さえぼー: I'm sure Bbb23 was misled by Yassie's misrepresentation of the situation, as was I. I'm sure Yassie meant well, but certainly didn't help the situation at all. He said all the blocked accounts were your students when in fact only one of them (さとみよ) was. I assume Bbb23 thought that, based on Yassie's comment, your students had edited the English Wikipedia as well, hence your quote—I'm having difficulties believing he was asking those who had no intention of editing here to put out a notice of their involvement in an edithathon on another wiki.

As far as I can tell, さとみよ wasn't blocked on the Japanese Wikipedia; their IP range was. I think you should be more careful about accusing others of linguistic centrism. I'm not an admin so I'm not privy to the ins and outs of IP blocking, but if someone were being disruptive on one wiki, wouldn't you want them to be blocked on other wikis too? If admins on the Japanese Wikipedia globally blocked an IP range for being disruptive there, would you call them Japanese-centered? Nardog (talk) 10:44, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Dark Horse (Katy Perry song)

Can you semi-protect the page persistent sockpuppet of Giubbotto non ortodosso as seen this diff. 2402:1980:8246:CBB5:C499:64FB:34E3:91E6 (talk) 15:52, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

The page does not warrant protection.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:07, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Speedy service

I was going back to fix that spacing issue only to find that you'd already done it! Where do I send the tip? TonyBallioni (talk) 13:00, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

P.O. Box Wiki666, Nowhere, JW. Cash only please.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:02, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Me: Hanging out outside Bbb23's post office, eagerly anticipating intercepting the cash.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:51, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

You shouldn't be here at all. You should be outside enjoying the beatiful day! (Tampering with the US mail is a federal offense and punishable by three hours at ANI.)--Bbb23 (talk) 00:05, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Your laws don't scare me. I'll abscond with the loot and I shall swim home to freedom! Bwah ha ha ha!-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 00:07, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

3rr

I'm not sure if there's a requirement to notify other involved parties for 3rr but this may be of interest to you. Praxidicae (talk) 17:49, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

that works too. Praxidicae (talk) 17:54, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Edits removed from various articles

Thank you for your message. I'm sorry you felt the additions were not constructive. I don't think that they were. I've already reinstated two, adding a source also to one. The other doesn't need a source as it was only grammar. CH-BUESI (talk) 14:55, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

This sockpuppet has been blocked; see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dopenguins. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:21, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

A heads-up

I am about to open a thread at WP:ANI#Problems with non-standard closures at SPI about some semi-closures of my SPI requests you have made. Geo Swan (talk) 19:33, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Bbb23: are you okay? That comment at ANI was completely off the wall and not what I am used to seeing from you. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:05, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Dhaka

Pls take a Look there! The sock puppets is back as restoring his edits. Need page protection too. Thanks-134.95.27.134 (talk) 11:24, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Blocked and tagged. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:47, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Ping

Hi, I pinged you on CheckUser wiki, just in case you don't monitor there. — regards, Revi 12:48, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

@-revi: I replied there.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:57, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

You've got an email

Hey Bbb23, I've sent you an email on 25th. Could you please check? ~ Nahid ^Talk 08:07, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

I received it. I don't reply to user e-mail. The user in question will have to address the problem in the normal way, i.e., requesting an unblock on their Talk page. If the user believes they have to disclose private information to make an unblock request, they can use WP:UTRS instead.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:31, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

I respect that and you could have just replied that what you have written above. That's called 'courtesy'.~ Nahid ^Talk 18:19, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Delete please

I've sorta messed up trying to fix a redirect. If you're active at the moment can you delete Marikana massacre-temp and Marikana massacre for me? NickCT (talk) 12:40, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm ultimately trying to move Marikana killings to Marikana massacre BTW. NickCT (talk) 12:41, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Looks like someone took care of it for you.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:27, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

@Bbb23: - Ok. Quick technical question; I'm trying to move Marikana killings to Marikana massacre (which is a redirect). I'm getting an error. You should be able to swap an article with its redirect, right? NickCT (talk) 00:45, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

@Writ Keeper: - Can you actually just delete the redirect so that I can move? - NickCT (talk) 00:46, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

I went ahead and did the thing. Sorry for the confusion! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 01:24, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

You rock mate. Thanks! NickCT (talk) 15:08, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Caxton FX

Hi there, I am trying to write a page for Caxton FX as part of my list of Foreign exchange companies such as Travelex and Amex, etc.... you deleted the last page I put up and I did not get the chance to amend it or try and work with you to make it stay published.

I am going to write another one. I have read and applied the guidelines but want to make sure we can work together to keep it up as I look to you for help and guidance as you are clearly far more experiencedJamesmaharrison (talk) 11:18, 2 May 2019 (UTC) at this than I

let me know your thoughts when it goes live

Jamesmaharrison (talk) 11:18, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Articles you deleted

You deleted several articles created by User:Enterlousy that I intend to recreate. The articles are Roanoke Island, North Carolina half dollar, United States two thousand-dollar bill, and Washington nickel. All three were brought up at WP:REFUND with no success. Would it be possible to get the source of these pages so I can recreate them? - ZLEA _T\^C 11:44, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Also, you might want to know that you missed an article, Cancelled denominations of United States currency. I've copied the content to my sandbox so I can re-create it. - ZLEA _T\^C 15:21, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

No, I didn't miss that one. It didn't meet G5 because it had been substantively edited. I'd like to know something, though. How are currency articles evaluated in terms of notability? It's not an area of the project I'm familiar with.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:46, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Depends on the currency/coin. Most United States commemorative coins (like the Roanoke Island, North Carolina half dollar) are eligible for their own articles as there are so many of them, their history cannot effectively be included in a list of commemorative coins (see Early United States commemorative coins and Modern United States commemorative coins). Most official denominations are eligible too, and some unofficial denominations, such as the United States two thousand-dollar bill, receive much attention by numismatists. Pattern (experimental) coins are notable only if they are well documented (like the Washington nickel), receive a lot of attention by numismatists (like the 1974 aluminum cent), or are considered their own denomination (such as the Ring cent, Stella (United States coin), and Half union).

These rules mainly apply to major currencies such as the United States dollar and Euro. For minor currencies, one main article and sometimes a few articles for coinage and banknotes are enough. - ZLEA _T\^C 17:14, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for all those details. Getting back to your original request, wouldn't it be easier for you if I just restored them as articles and then you can edit them as you please? I don't see why I should userfy them if you think they are notable. Agreed?--Bbb23 (talk) 17:57, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Agreed, thanks. - ZLEA _T\^C 19:13, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

 Done. I'll figure out how much currency you owe me and let you know. --Bbb23 (talk) 22:09, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Question about a revert at User talk:Rockallnight5

Hi Bbb23, when I listed a redirect at Wikipedia:RFD using twinkle, it apparently automagically add a message on the talk page of the editor who created the redirect (and who is now blocked). I have no problem with this talk page edit being reverted but I'm curious as to why is was necessary? When I use Twinkle in the future, do I need to track down automatic talk page edits and make sure that the editors are not blocked? Thanks for your help, Leschnei (talk) 19:30, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

@Leschnei: It doesn't make sense to notify an indefinitely blocked editor to participate in a discussion. No, you don't have to track down blocked editors. I'm sure many such notices get through and it's not the end of the world. Thanks for asking.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:38, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply. Leschnei (talk) 19:42, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

The author isn't blocked

Hi, Bbb23! Don't want to add to your workload, but I imagine that the suggestion here was that the author ought to be blocked – as the contribution histories seem also to suggest. I've no way of investigating that, but you do; so I wondered if you had already considered and rejected that possibility? Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:49, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Nope, just declined the G5 because it wasn't satisfied.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:22, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Do you think it worth taking a look? Or would it be better if I start a formal SPI? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 00:27, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

I really don't know anything about it, so I guess the answer is file a report at SPI.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:28, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Administrator account security (Correction to Arbcom 2019 special circular)

ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.

Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.

We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.

For the Arbitration Committee, -Cameron11598 21:03, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2019).

Administrator changes

HickoryOughtShirt?4 • RexxS

Necrothesp

Bratsche • Kyle Barbour • Kzollman • Madman

Interface administrator changes

Pharos

Bureaucrat changes

Primefac

CheckUser changes

Reaper Eternal

Guideline and policy news

• A request for comment concluded that creating pages in the portal namespace should be restricted to autoconfirmed users.
• Following a request for comment, the subject-specific notability guideline for pornographic actors and models (WP:PORNBIO) was removed; in its place, editors should consult WP:ENT and WP:GNG.

Technical news

• XTools Admin Stats, a tool to list admins by administrative actions, has been revamped to support more types of log entries such as AbuseFilter changes. Two additional tools have been integrated into it as well: Steward Stats and Patroller Stats.

Arbitration

• In response to the continuing compromise of administrator accounts, the Arbitration Committee passed a motion amending the procedures for return of permissions (diff). In such cases, the committee will review all available information to determine whether the administrator followed "appropriate personal security practices" before restoring permissions; administrators found failing to have adequately done so will not be resysopped automatically. All current administrators have been notified of this change.
• Following a formal ratification process, the arbitration policy has been amended (diff). Specifically, the two-thirds majority required to remove or suspend an arbitrator now excludes (1) the arbitrator facing suspension or removal, and (2) any inactive arbitrator who does not respond within 30 days to attempts to solicit their feedback on the resolution through all known methods of communication.

Miscellaneous

• A request for comment is currently open to amend the community sanctions procedure to exclude non XfD or CSD deletions.
• A proposal to remove pre-2009 indefinite IP blocks is currently open for discussion.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:37, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Shentino (talk) 01:11, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Needed...

...at User talk:Igor1383#Unblock request 2. Just a heads-up! --qedk (t 桜 c) 14:10, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

g5

now that they are locked, can you (or can someone else) please g5 Draft:Romulus Stoicescu? Praxidicae (talk) 16:46, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Bbb23. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 17:26, 6 May 2019 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

IanDBeacon (talk) 17:26, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

@IanDBeacon: I assume my block answers your question. In the future, feel free to give me a heads up here about any "alternative accounts" created. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:33, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

66.35.116.133

Is it possible to remove talk page access as well? --Guy Macon (talk) 20:44, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

I did that about three hours ago.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:49, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Brian Wong page

Hi. I gave a detailed reply to you on the Brian Wong talk page since all my edits were removed with potential negative allegations at least one of the other users. The relevant things are at the bottom. I narrowed the criteria down to whether or not Brian Wong should include the allegation whether or not he is a public figure and provided some evidence both qualitative and quantitative evidence. If he is considered to be a public figure then BLP: CRIME would not apply. Also, it would be great if you can clarify the definition of a public figure both qualitative and quantitative evidence needed beyond wikipedia public figure definition. In law, some of this qualification is based on quantitative evidence which people on both sides can agree on and if it meets an agreed upon threshold. Also replied as defense as a user on the talk page described it as possible vandalism. I spent a lot of time writing a response and would appreciate the talk. Thanks. the original IP 2001:569:7E43:7900:ECD7:A8E8:296E:351C (talk) 08:50, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

I can see you took a lot of time to write your comments at BLPN, but I can't promise anyone will read it because it's what we call WP:TLDR. If no one responds, perhaps you can go back and shorten it significantly (you can't revise it once it's been responded to).--Bbb23 (talk) 15:08, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the response. I went back and shortened it by about half as well as added more information in addition to organizing it via bold titles. If you have time please read the bottom starting with the bold headings. Part of the reply is relevant to what you said and I have made my case on the main points. If it is not enough, I can always provide more information. Whatever way this goes, this is significant because:

The second reason is that it allows Wikipedia to actually build a case law type definition of how to measure if someone is a public figure and this would act as precedent case law for future similar scenario disputes on the issue whether or not someone is a public figure. Think of it like justification and evidence in the insurance industry and can act as defense if someone tries to challenge it. If you deem that he is a public figure based on Wikipedia definition supplemented with my provided qualitative and quantitative information, then your mention of BLP:Crime would not apply as it does not apply to public figures which allow allegations to be included. The third reason is that I wanted to show I'm a reasonable person and can provide valid justification for why it is included vs. being falsely accused in a absence of a response that what people assume is true and spent a few hours putting together a response. 2001:569:7E43:7900:443E:87E7:5889:412A (talk) 07:56, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your reply to the Brian Wong page. I was away past few days so only was able to join in the discussion today. I added Brian Wong's public facebook page as source as evidence which has over 10k followers which he uses to promote his book and other activities which he personally controls and listed himself as a public figure. This is in response to user Collect challenging that blue check mark for instagram does not indicate public figure. If someone lists themselves as a public figure, does that help to indicate he is a public figure. Thank you. 2001:569:7E43:7900:1D50:E8D7:9B40:7034 (talk) 00:50, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Sock-puppet IP 109.255.33.206

@Bbb23: I saw you'd blocked this IP as a sockpuppet last month. It's linked to controversial user Britishfinance. Lots of examples of continuing the same work/articles, edits, times etc. as that account, but no point to show as its already been blocked. They sometimes use the sock puppet to talk to themselves (for others benefit presumably). Various other socks in use, such as the (31.187's etc.) IP's seem to belong to them too, popping up continuously through most of their editing when not logged in or main Articles. They used these Here and Here(talking to themselves again) to stop the AFD on their own leprechaun Economics talk page with 3 out 4 of the "Keep" votes. This is another example of two separate disputes (the top two) where they responded logged in first and then lots of use of their sock-puppets (31.187 etc.) in creating a fake consensus, typically after their logged in response. Same thing Here. They frequently pop up on talk pages of their articles, as an "outsider" to complement the value of the work to try and legitimise it. An example is the FYI comment at the bottom of the leprechaun economics talk page, but I've seen this type of thing on many of their articles talk pages, coming from their own IP's pretending to be outside observers making favorable comments and adding credibility. Anyway, just letting you know you definitely got it right this time. @Huon: You too. Looks like a good decision. Renmap0o talk 06:24, 07 May 2019 (UTC)

Mass deletion

Why did you mass delete pages added by Faromics? ARZ100 (talk) 01:23, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Checkuser request

Hi, could you glance at 24.34.85.169? You CU-blocked this IP back in October, at which time the person using it was editing on topics like bridges and rivers and highways in the southeastern United States. I've just blocked it again for general disruption, repeatedly marking a southeastern US river article as a hoax despite everything being backed up by solid sources. In January, the IP did a batch of editing on US highways, and in the last couple of weeks, the IP's edited a lot of US bridge articles, as well as the article that led me to block it. As the WHOIS geolocates to the far northeastern US, the focus on transportation elsewhere in the country in October and May is unusual, and I suspect it's the same person. Thus my request — could you see if there's behavior comparable to whatever prompted you to CU-block this address before. Nyttend (talk) 02:10, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

User:Bring back Daz Sampson

Hi Bbb23 (also pinging Ivanvector). You unblocked Bring back Daz Sampson back in May 2017 which I've got no problem with at all. Anyone can screw up, but they also can be given a second chance if the community deems they deserve it. In this post here, Bring back Daz Sampson even indicates that they will not repeat the behavior which led to their original block. So, I'm not sure why they thought this post at WT:FOOTY was necessary. Not only is it really close to if not WP:ASPERSION/WP:NPA, but none what was posted is even remotely true. The ping of me to get my attention seems like an attempt to get a rise out of me, perhaps in the hope that I will lose my cool and also as a way to rehash some previous disputes this editor had with me over the non-free use of certain files; files which were removed by an administrator (not me) per a consensus established at NFCR/FFD. I have no problem with anyone participating in the discussion and have no problem with a re-assessment of any previously held FFD discussion; none of that, however, seems to have been the point of their post. I didn't block this editor, I didn't make them create multiple socks to try and influence certain discussions or to use to make personal attacks against others. I've had no interaction made only one attempt at interacting with this editor (at least none that I'm aware of) since they were unblocked; prior to their WT:FOOTY post: a request for some clarification of the licensing of some files. There was nothing accusatory or uncivil about the request and it made no mention of any past issues they may have had with me or anyone else. I didn't even remember there had been any such issues between us at the time I made the request. A response, however, was never received and I didn't follow up even though I think the licensing issues still remain. Anyway, if they've been editing without incident since their unblock, then that's a great thing; their post, however, is completely out of place with the civil discussion that was taking place and does nothing to further that discussion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:29, 11 May 2019 (UTC); [Note: Post edited by me (Marchjuly) to correct error; there's was one prior attempt to interact with the other editor after they were blocked. -- 03:16, 12 May 2019 (UTC)]

IP

Sadly the IP that you blocked over at Wikipedia talk:Administrator intervention against vandalism, is at it again with the harrassment[1]. Using IP 51.7.229.160. He is currently edit warring with user Materialscientist.--BabbaQ (talk) 05:58, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Draft Rewrite for Hasley Minor

I’ve shared a draft rewrite of the Halsey Minor page at the bottom of Talk:Halsey Minor. I work under Halsey Minor at Live Planet and thus am asking for independent feedback per WP:COI. I noticed that you're involved with biographical pages about live people and was hoping you might have an interest in taking a look. Jasonliveplanet (talk) 20:27, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

@Jasonliveplanet: It's generally not a good idea to post these kinds of invitations on individual editor Talk pages. In this instance, given that so few editors "watch" the Halsey Minor article and therefore wouldn't be aware of your rewrite, I suggest you post something similar at WP:BLPN.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:12, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Bbb23. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 13:35, 15 May 2019 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

qedk (t 桜 c) 13:35, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

@QEDK: As you can see from the top of this page, I'm out of here, so I won't be able to respond to your e-mail. Take care.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:42, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Missed that, welp. No worries, enjoy your time away! --qedk (t 桜 c) 13:45, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Submit some information about socks

• This is the act of 117.19.146.113 & 1.42.202.247
• This is the act of FormosaKMT & 1.42.202.247
• This is the act of PrePublic & 1.42.202.247

We can suspect that this IP is used by User-4488. (The possibility is very high) We noticed these and then compared the other parts.

1.42.202.247 act in https://vi.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Xung_%C4%91%E1%BB%99t_Vi%E1%BB%87t%E2%80%93Trung_1979%E2%80%931991&action=history

This page has 1.43.153.248. I think 1.42.202.247 & 1.43.153.248 should be proxy IP. I think so because they have other connections.

In Sino-Vietnamese_conflicts,_1979 , they edit on this page. Please also pay attention to DemPon.

DemPon, this account has some interesting points. If we track his sandbox at zh.wikipedia.org,the editing content of DemPon, Widgetsz89 and Pipcai is exactly the same. These accounts are also used by User-4488.

If you don't believe we can watch the link below.

https://zh.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Widgetsz89/%E6%B2%99%E7%9B%92&oldid=52370262

https://zh.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Pipcai/%E6%B2%99%E7%9B%92&oldid=52332037

https://zh.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:DemPon/%E6%B2%99%E7%9B%92&oldid=53958154

From the above clues, we can find that he seems to be happy to fight with himself. One person plays multiple people. He seems to want to be an outstanding actor, but I don't think it is a place for performing stage plays.

I think he is having a good time at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sino-Vietnamese_conflicts,_1979%E2%80%931991&action=history and can argue or quarrel with himself.

I think he should have a good time too. I mean 67.188.179.66. If he didn't edit the page edited by 1.42.202.247, I think he can still hide for a long time.

Because he is a highly skilled actor, I should not catch all his socks. Based on his habit of quarreling or arguing with himself, I think Heathen100 is also suspicious because his habit is to fight with himself.

• Organize suspicious lists

Heathen100

67.188.179.66

1.42.202.247 & 1.43.153.248

DemPon

I am not very clear about whether his editor is harmful or beneficial, but I am sure that more than half of the people who have recently edited Incorporation of Tibet into the People's Republic of China are socks or new account.Maybe socks like that page especially?

--61.224.12.136 (talk) 15:27, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Checkuser re. SLBBenfis23

Moved to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/PutaCu45. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:21, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

PrinceofFrancia editing while logged out

Per this, this, and this, which is the exact same edit made by PrinceofFrancia. Not to mention the removal of references that disagree with his opinion. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:06, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Another IP used by PrinceofFrancia:183.90.36.2.2 --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:20, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Kansas Bear, Bbb23 is on vacation. I blocked the first IP for a week, but the second one is stale for blocking purposes. —DoRD (talk)​ 21:37, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

PredatorAssassin

Hello, you blocked PredatorAssassin (talk · contribs) indicating that it was a checkuser block. I am reviewing their block. What are your thoughts on extending {{2nd chance}} to this editor? --Chris (talk) 16:24, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Crazycomputers, Bbb is on vacation, so it may be a bit before he responds. —DoRD (talk)​ 21:37, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

@DoRD: I saw the header but figured I'd leave this here anyway. The blocked user can wait; the request is on hold. (Thanks for making sure I knew though.) --Chris (talk) 22:29, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/संदेश हिवाळे

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/संदेश हिवाळे. A message for you by User:Revi thanks QueerEcofeminist ^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 05:59, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

When you get back or if someone else is familiar with the sockdrawer

Or if another admin just wants to help out, as I edit the article:

• Sockmaster: Poofdragon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Another quacking SPA, clearly only here to follow same pattern of harassment against same BLP. Either way, I've warned them three times now for blanking sources and now posting personal attacks against the BLP in their edit summaries. They're WP:NOTHERE to do anything else: Devon1970 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). Thanks. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 18:29, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

@5 albert square:, as you blocked one of the accounts in this cluster, Nyaja Aibhlinn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), maybe you could lend a hand here? The target, m.o., and writing style, plus the WP:NOTHERE is the same as that account. The only difference is the new one isn't responding on talk. Which I think is in an effort to not have their voice recognized. If you want more details, email. Thanks. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 18:43, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't see any current non-stale accounts to check against, however I did block the account as WP:NOTHERE due to soapboxing, personal attacks and carrying on the same behaviour as previous socks.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:17, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Grozbean

I don't know who the original sockpuppet editor was. It definitely needs a COI and AUTOBIO tag, and probably doesn't meet notability, but I wasn't sure whether it was a criteria for speedy deletion. Bkissin (talk) 18:09, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Without more, there's no basis for a G5.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:19, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Sock

Since your block on Peaksprite a sock of Habar Awal [2], a new account Purlshade registered [3], this account like most habar awal socks, inserts term Somali [4] [5] 105.105.214.141 (talk) 06:32, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Anne Knish

May I ask why you reverted my edit? 2001:4898:80E8:B:FD63:912D:4B88:A3A6 (talk) 17:40, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Because you have no business removing comments from an administrative noticeboard.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:49, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

That is a rather harsh reply. I was removing it because it was from a blocked user and is very anti-semetic. Am I wrong? 2001:4898:80E8:B:FD63:912D:4B88:A3A6 (talk) 19:22, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Guess I'm not worth a reply. 2001:4898:80E8:B:FD63:912D:4B88:A3A6 (talk) 21:58, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

I closed the thread so it's over. I understand why you were removing the material. You put in a fairly clear edit summary, but your reasons for removing the material were insufficient and not entirely accurate. At the point that the user added the material, they were not yet blocked and they had a right to defend themselves, and there was no basis for removing what they said post-block. Also, it was unclear to many of us, me included, whether the stuff was anti-semitic. Personally, I found it rhetorically incoherent and inflammatory. I hope this expanded reply satisfies you, even if you don't agree with it.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:08, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Odd user page redirection

Hi B, what do you make of this: this brand new user redirected their user page to Mishae, an account that's been indeffed, then they redirected their user page to GaiaGirl86, an account that has no contributions at Wikipedia, deleted or otherwise. (How do you even find an account that has no contributions?) That GaiaGirl86 account also created another blank account, WillKomen in 2013, per this. I'm not sure I've seen this sort of weirdness before, so I figured I'd float it past you to see how/if you'd deal with it. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:06, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

I think Bbb23 is away for a bit. GaiaGirl86 and WillKomen appear to be legit accounts of User:Ocaasi, who was apparently using them in 2013 to experiment with TWA. The Ocaasi account explicit links to them here, for example. I'm guessing this new account is a returning troll of some kind, the only explanation I can think of for redirecting to Mishae's page then Ocaasi's legit sock page. No idea if it's actually Mishae; more likely IMHO someone else trying to muddy the waters. I've deleted the user page (confident this is not Ocaasi), put it on my watchlist, but just unsure enough about what's happening or who this is to not block. Bbb23, when he gets back, might look with his Xray goggles, and block if appropriate. If they cause trouble anywhere resulting in a talk page message, I'll see that and block. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:29, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Duh. Or of course you can too, CB. I've got a script that ID's admins, but it wasn't working for a minute, so I didn't pay attention to who I was replying to. That probably sounded a little patronizing. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:34, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Duh #2. And I just noticed Bbb23 edited twice today, so maybe he's back and I'm just stepping on toes left and right? Maybe I should just delete this and take a mulligan.... --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:36, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

I was hoping you'd get to Duh #3. :-) It's like taking a vacation from work and finding things piled up on your desk when you get back. I'm trying to catch up, but I also got distracted by some socking that required a significant amount of time to investigate. You didn't know that Cyphoidbomb was an admin? He's a stout fellow and a gentleman. Plus he knows a helluva lot about Indian socks. I'll look at this later as I'm still looking at things that happened while I was away (so many pings).--Bbb23 (talk) 17:09, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

It's not quite that I "didn't know" he was an admin; it's that I saw a post from a name part of my (rapidly deteriorating) brain recognized, but that didn't show up as an admin with my little reminder tool for some reason, and I just went with my subconscious "recognize name as one of good guys" and didn't think further. You wouldn't know anything about rapidly deteriorating brains, being young and coming back from vacation and all, but it happens to us world-weary old people who haven't had a break in a long time. Sorry @Cyphoidbomb:. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:33, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

You recently had a break and for significantly longer than mine. 'Course I don't know what you did during your break. Perhaps you didn't rest your deteriorating brain enough. I recommend fresh grilled salmon. That'll do it.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:37, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, unfortunately that wasn't a break in real life. Recommending fresh grilled salmon is never wrong, though. Anyway, welcome back. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:42, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Funny thing, unlike most people I know, I don't like salmon, but during the vacation I was in salmon country and had this piece (and afterwards a second) of salmon cooked over a fire with a little bit of olive oil and black pepper, and it was absolutely one of the best bits of fish I've ever tasted.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:58, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

If by "salmon country" you mean the Pacific Northwest, don't tell me, as you'll probably break my heart. If you mean Atlantic salmon, then meh. That's what I have to eat these days, so I won't be jealous. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:01, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm amused at how delightfully off-topic this discussion got, with salmon and such, but Floquenbeam, I don't get offended easily, and I didn't perceive any patronizing tone in your initial post. But thanks for being sensitive to that! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:36, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

• @Cyphoidbomb: Hellllllllllhklp (talk · contribs · count) is  Confirmed to Dr Samkiv Kumar (talk · contribs · count). @Ajraddatz: Can you please globally lock? Thanks to both of you.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:43, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

  Done. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 19:09, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Brian Wong BLP discussion archived without a result or response

Original IP here. Wondering if there would be a result on this or some polling to get a consensus. The discussion on the BLP and other issues was archived with no result and no response since my last reply. Not sure what the general stance on this issue is. Whether or not to include based on things presented on the constructive discussion and if so, how much to include. Or are people taking a wait and see approach to see the final result before adding anything? 2001:569:7E43:7900:91D2:CE89:AD96:A07B (talk) 23:22, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

User:Let There Be Sunshine

Wasn't he formally unblocked? Yet why was he blocked again? --Kailash29792 (talk) 06:21, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Looking at the unblock request, Yunshui granted it and one of the unblock conditions was that they kept to one account which was User:Let There Be Sunshine and if they wanted an alternative account, they needed to ask at WP:ANI. Looking at the SPI, they have been socking again, I've checked their edits for the last month and I cannot see that they raised a request at ANI for any legitimate alternative account. I'm not a CheckUser but I'd guess that as they have not kept to their one account agreement, they have been blocked.-- 5 albert square (talk) 12:03, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Looky

Hi B, any chance you could look into this?. It's clear socking by the reporting party, DivyaSharma3210S. He also acknowledges editing while logged out, which would be at 109.146.229.148. Looking at the rough geolocation, that looks like tons of other socks we've dealt with. I know you can't comment, buuuuuut... Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:28, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Looks like DoRD has taken care of this?--Bbb23 (talk) 17:04, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

PrinceofFrancia logging out to avoid block

Edits by 101.78.77.169, which geolocate back to Singapore, oddly mirror edits by PrinceofFrancia and other IPs from Singapore. I posted a concern earlier on your talk page and DoRD blocked one of the IPs.

On the Toluid Civil War, PrinceofFrancia(in IP form) has once again added their opinion to a referenced sentence.[6] There is nothing in the source that supports the bolded addition; "Berke supported Ariq Böke because he was resentful of Hulagu for the sacking of Baghdad and massacre of the whole population of the city and also had close ties with Kublai".(Rossabi, p54) --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:21, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Template:Deo Block

Hi, would you be able to restore Template:Deo Block? I remember double-checking it, so it should be fine. Thanks! – Uanfala (talk) 11:54, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Bbb23, would you mind restoring this? The template was also being discussed in the meantime at TfD, a discussion which had not yet closed at the time of deletion. – Uanfala (talk) 22:24, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

I've asked for a deletion review, please see Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2019_May_28. I really wish I didn't have to waste everybody's time with this... – Uanfala (talk) 15:52, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

creator of deleted article

Hey Bbb. Long time no see. I hope you are well.
Could you or any admin please tell me who had created Bole India Jai Bhim? Thanks a lot in advance. —usernamekiran(talk) 20:50, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Why do you ask?--Bbb23 (talk) 21:12, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Nothing much special, but this comment got me interested. And I sometimes like to go through SPI cases. —usernamekiran(talk) 22:34, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

• Hi. I sent you an email a few minutes ago from now. It is regarding beans on SPI casepages. —usernamekiran(talk) 05:13, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

  a gentle reminder of the email :) —usernamekiran(talk) 18:08, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

  You should present as much behavioral evidence as you can when filing at SPI. Don't worry about WP:BEANS.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:45, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

  Thanks Triple B. See you around. —usernamekiran(talk) 22:49, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Unblock

So I dunno if you're full back from vacation, but I unblocked this person you blocked and said to do whatever re: the unblock during your vacation.... Obviously feel free to re-block if desired; mainly just going through the unblock backlog :P --slakr^\ talk / 07:26, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

@Slakr: Unfortunately, I am "full back from vacation". Thanks for the heads up.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:56, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

You are the administrator of a Wikipedia page I did not give my permission to create

First, my information is seriously outdated. Second, I have my own webpage and academic sites that I use for people to access updated information about myself. Your Wikipedia page does me no service if it is to be so out of date. I politely ask that you delete it or update it thoroughly.

I will take action with Wikipedia if you do not do as I request. Thank you for your time.

Ryan Maness Rmaness1 (talk) 23:55, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

@Rmaness1: What kind of "action" will you take?--Bbb23 (talk) 23:59, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Will you just delete the page please? Honestly it’s rude and unprofessional to create Wikipedia pages about people who do not give their permission to do so. I haven’t worked at Northeastern for 2 years.

At the very least update it, but I’d rather you delete it. With your comment, I see you will probably not comply. I work for the DoD now and have adjudicators to represent me if I so choose. Let’s not go there please.

Thanks,

Ryan Maness Rmaness1 (talk) 00:09, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Rmaness1, I have proposed the page for deletion under Wikipedia policy since you want it gone, but that can be challenged by anyone. Hopefully it will be gone in a week, however.

At the same time, you need to withdraw your legal threat against Bbb23 with your next edit or I will block you for making legal threats. You do have the legal right to any remedies the law allows, but while such threats are outstanding, you are not welcome to edit Wikipedia. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:13, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

I don’t want to edit Wikipedia, nor do I want anything to do with it. I did not threaten you, so stop assuming I did.

As long as the page is gone, you’ll never hear from me again. You have done me a professional disservice by creating it and I do not appreciate it one bit.

So thank you for deleting the page, and have a great day Rmaness1 (talk) 00:19, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

I apologize for possibly poking the bear here however Maness is a fellow, which, if I'm reading WP:NPROF correctly, puts him over the notability guidelines (#3). I've disputed the PROD tag. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 02:18, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

@Dusti: Honestly, I don't care one way or the other, but I think you're wrong about #3. The associations mentioned in the article are not the kinds of prestigious associations given as examples in the notability guideline. If they were, most professors (he was only a visiting prof, too) would probably be notable.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:25, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

@Bbb23: Hmmm, you're right. I'm not familiar with the whole Fellow thing, so I didn't know there was a difference between someone who's a fellow and a visiting fellow. He does get 45,000 hits on Google and a pretty good number of citations on Google Scholar. *shrugs* It's a shame we'll have to wait a full week for an AFD discussion now if someone else wants to nominate it. In any sense, I left them a note on their talk page and wanted to give you a poke just in case I threw some petrol on the fire. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 02:32, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

A fellow can either be a relatively minor position or a relatively prestigious one. Odd place, academia. I sent it to AfD, but not on notability grounds, as I’d support deletion even if he was notable. Even if his angry threats above weren’t ideal, he’s a private person and we generally delete those when requested if they aren’t trying to white wash their article or something similar. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:36, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Bradv had come to my talk page and asked me if I would consider reverting after being educated on the differences between the fellows and I'd happily do so. I didn't really go through many of the links above as I, along with Bbb23, really don't care one way or the other... it was a well, it appears to meet this moment. AFD may be a better avenue, however, if me agreeing to revert the PROD removal helps, we can ditch the AFD if you want @TonyBallioni:. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 02:44, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Re Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Noormohammed_satya

Hello. Thank you for taking the time to review this. I appreciate that the checkuser did not show anything. However, I was a little surprised that the clear similarity of the two 'keep' votes on the AFD do not seem worthy of any comment. Or is that simply not enough evidence to be able to do anything? I quite understand if so. Hugsyrup (talk) 13:59, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

What accounts have you used before?--Bbb23 (talk) 14:40, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

None. Not that I see the relevance of the question. Hugsyrup (talk) 14:45, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Sorry

Sorry for disrupting one of your checkuser cases. Gun23man (☎) 14:47, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Please investigate the AN/EW report

Hello, Bb!

Please do not dismiss the [clear evidence of edit warring] with a simple "Stale", it is still ongoing. The last reverts happened just 2 days ago, and the [recent diff] just 4 minutes after my edit, shows that Andrewgprout is still after my edits, he did not stop edit-warring. El_C promised, we will be under close watch. Thank you!

Don't be mistaken, I don't expect that reasoning would help, so also thank you for providing more records. Cheers, and have a nice day! —Aron M🍂 (🛄📤)   15:13, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

The report is stale. It is a continuation of your crusade before and during your recent block for edit-warring. The edit today for which you provided a diff is innocuous. I don't know how El_C feels about your post-block behavior, but as far as I'm concerned, if you don't move on to something else, you risk being reblocked for abuse of process (ANEW and ANI), among other things.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:56, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

I feel the same and already told the user as much. I've reopened their ANI, which I'm now regretting as it clearly has had the opposite effect intended. Enough is enough. El_C 16:02, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for reopening the ANI report, although we know nobody would have ever touched it, no matter how concise I make it. Your opinion weighs a lot.

Please appreciate that I tried to make the reports better based on your "feedback". Imho you should not create barriers for a newcomer to defend himself; if you gave a little guidance to make a good report, that you would have read, then there would be no need for trial-and-error. But that's not how WP works, so no complaints. I'm happy with our previous discussion, that was delightful.

Bb, please don't bite, you can be nice too, I just haven't seen that side yet. We both understand the situation, so there's no need for romantic words like "crusade for justice" and such... I was just looking for a neutral reviewer. You could have been that, that would have saved a lot of time for me and you. Speaking honestly is a form of respect, thus I write this with respect to you: we did not speak the same language in our last discussion, nor in this one, thus I do not intend to "disturb" you in the future: feel free to ignore my posts.

Thank you (both of you) for the discussions, and have a nice day! —Aron M🍂 (🛄📤)   23:08, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

You're a very problematic editor, and unless you change your approach to editing here, I don't see you lasting very long. I never used the phrase "crusade for justice" and my "name" is not "Bb". You weren't looking for a "neutral reviewer"; you were looking for someone who agrees with you. If you want me to ignore your posts here, that's easy: don't post. As for other places, I'm monitoring your edits and intend to do so at least for a while.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:14, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

You give me too much credit. And I did not discourage people from commenting on your Incidents report — I merely intimated that it was too lengthy. You can't lay the blame on me that few expressed interest in it, and that the one who did thought that you should just drop it, which I echo. El_C 23:19, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

This doesn't look like "dropping it". Just sayin'.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:53, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Sasha Geller page hijacking

Hello Bbb, Sasha Geller was originally a template before the page was hijacked and moved into article namespace and subsequently speedied. I hope you don't mind I restored it and moved it back where it belongs. Thanks. Sro23 (talk) 02:25, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

I had this gnawing feeling I had screwed that up. Thanks a lot for fixing it.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:39, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Wrenhaven

Hello, I've created this page Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wrenhaven, could you please help me to investigate. I appreciate your help.--Azerifactory (talk) 20:41, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

I deleted it. If you want to file an SPI report, you must do it properly. Even if you did it correctly procedurally, I doubt you have a meritorious report to file, which may also cause it to be deleted or closed without action. Just giving you a heads up in advance.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:47, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Sockpuppet of DB Dilan Brechero

Hi Bbb23, looks like there's another sock account of DB Dilan Brechero in the form of DSFDSF12345678910. Exact same type of edits and creating a bunch of non-notable articles for Spanish songs in the wrong places. Ss112 00:08, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DilanBrechero.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:49, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Sock

Hi Bbb23. Thank you! I have suspected this for sometime but must admit, was beginning to lose some faith. So just from an academic perspective, what brought this on? Were you also suspicious and were the IP addresses confirmed in a CheckUser search? I guess my suspicions alone would not have qualified in requesting such a check? Asking so I'm better prepared for future cases. Well, thanks again. Robvanvee 12:49, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, but I prefer not to discuss this.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:13, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Oh, I hope I didn't say something inappropriate? I just thought, so as to better understand the inner workings of the encyclopedia, I would ask what I thought was a fairly transparent (and unloaded) question. Robvanvee 15:22, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Nicat49

Hi. I'm not Sock puppetry. This is mistake. All admins of azerbaijani wiki know me, you can ask their opinions about me. Also if you want you can check my account. About - Fuad Alakbarov (2nd nomination). My english is bad, but I read this page in azviki (Fuad Ələkbərov) and I think the article is eating enough sources, maybe I'm wrong but this is my opinion. Regards.--Nicat49 (talk) 02:40, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Fuad Alakbarov's article and other hundreds of articles about Azerbaijan or Azerbaijanis, I add to my Watchlist. I watch articles almost every day to protect them from vandalism. You can see my contributions. I saw this Cabayi edit and went to read and vote. Regards--Nicat49 (talk) 05:10, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Reporting ColorTheoryRGB

I’m here report this editor for harassing other editor in their talk page [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]. This editor has been edit warring too [12] [13] [14]. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 20:10, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

• Stop forum shopping please. Bbb is a highly paid professional; we don't bother him with edit wars. Drmies (talk) 01:19, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
• Bbb, an editor is asking for your help in "freeing" them (they're not blocked): User:ColorTheoryRGB. Drmies (talk) 01:25, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

• @Drmies: Hey, are you feeling better? Hope so. I'm about to go off-wiki.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:13, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

• Very slowly, Bbb, thanks. Gotta teach tomorrow and I hope it's over then. Take care, Drmies (talk) 02:14, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Bring back Daz Sampson again

Hi Bbb23. I asked you about this at User talk:Bbb23/Archive 48#User:Bring back Daz Sampson about a month ago. The thread was archived without a response, which I interpreted to mean there no need for any action to be taken. That's fine, I just moved on and continued editing. Bring back Daz Sampson, however, is back making more accusations and casting more aspersions, this time here. If Bring back Daz Sampson feels that there is some kind of case to be made against my behavior, then they can and probably should bring things up for discussion at one of the ANs; they can gather the necessary diffs for everyone to see and make their claims there. At the same time, if they feel some policy or guideline has been misapplied or misinterpreted, or some close by an administrator needs should be reconsidered, there are way for them to do those things as well. Repeatedly making accusations against another editor (not just me, but any editor) in a discussion (even done civilly) is not really a constructive way to participate in the discussion. Bring back Daz Sampson was given a second chance to be WP:HERE; their content contributions seem to be entirely positive and boost to the project. It wasn't their content contributions, however, that led to their block, but rather behavior issues which are starting to manifest themselves again. I'm asking you since you were the admin who unblocked the account to take a look at this. I'm not asking for this editor to be re-blocked; only for someone to tell them to cool off a bit with the accusations and attacks. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:23, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

My involvement with the user was two years ago and related to socking. If you have issues with their behavior, you're going to have to take them to the appropriate forum if you can't resolve them yourself.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:33, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I’m just going to add this for reference. My understanding here was that Bring back Daz Sampson and the sock puppet accounts still blocked are considered to be the same editor; so, that would mean the editor has been previously blocked per NPA. If that’s not really the case, then I will treat them as separate editors from here on. — Marchjuly (talk) 23:01, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Just notifying you of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Bring back Daz Simpson: NPA and ASPERSIONS as a courtesy since I mentioned you by name in the thread. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:20, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

UK sock

Hi Bbb23. Looks like another sock account. Exact same type of edits. See [15][16][17][18][19][20][21]. -- 2402:1980:248:1BF3:591F:9586:B9D3:BEA6 (talk) 15:05, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Ryan Maness

Hi, I understand that you think my comments on the talk page for contributor Rmaness1 are disruptive - but would Ryan Maness himself agree with you? Given the whole situation his current inability to reply makes your argument somewhat circular. If I think that my comments about wikipedia being too inward looking should receive proper consideration - and it looks to me as though it's you being disruptive - is there a course of action you would recommend rather than getting into a silly edit war? I could take my argument to another page but I would like Ryan Maness to see it 86.159.6.4 (talk) 21:34, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Given the fact that you're like Maness yourself... I'm sure you've already gotten the message. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 23:52, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm a very different type of person from him in very different circumstances to his but I certainly have sympathy for him in this particular situation. The message I'm getting this evening is that reasonable criticism of wikipedia is liable to be censored by unreasonable admins. It's not looking like an open community here right now.86.159.6.4 (talk) 00:15, 3 June 2019 (UTC) I thought it might be a courtesy to Bbb23 for any further comment to go on my talk page or yours Dusti but one point that so far belongs here is that at the time of your response a key distinction between Maness & me has been his expressed scepticism towards (apparently) wikipedia as a whole versus my recently expressed support for wikipedia - while acknowledging its flaws. I continue to derive great benefit from many areas of wikipedia, some areas where guidelines & policies are strictly followed, other areas where it has been constructive to sometimes take a more relaxed view of guidelines. Where there is controversy my intention in intervening is always to hope that it's possible to learn something & improve things. 86.159.6.4 (talk) 16:50, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Jonathan Foley and Jonathan David Foley

Hello. I was about to open a SPI case, but as I can neither see the deleted history of Jonathan Foley nor what Draft:Jonathan Foley looked like, I cannot be too sure of the facts. Basically, the story is:

• User:Askwieuol creates Jonathan Foley that gets speedy deleted on 29 May 2019,
• User:Renbunreita creates Jonathan David Foley on 2 June 2019 with the exact same text.

Also of note is that User:Renbunreita is listed as "stale" in an old SPI case. Thanks and regards, Biwom (talk) 16:18, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

@Biwom: The two articles were almost identical. I've blocked and tagged the two accounts. The only reason I didn't confirm the two is because they are using proxies. To save me some trouble, what old SPI case are you referring to?--Bbb23 (talk) 18:24, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello. You can see "Renbunreita" at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Anatha Gulati/Archive/1. Where it says: "Checkuser requested and endorsed by clerk - Please check the first list except the following Stale accounts:", I just went thru the 6 stale accounts and there is one other - Areunlukta - who is very much active these days. Thanks and regards, Biwom (talk) 04:05, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. I looked into it and found myself undecided as to what action, if any, to take. The Anatha Gulati case is historically messy, particularly technically, and Areunlukta is no exception.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:48, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Sanity check (CU or otherwise)

Hey, Bbb, I have a question. The most recent edits from user Woscafrench before yesterday were from August 2018; fairly innocuous if a bit disgruntled. Then, yesterday, they post this and this; I saw and figured it was a compromised account, probably one of the various sub-to-PewDiePie people given the first edit, due to the gap between edits and the seemingly random, probably trollish nature. Since then, though, they have claimed on their talk page that they're the creator of the account, and that they did in fact perform yesterday's edits. Given the time lapse, I guess CU probably isn't that helpful; I'm happy to unblock if I'm off-base about the whole thing (yesterday's edits in a vacuum weren't particularly bad enough to warrant a block on their own), but it just seems a little weird. What do you think? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:07, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

@Writ Keeper: Heh. I saw the same edits because of the one to Floq's Talk page, which is on my watchlist, and I thought they were pretty bizarre. After your block, I ran a check expecting very little given the time gap. As I recall, I found one logged out edit from April with the same UA, and the edit was constructive. If so, that would tend to lean against the account being compromised. In any event, let me know if you wish a recheck to confirm my recollection. Does the user explain why they love Floq?--Bbb23 (talk) 14:16, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Haha, I should probably ask. I don't think a re-check is necessary; lemme just talk to them and probably unblock. After all, we can always re-block if things turn disruptive, and they don't have any particularly sensitive user-rights to do any more damage than usual with. Thanks! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:25, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Coincidence

Could you take a look at The Replenisher, Pioneerist, and Composer Compiler? All new accounts, created yesterday, editing Indian religions related pages in serial at almost the same. Coincidence? Thanks, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:42, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Composer Compiler. You might want to add Pioneerist (with evidence) to the report.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:12, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:56, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry

Could you ban his sockpuppet as well? [22] --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:34, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Maness sock

Do you think that perhaps this IP is Maness? Contribs show nothing but edits towards the article and the AFD. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 05:51, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Nevermind Oshwah went ahead and put them in time out Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 06:09, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

It's a very strong certainty in my opinion given the timeline between the NLT block of the subject's account and the first edit by that IP user, and the fact that the IP user's first edit was to that AFD about that article subject. I did some contributions searching with the CIDR range of the network, and I don't see AFD participation anywhere else from that range (at least as far and deep as I checked)... This is why I made the assertion that the IP user was the article subject evading their block and applied a block to it for block evasion. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:22, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Re: "Refactoring"

Okay I get in general terms what it is, and why it's not allowed, so first thank you for that lesson. "No altering of the evidence and/or narrative." I just wanted to demonstrate that I learned something. Can you point to a Wikipedia link where "refactoring" is discussed, maybe a guideline or rule or whatever. There's probably more I don't know about Sock investigations.Tym Whittier (talk) 15:08, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

WP:REFACTOR.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:10, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

ANI

Thanks, I'll gladly leave it alone. Although I do find the entire matter confusing. Firstorm (talk) 17:16, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Awesome

"Slapnuts" (snicker) -- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:27, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

A little decorum, please.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:00, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

But...but...it's Friday!-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:24, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

If you mow my lawn this weekend (you don't have anything else to do anyway), I'll give you a free snicker bar. If you do it without killing yourself, I'll give you two! --Bbb23 (talk) 22:28, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Wowsers mister! Two whole chocolate bars??? You've got a deal!-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:33, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

My IRC afk nickname is klondike_bear (because why not?) A pt.wiki CU thought I was referring to some video game, and that was when I learned the very sad fact that there are no klondike bars in Brazil. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:37, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2019).

Administrator changes

Andonic • Consumed Crustacean • Enigmaman • Euryalus • EWS23 • HereToHelp • Nv8200pa • Peripitus • StringTheory11 • Vejvančický

CheckUser changes

Ivanvector

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC seeks to clarify whether WP:OUTING should include information on just the English Wikipedia or any Wikimedia project.
• An RfC on WT:RfA concluded that Requests for adminship and bureaucratship are discussions seeking to build consensus.
• An RfC proposal to make the templates for discussion (TfD) process more like the requested moves (RM) process, i.e. "as a clearinghouse of template discussions", was closed as successful.

Technical news

• The CSD feature of Twinkle now allows admins to notify page creators of deletion if the page had not been tagged. The default behavior matches that of tagging notifications, and replaces the ability to open the user talk page upon deletion. You can customize which criteria receive notifications in your Twinkle preferences: look for Notify page creator when deleting under these criteria.
• Twinkle's d-batch (batch delete) feature now supports deleting subpages (and related redirects and talk pages) of each page. The pages will be listed first but use with caution! The und-batch (batch undelete) option can now also restore talk pages.

Miscellaneous

• The previously discussed unblocking of IP addresses indefinitely-blocked before 2009 was approved and has taken place.
• The 2019 talk pages consultation produced a report for Phase 1 and has entered Phase 2.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:48, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kkm010

That's very disappointing. I'd have thought CU would be worthwhile. The behavioral evidence alone should be enough to check against the myriad of socks in the archives, in my opinion, and there are often sleepers in this case, as the request points out. Don't take this as a personal criticism, more a systemic one - I know you work hard, but it would be remiss of me not to share my feedback. Cheers. -- Begoon 16:05, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Email

Hello, I had to write something to your mail... I explained what I could think of, over there. Just wanted to make sure you see it, if you can confirm here at least (in case you can't respond there, I understand of course). Again, it's not about any further action to take or that I expect something more, which is also why I wrote you in person. Just, if I can know that you saw it, will really make me feel better. אומנות (talk) 00:35, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

I read it.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:07, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

I highly appreciate you telling me, and further, that you even read through, thank you very much. אומנות (talk) 03:57, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Inquiry

I'll proceed and start writing the request. I'll ask if only a behavioral analysis is allowed as well any other question. Many thanks! --Jamez42 (talk) 12:51, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi

Dimsar01 is requesting unblock again. In my opinion he as forfeited his rights to edit right now per legal and sock threats. I would be uncomfortable with him editing the Eurovision article. Anyway let’s see what happens.BabbaQ (talk) 15:49, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks very much for the correction. Did they move them to get them out of a hurricane zone? 331dot (talk) 16:01, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

They wanted them to be closer to you. Florida has far worse problems than hurricanes. The secondary servers are in Texas, which has all sorts of storms, including political ones.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:41, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Bbb23. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.— Ss112 20:35, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

 Done --Bbb23 (talk) 22:01, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Brian Wong page June 10 rollback

Original IP here (not sure if same IP as I had to get a new computer) when we had a discussion over a month ago which unfortunately died out. I noticed someone posted on Brian Wong page which has since been removed with you citing BLP:Crime.

As per your suggestion, I have just put up the proposal on the Brian Wong talk page to see if there is a consensus whether Brian Wong is a public figure and if so, how much material to include regarding his indictment.

"What needs to be done here - and probably better on the Wong Talk page - is a discussion (RFC?) as to that issue. If there's a consensus that Wong is a public figure, there still has to be a discussion about what material/how much material may be included in the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:11, 2 May 2019 (UTC)" [23]

Your suggestion has been implemented on the talk page since it has been over a month with no action from other members. 2001:569:7E43:7900:A93E:65D0:4C24:2F58 (talk) 09:02, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Dhaka

the old sock master is back! pls see: User:Comeonduckling´s edits!−2A0A:A541:F712:0:9DB1:D558:D50A:B53C (talk) 19:10, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Old sockpuppet? What do you even mean by that, why was i even tagged here? Comeonduckling (talk) 19:17, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Throwaway060519

Hi there. In light of your determination at WP:Sockpuppet_investigations/Hidden_Tempo, do you think I should self-revert where I struck this user's edits? It still seems pretty clear that the editor behind Throwaway060519 was socking, even if it wasn't HT. FYI there was a discussion about this at Talk:Spygate (conspiracy theory)#Deny recognition that spilled out to User talk:Wookian#June 2019 and User talk:Ahrtoodeetoo#Question about terminology or semantics. R2 (bleep) 03:07, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

In theory, you should unstrike, but I'm not sure it makes a lot of difference. Regardless of the fact that there's no evidence of socking, there's no doubt the account is odd.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:41, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Advice

Hi Bbb, I am looking at cross referencing some suspicious edits by what looks like a known banned user, If I can send you an email with suspected socks can you have a look with checkuser at all without me opening up a new case at SPI? Thanking you. Nightfury 15:31, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

I can't know until I see it.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:44, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Sent an email through to you. Nightfury 11:44, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

The two users are  Unrelated to the master and  Unlikely/ Inconclusive to each other.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:52, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Rollback

I am new as a contributor, can help me understand why my edits on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burke were rolled back?

• --Lwolski (talk) 21:47, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

You can only add entries to a disambiguation page that have articles, or some substantive part of the entry has to have a blue link. In looking back at each one you added and without verifying the accuracy of what you said, I see only one of the many entries you added (Burke Davis, an American author) that isn't compliant with policy. Based on that, I really shouldn't have rolled back all your edits, and for that I apologize. Why don't you simply revert me and then remove the one bad entry, and you'll be done? I'll do it if you prefer.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:01, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I think it is in compliance now. If there is anything else I can do to improve I am open to hear it. --Lwolski (talk) 22:18, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Good job.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:21, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Murakib10

Hi, please look at Murakib10's edits. He's vandalising every Bangladesh related article and other articles with nothing but just |edit = murakib and other promotional stuff but he isn't editing anything. I tried warning him and wrote him a warning on his talk page but he isn't listening and he's ignoring me so please help me by blocking him. Bornheel (talk) 10:25, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Oleksiy Poroshenko

Hello. User:Tonybins continues violate WP:NOR in the article about Oleksiy Poroshenko. Could you do something about it?--Zorro naranjo (talk) 11:00, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

RE: Wikipedia:Community response to the Wikimedia Foundation's ban of Fram Lock

"don't see why ANY IPs or new users need to edit this page"

I am conflicted about this, because IP editors aren't always new users and many don't wish to register an account. That doesn't mean they don't have something to say and aren't worth being heard. 2001:4898:80E8:1:7190:1708:8E7C:8A22 (talk) 23:29, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Including ones like you who use proxies. Sorry, you'll live.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:31, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't have much of a choice in that regard. I'm at work. This is a Microsoft proxy so to speak. 2001:4898:80E8:1:7190:1708:8E7C:8A22 (talk) 00:06, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

I see reasons - especially in this particular situation, editors may fear recrimination from e.g. the WMF or from admins on the other side of the dispute, and may wish to remain anonymous. I don't think this protection is necessary. I also did not see any serious vandalism on that page in the hours preceding the protection. I could, of course, remove protection, but I'd rather have your input first. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:49, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

The use of IPs by registered users to edit project space is a violation of WP:SOCK.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:39, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't read that in WP:SOCK. There are instances where it is (faking support, editing to mislead), but there are likewise legitimate cases (Security, Privacy). I've seen only one IP user so far, and it did not seem disruptive to me - certainly not more than some logged-in editors - and I could not see deception or use of multiple users/addresses with the aim to mislead. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:46, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

"Editors who are not logged in must not actively try to deceive other editors, such as...by using the session for the inappropriate uses of alternate accounts listed earlier in this policy." and "Undisclosed alternative accounts are not to be used in discussions internal to the project." If you've seen only one IP, you must not be looking very carefully. It's a very busy page, but I went back not very far date-wise before my protection and found three: 92.19.248.238, 80.229.204.185, and 81.136.172.62. The protection also would prevent newly registered users from disrupting the page, e.g., A poet not named Sam--Bbb23 (talk) 14:07, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Ok, the "internal discussion" is convincing. I personally consider protection a bit heavy-handed and would accept IAR in this case, but it's a reasonable call. Thanks for the explanation. I'll let the protection stand, but if you feel so inclined, I would prefer to have it lifted. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:57, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) I can't offer any insight into the CU blocks, but at least a few that I blocked separately were socks of a known long term abuse case. They don't get to edit at all anywhere. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:02, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

New message from Suffusion of Yellow

Hello, Bbb23. You have new messages at 67.164.113.165's talk page.
Message added 03:10, 14 June 2019 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 03:10, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Kelly Goldsmith edits

I removed the pic that was on there. I had thought all the TEDx stuff was creative commons approved but maybe I was misinformed.

I have no connection to the subject. Am just a fan who has been bummed that this page looked a little lackluster for awhile and was trying to help clean it up. I really didn't add any promotional material, I actually didn't add any content! I just gave it some headers and moved stuff around to try and make it look more normal (i.e., like other pages). The one thing that I did add was a handful of academic citations, so I don't understand how that would be promotional, I was trying to provide more unbiased references, which was requested on the header of the page. I am not trying to be a jerk or anything, I just legitimately don't understand how citing academic articles on an academic's page is a problem. I am not obsessed with this and am happy to relent, but I really did see my changes as strictly stylistic and attempting to better format the page per the suggested guidelines — Preceding unsigned comment added by Refpointassoc (talk • contribs) 16:14, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, you have an obvious WP:COI and shouldn't be editing the page at all. If you have suggestions as to how to improve the article, you should make them at the article talk page. Your username is unusual. What is it referring to?--Bbb23 (talk) 16:56, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Ugh. I literally do not get wikipedia at all. I know you guys do God's work, so I am happy to drop this point - but seriously, how does it hurt anybody for someone to make a page just look like all the other pages with section headers and stuff? In my line of work, we have a definition of COI, but apparently you guys operate under a different one. I'm fine with that too, but all I was trying to do was make the page look normal and include some proper academic citations. How is my user name any more unusual than yours - or relevant here? I am dropping this now as I have a day job I've been neglecting to *try and be helpful and make this random wikipedia page look decent* I hope that someone else takes up the charge. If history is any indicator, they won't. But I tried my best to contribute positively. Have a nice day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Refpointassoc (talk • contribs) 17:16, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

I included all of the comments that I have for the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelly_Goldsmith on the talk page, as you suggested. I sincerely hope someone takes up the call to make those very minor, non-promotional, seemingly non-controversial edits. And I hope that if they do, their good faith efforts are treated with respect. Refpointassoc (talk) 17:28, 14 June 2019 (UTC)RPA

Deletion of User:Baecien

Why did you delete my user account page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baecien (talk • contribs) 19:11, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you very much

Thank you very much Bbb23 for blocking the useless sock. They were wreaking havoc. Cheers Sharkslayer87 (talk) 23:34, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Pages for deletion

I attempted nominate Benjamin Alexander (writer) for deletion, but placed a template that was malformed. Upon trying a second time to nominate the page for deletion, I encountered this message:

"If you are creating a new page with different content, please continue. If you are recreating a page similar to the previously deleted page, or are unsure, please first contact the user(s) who performed the action(s) listed below."

• 00:21, 17 June 2019 Bbb23 deleted page Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Benjamin Alexander (writer) (G6: Housekeeping and routine (non-controversial) cleanup: improper nomination)

I am contacting you because I still wish to nominate this page for deletion, and the pages of Sue Rubin and Lucy Blackman. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 03:16, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Rant

Some ranting is to be expected? You just proved me right. I got exactly the result I predicted: sweet fuck all. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 17:10, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Why all the rollbacks?

Why are you rolling back all my edits without a single comment about the reason? It seems against the four pillar of Wikipedia. If you have time to roll them back, you should provide a comment.ADP85xzVcQD (talk) 20:26, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

I gave a reason in the edit summary for every single edit of yours I undid.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:31, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Maybe you should check that you did it correctly. None of them appeared. Every edit looks something like:

curprev 17:45, 17 June 2019‎ Bbb23 talk contribs‎ m 9,350 bytes -1,919‎ Reverted edits by ADP85xzVcQD (talk) to last version by 27.60.125.44 spam undothank Tag: Rollback If you put something in the edit summary, it should appear on that line.

Sorry, I guess there is a single word justification there that I missed, "spam". Considering you deleted a paragraph of referenced text, that is an odd justification. For clarity I posted the definition of spam, which it doesn't meet:

spam /spam/ noun noun: spam; noun: Spam 1. irrelevant or inappropriate messages sent on the Internet to a large number of recipients. unwanted or intrusive advertising on the Internet. "an autogenerated spam website" 2. trademark a canned meat product made mainly from ham. verb verb: spam; 3rd person present: spams; past tense: spammed; past participle: spammed; gerund or present participle: spamming 1. send the same message indiscriminately to (large numbers of recipients) on the Internet.

Therefore, I'm reverting it back. If you would like to IMPROVE the text, feel free to EDIT it. If you don't want to IMPROVE the text, please leave for someone else to edit. ADP85xzVcQD (talk) 22:37, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

The dictionary definition of spam is irrelevant to Wikipedia. As far as I'm concerned, your edits, which betray a serious WP:COI, are promotional, which is why I called them spam. You can be blocked for that. If you reinstate the edits, I will remove them again per policy. If you persist, you risk being blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:42, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

New message from Shearonink

Hello, Bbb23. You have new messages at Talk:Secondary data.
Message added 02:35, 18 June 2019 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Shearonink (talk) 02:35, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Mighty Hammer

May I ask why you blocked I am a badger- mole (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? Is there an WP:SPI case I may peruse? Regards, GUYWAN ( t · c ) 19:07, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

What's your interest?--Bbb23 (talk) 21:09, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Just curious. I was link surfing, came across that user, and here I am.

PS: I've noticed that you don't ping users all that often. Why is that? It isn't required, but it would be nice .... GUYWAN ( t · c ) 14:21, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Need your assistance

@Bbb23:Hi Bbb23, as you are aware, User:Callofduty259 was banned for sockpuppetry recently. The article Suryadevara Nayaks was tagged for deletion as it was created by them(a now banned sock). This new user User:Andhra sepoy has suddenly shown up and removed the deletion tag from that article. I want to know if that article has to be deleted since it was created by a sock by violating the ban or can it remain because it deserves an article on its own. Thanks Sharkslayer87 (talk) 13:41, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

I deleted the article. You should not be prodding articles for deletion because they were created by a sock. You should use WP:CSD#G5, assuming it meets all the elements of the criterion. If it does not, you still cannot use prod as the rationale is invalid.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:43, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you very much for letting me know. I will not prodd articles for deletions anymore. Sharkslayer87 (talk) 14:57, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Chippy pest

What about Samuvel1 (talk · contribs) and Allwynsamuvel2 (talk · contribs)? POV and moniker overlap but the fact that you haven't brought them up gives me pause... Abecedare (talk) 22:23, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

@Abecedare: The first account is  Stale. The second has one non-stale edit, and they are between  Unlikely and  Possible.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:33, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Not worth pursing unless the account(s) become more active, I guess. Thanks. Abecedare (talk) 22:39, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Article Revision

Hi Bbb23, you recently deleted the first article I published, Coretrust Capital Partners. I have no problems with this deletion - in fact, I now understand what I did wrong (I am new to Wikipedia). But I was wondering, if I can credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject (this is the reason for the deletion), could I rewrite the page? I believe that I can revise the article and get it passed. Thanks, Nsweetland24 (talk) 21:18, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

I think you have an obvious (undeclared) WP:COI and are here for no legitimate purpose.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:37, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

were you able to check

Bbb23 first time doing this that user is doing the same pattern of edits as the sock puppet https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Poundofdonuts of the banned user Accopulocrat Jack90s15 (talk) 00:49, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

IP CU block

Hi Bbb23,

What does "Checkuser block" at 76.64.129.247 (talk · contribs · logs · block log) mean? I normally assume CU is used for verifying socks, which are then indeffed, but 76.64.129.247 is only blocked for a week. I can see from the verbiage at (unused) Template:CheckUser block that some sort of disruption must have been involved, but their Talk page has nothing but a welcome message. Reason for the question: IP commented at this article discussion and I'm not sure if their comments should be struck per WP:TPO or not. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 16:44, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

You have some misconceptions about CU blocks of IPs. Regardless, it's your choice whether to remove the IP's edit from the discussion. I believe it would be acceptable if you wish to do so.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:55, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Abuse of tools

As you know very well, this is an abuse of tools. T/p, please. ∯WBG^converse 16:06, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

WBG. Please note that tools were not used. Thanks. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 16:09, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Did I ever specify admin-tools or anything like that? To quote from WP:ROLLBACK:- ...Since rollback is part of the core administrator tools, an admin could be stripped of their administrative privileges entirely to remove those tools ..... ∯WBG^converse 16:45, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Well rollback is a tool but as Bbb23 replaced the generic edit summary with an explanatory one I fail to see the problem here.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:26, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

@Pawnkingthree: Many folks set their watch-list to not see minor edits (me, for one). That's the issue. If you can provide an edit-summary as well as render it as a non-minor edit, I have no issues with random miscellaneous usage of rollback, as an undo-tool. ∯WBG^converse 16:45, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Rollback is not an admin tool. "Abuse of tools" normally refers to Admin tools. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 16:47, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

The page certainly does classify it as a tool. As to it's normal meanings, I guess that I agree. ∯WBG^converse 16:50, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

• At any case, apologies to Bbb23, if I came off as too aggressive. If you are displeased with my insertions, please discuss over t/p. Regards, ∯WBG^converse 16:50, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Part of my interface includes a link to remove more than one consecutive edit with one click and include an edit summary. I know the system tags it as rollback and the edit as minor, but I don't consider it a rollback because of the edit summary (if I want to do a "normal" rollback, I click on...yup, rollback). OTOH, if you or anyone else knows of a way I can do the same thing (meaning only one click), e.g., with Twinkle, I'm open to changing my habits. As for the your edit, it's your responsibility to take challenged material to the Talk page, not revert back.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:54, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

I have no suggestion about changing habits, but I never use "Rollback" but use twinkle to effectively do the same thing. I believe that Twinkle uses the rollback function somehow, (I asked for the rollback tool I think) but a scriptkiddy may know better! -Roxy, the dog. wooF 17:15, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Do you know exactly what you click on to do what I do but without it being tagged as rollback?--Bbb23 (talk) 17:24, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

bbb23 You can click either rollback, or rollback AGF and it will tag it as undo (see my last edit to my own talk page as an example) Praxidicae (talk) 18:00, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Actually all 3 work, rollback agf, rollback, rollback vandal all produce the same result (undo) but rb vandal doesn't prompt you for an es Praxidicae (talk) 18:02, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

I did Twinkle rollback on your edits, and it didn't work for me and required more clicks than what I do normally and it brought up your Talk page to warn you.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:09, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't think there's a way to use actual rollback without tagging it as rollback but you can turn the feature off for user talk pages, that's what I've done anyway. I tried! Praxidicae (talk) 18:11, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

I think the problem is your test on your Talk page only "reverted" one edit with Twinkle. To test what I'm doing, you have to make at least two edits before the "rollback".--Bbb23 (talk) 18:14, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

So if you go into your twinkle prefs, you can turn off "prompt for reason for normal rollbacks" and then all you have to do is hit enter, might be closer to what you want? Try testing it User:Praxidicae/testing here where I just made two consecutive edits. Apologies if this isn't helpful. Praxidicae (talk) 18:19, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

No, I appreciate your trying, even if it ends up not working for me. This time I don't understand exactly what you want me to do, especially the "hit enter" part.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:23, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Team Bangladesh FC

Why did you revert my speedy deletion tag on Team Bangladesh FC? You can't just say i have "insufficient experience" to tag articles because i read the [[Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion]|Criteria for speedy deletion]] and the article fits A7 perfectly. There are no references, and the squad list is made up. Matthew V. (talk) 21:08, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

I didn't decline the a7 because you have insufficient experience. I declined it because it wasn't a clear a7. The part about your experience I added, and it remains true. The articles does have references, but an a7 article isn't even required to have references. If you think the article doesn't meet our guidelines, take it to AfD. In the meantime, I will warn you that if I see you tag another article incorrectly, I may block you for disruptive tagging.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:27, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Miley Cy 1Fan sock

Hi Bbb23, I'm certain that if you run a check on No voy a llorar, you'll find they're a sock of MileyCy 1Fan. They make exactly the same kind of edits to Miley Cyrus article that several of that account's socks did, and even using very similar edit summaries like "Not certificated according to the source" (or even referring to songs being certified as "certificated"), which is usually a telltale sign. Ss112 07:11, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Feedback Request

Hi, I'm currently involved in a dispute regarding the BLP article William Lane Craig. It's been quite heated at times, and I think I'm going to take a step back. However, I've outlined my positions at Talk:William_Lane_Craig#Lack_of_consensus_and_some_theses_about_this_biography_article, and was wondering if you could give me some feedback on them so I can know if I'm on the right track or not. - Thanks, GretLomborg (talk) 05:43, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you chose me to help you, but what you're requesting is not something I normally do.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:42, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

That's fine. I just chose you because you were on the active admin list and I vaguely recognized your name. - GretLomborg (talk) 13:24, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

be gentle on yourself

its a bloody jungle out there... JarrahTree 14:47, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Not anymore. My lawn was finally mowed.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:49, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Delete my account "samuvel1"

How can I delete my account "samuvel1" And use my account "allwynsamuvel2" Allwynsamuvel2 (talk) 16:04, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Accounts at Wikipedia cannot be deleted. Abecedare, I'm keeping you in the loop.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:50, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Nefos67

Reported user:Nefos67 is currently attempting to remove herself from WP:AIV. CLCStudent (talk) 19:36, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Tracey Tawhiao page

I contest this deletion. I've been working for the past two hours with a new wikipedia editor attempting to teach and improve. I'll be creating the page again so that she can load her work. I note that I did put information in that this basic page was created for the purposes of a wikipedia meet up. This was a quick and dirty solution to help someone as I'm working with a group of 10 people trying to get round the group. Einebillion (talk) 00:04, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

I've moved the recreated page to draft space. It shouldn't be in article space.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:15, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Investigation

Can you investigate Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/RadyoUkay819? It's been two days since I've been waiting but no one replied. Triila73 (talk) 00:50, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Got some dead-obvious COI IP socking...

...on the Overtoun Bridge article. Is there any way that this can be preserved (internally for you admin types, not as publicly available outing)? It’s about 14 months from the COI IP’s edits to the COI account’s edits; there’s a likely sock in between. Dunno if this needs to go to SPI yet, since the ObSox may back off, but as much data possible needs to get captured before it is stale. Qwirkle (talk) 15:39, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Sock again in Dhaka!

its not so late for such puppet. see the User:-Sixtinine- edits!–2A0A:A541:4826:0:90F9:9030:B295:6285 (talk) 07:50, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Awami League

I can definitely see some Wikipedia:OWN and Wikipedia:Don't be a jerk attitude by one user User:Vif12vf. if you can go through the page history and talk page you may see he made it previously with the party abbreviation edits and was grilled by many ip users and even previously one admin blocked him for 3RR violation but he promised to not to do so. but no change of behavior n again 3rr violation. I can see some verbal abuses from some ip so for good cooperation need your intervention! thanks in advance !–2A0A:A541:4826:0:90F9:9030:B295:6285 (talk) 08:00, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Anonymousresearch INC

Hey, Bbb23,

I was looking at an unblock request from Jil sand Error, an editor you blocked, who was identified as a sockpuppet of Olivettilly and noticed that Olivettilly had edited the user page of Anonymousresearch INC, making it similar to an earlier version on her own user page. Could Anonymousresearch INC be another sockpuppet? If so, it seems like you might have seen it when you checked out Olivettilly but I thought I'd ask any way. I'm not by nature a very suspicious person but this seemed like a red flag that even I couldn't ignore. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:54, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

@Liz: I think you're right, but the reason I didn't find the account is because it was one day  Stale when I ran the check.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:08, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Gotcha. What I know about checkusering, you could fit on a business card...in a large font. So, I thought I'd check. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:08, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Catherine Karakatsanis

Hi Bbb23. I had started working on the page "Catherine Karakatsanis," which I see was flagged for speedy deletion. Sorry the article was fairly thin so far, I had only just started on it. Can I get my draft back? There is a lot of detail that would explain notability -- Karakatsanis has had a significant impact on the engineering field in Canada, and has won numerous awards. Thanks! Fingal (talk) 14:16, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Catherine Karakatsanis.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:38, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, yer BBship. Was adding the section below and saw it was already fixed.

(edit conflict)Assuming this is the person at Morrison Hershfield, she certainly is noteworthy. It’s unfortunate that too much easily googled notabilty comes from “”LOOK..ITS A GURLLLL!!!” kinds of cites, but that’s the reality of WikiWorld. Lots of solid accomplishment solidly documented if you look past that. Qwirkle (talk) 14:53, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Well, that was fast.

I gather that you know more than I do in this circumstance, and leave it at that. Cheers! bd2412 T 18:39, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

I just tagged the two accounts, so now you know a bit more: see Zylonv (talk · contribs · count).--Bbb23 (talk) 18:43, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	What started as a scary scrutiny into my wikipedia activities ended up being extremely insightful and will certainly help me make a better editor. I thank you for your patience with me and the diligence with which you apparently keep close eye on potentially problematic behaviour as well as unfailingly respond to all queries in a timely manner. Usedtobecool ✉️ ✨ 18:26, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm rarely praised for being patient. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:44, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 18:56, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Wikivoyage

Your Wikivoyage user talk page has been semi-protected to prevent vandalism. Just a heads-up, let me know if you don't want it semi-protected. Thanks. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 21:20, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

@SelfieCity: It think my Talk pages on many projects are vandalized frequently. I don't pay it much mind, but I appreciate your protecting my Wikivoyage Talk page and letting me know.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:26, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Sure, and thanks for clarifying your position here. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 01:14, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Manu Ríos

Hello, can I ask you some questions about having deleted this article about a spanish model named Manu Ríos because It meets per Notabilty not written like an advertisement and I like to decided for revised it as long as it took

So, This Is Actually Not written like a Promotion this is actually written like an Neutral Point Of View, but it gives an feedback of an opportunity of sufficient source and putting it back as draft.

Thanks! Telex80 (talk) 10:57, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

User talk:Driller1983

You may wish to revoke talk page access.--Cahk (talk) 20:00, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

 Done Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:55, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

The user Eskimo Jaga

Looks like it is a sock of the user Captain Young (I normally would do a SPI, but since the user has been blocked I figured I bring it up here if you want to add them to the list-probably should salt that article also) Wgolf (talk) 21:17, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

You just want to make more work for me.  :-( You are right, though, although you mean Captainyoung (talk · contribs · count). I have reblocked the user and tagged them. I see no point to salting. This new sock alone created many different permutations of the same name.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:28, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

At WP:Dramaboard

[24] - What's wrong with that? The offending user has already been blocked as correctly noted by another user. Or is the problem just a missing {{nac}}? 107.190.33.254 (talk) 22:10, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

No, the problem is IPs should not close threads at ANI. Period.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:10, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Isn't it that a procedural error made in a proposal or request is not grounds for rejecting that proposal or request? 107.190.33.254 (talk) 22:13, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Also note that I wasn't aware of that. 107.190.33.254 (talk) 22:35, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

[stalker] You weren't aware of it cause it's not a written-down rule, I don't think. It's just something that Bbb23 personally believes, I gather. And I can't say I blame him. It is true that that 1) 107.190.33.254 is an experienced editor with a lot of contributions -- more than a lot of registered editors in fact -- and 2) there isn't supposed to be any difference at all in how IPs and registered editors are treated, generally. However, it's also true that if you want to close ANI threads you should register. That way people won't have to go digging thru your history to figure it "Oh, he's an IP but he's an experienced editor in good standing". This takes time, and we're busy.

Some editors choose to edit extensively and never register. I don't know why. I suppose some are being sporty, some some don't see any reason to, some never thought about it, and so on. It's mildly annoying, to me personally. If you want to do things like close ANI threads -- or really, be a regular editor here generally -- you might want to get an account with a name that we can begin to recognize and know. You don't have to tho. Herostratus (talk) 02:32, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

And unfortunately, a number don't use accounts in attempt to evade scrutiny. When I realized that I had more time and will to edit, after years of sparse IP editing, the main reason to create my account was when I realized the extra work it is for patrollers, who rarely immediately recognize who last edited an article. So I also recommend using an account, but it's your choice of course. —PaleoNeonate – 03:49, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Adding: if doing the right thing, other regulars will recognize it and associate your identity with confidence. If extra permissions/rights are eventually needed, that also helps. Some basic actions, like nominating an article for deletion, should also be done with an account. Then there are the user preferences, watchlist, common/permanent talk page for optimal communication... Your IP addresses are only visible to sysadmins (and perhaps checkusers, I know it can serve as comparison data but I'm not sure if it's visible. Bbb23 knows but you know what he'd need to do if he told us). A lot of advantages. Please sign up right now! —PaleoNeonate – 07:36, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Oh and I fogot to mention checks from the Cigarette Smoking Man, obviously...^[Humor] —PaleoNeonate – 08:12, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Did this editor also show up?

Bbb23, did Quentin Durward shoots (talk · contribs) show up in your CU of DoctorAldebaran (talk · contribs)? That one-day editor showed similar interests and editing experience. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:48, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

No, but I checked for you.  Unrelated.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:54, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! Jayjg ^(talk) 16:01, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Some questions on related grey area issues.

I thought of you first, since we just had a long conversation. When I started getting active on wikipedia about three months ago, my first experience was with CSD (as with any new user, I imagine). It was shocking to me coz I'd read articles of similar standards on subjects related to Nepal for years. So, I looked at notability, sourcing and related guidelines thoroughly; and since then, have deleted almost three dozens articles on subjects related to Nepal via AfD, outing a sockfarm in the process. However, I've been leaving borderline notable subjects alone. I figure now is a good time as any to be bolder and better educated. So, if you have the time, I wanted to know somethings that frankly I don't think I could get good answers to in depersonalised forums.

So, a page I was watching was just edited by User:WritersNepal (deliberately left un-wiki-ed). The most rampant problem I've found among Nepali users is single-purpose accounts. So, I immediately checked their contributions. And, well, that's how I got all these grey area questions:

1. Is their name a violation of username policy (with regard to implying shared usage)?
2. Can this account be considered a single-purpose account? Created two pages related to the same musician but made a couple edits on other music related pages as well.
3. Would those two pages that they created have passed the AfC process? A couple of notable newspapers are cited, but I don't think they establish notability (not to mention that these papers keep covering artists TOOSOON to fill space)?
4. Is there sufficient reason to bring up COI with them? I have seen some experienced users put COI tags on pages with similar characteristics but I am not sure exactly what kind of criterion they used to become reasonably sure?
5. Finally, am I allowed to discuss another user like this? Could this be considered stalking or harrassment? I have been reading up too much on current wikipedia affairs (one of the reasons my mainspace contributions has suffered).

Needless to say, all kinds of admonishment about what I just did here that I shouldn't have done is highly appreciated too. Because I have thought about these things for as long as I have been here without asking anyone. Thanks a bunch! Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 15:32, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't want to become your mentor. It's not a role I'm good at nor a role I enjoy, at least not at Wikipedia. Just so your efforts here aren't a total loss, (1) I'm not an expert at username violations unless they're truly obvious, (2) some of your questions are academic, meaning I'm not sure why they matter, and (3) again, I don't really understand why you care about the things you care about. A the risk of sounding like a broken record, I'd concentrate on improving articles and not worry about the rest unless it's directly relevant and important.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:53, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

You deleted my page while I was trying to figure out how its blatanlty advertising

I've read through this CSD G11 and my page in no way fits the criteria, how can you talk about a company without talking about the service it provides? At least let me see what about the page is "advertising"

Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=PermaGO_Inc.&action=edit&redlink=1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by HirmizM (talk • contribs) 21:05, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Rabbi Berland

Why do you repeatedly insist on removing the word "Rabbi" when quoting the letter which clearly states "Rabbi Berland". This is not just a title, it is important part of the narrative for users to understand how Rabbi Berlands name was written in the letter of the Beth Din. I'm ok with the rest of your edits but please return the word "Rabbi" where appropriate. Thank you. Oneloveunited (talk) 21:09, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Courtesy titles are generally not used in bios. It's immaterial how the letter was written.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:16, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

one man went to mow...

well well you got visited by the effervescent nonenglish speaker itself [25] - well well JarrahTree 14:03, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Getting the right emphasis

Sorry if my edit at WP:ADMIN didn't seem helpful. I was simply trying to avoid a sentence which says "They are never required to use their tools...", implying they've got the tools but they never use them. A slight change of emphasis on 'required' would help, e.g. "They are never required to use their tools..." But, I guess you feel it's fine as it is. No worries. Nick Moyes (talk) 15:29, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't read it the way you do, but there's no need to apologize. It was a good-faith, explained change.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:54, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Sock?

Hi, new user Kindlyanswer is probably a sock of a blocked User:-Sixtinine-. Here; Kindlyanswer's edit [26] and Sixtinine's edit [27]. -- Tobby72 (talk) 06:56, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Blocked and tagged, thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:26, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry to bother you again, but Black Sea and Devlet Geray are likely the same person. Here; Black Sea's edit [28] and Devlet Geray's edit [29]. Both accounts are still active. -- Tobby72 (talk) 15:19, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

I am unwilling to take action outside an SPI, which you are welcome to file.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:56, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Possible sockpuppet

Recently a new user with obvious experience with wikitext usage has contributed to numismatics articles and the current events portal. This users edits are very similar to those of User:Enterlousy. - ZLEA _T\^C 21:35, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Blocked. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:57, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

c:User:Anastasia D.Rossi has been making edit requests on my Wikimedia Commons talk page. - ZLEA _T\^C 16:15, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Yesterday, I asked a steward to globally lock the account, but they haven't responded. If it bothers you, you can request a global lock at meta or you can complain to an admin at Commons.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:18, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Tanveersingh957

Tanveersingh957 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Newbie with an unusual knowledge of editing. No idea who they might be, but they smell like a sock. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:56, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

@Ad Orientem: Someone else is ahead of you. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Shiwam Kumar Sriwastaw#26 June 2019. BTW, if you look at the history of the draft created by the new account, that is sometimes helpful.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:10, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

It's nice to see you back, but I'm very sorry for your loss.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:11, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Bbb23. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:12, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Your thread

Since you threatened me with "administrative action", I've brought this issue up for a review at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Is_it_proper_for_an_admin_to_censor_a_page_of_an_unblocked_user?. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:52, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

King of troy

Hi! I see you blocked this user, and wondered whether you find this conclusive enough for a further block? I can take this to SPI, but thought I'd just ask here first. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 15:05, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

 Done --Bbb23 (talk) 15:20, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Checkuser request

A string of IPs are committing a distinct type of vandalism which leads me to believe they’re probably a blocked user socking: [30] [31] [32]

They’re going around removing files from Ed Sheeran articles falsely claiming they’re "up for deletion"; and going around unlinking articles from other pages falsely claiming they "got redirected". I request they be checked for potentially being socks of a registered user, and range-blocked for being WP:NOTHERE even if they’re not socks.—NØ 20:31, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not running a check like that.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:32, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

It’s clearly the same person. I thought range blocks were common in instances like this? Anyways thanks, guess I’ll ask someone else to do it.—NØ 20:36, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Possible Angela Criss sock again

User:Roofting is showing signs of being a sockpuppet of User:Angela Criss. Of their six edits so far, three of them are to articles originally created by Angela Criss as User:Enterlousy (Roanoke Island, North Carolina half dollar and Washington nickel). On Washington nickel, Roofting made an edit that Angela Criss (as User:Anastasia D.Rossi) had requested that I do for them. Also, their userpage is the same as that of User:Anastasia D.Rossi (before being blocked). - ZLEA _T\^C 01:22, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Wrong blocking

Hi Bbb23, it appears you blocked User:Richard Edozie as a sockpuppet of User:Pptt226. This is false, as he is currently at an edit-a-thon I am organizing and not a sock. Can you, or any watching admin kindly unblock.

_ Mahveotm (talk) 10:56, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

 Done. The edits done by edit-a-thon participants should be more closely monitored by the organizers. Richard's edits, no matter how well-intentioned, were unconstructive, and the article needs a significant amount of work to be even barely acceptable.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:44, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Khalida Hussain

Hey Bbb23, I noticed you deleted Khalida Hussain citing G5 back in February, when I was adding her article to the Deaths in January 2019 recently. Would you please restore it so I could add her article there & also improve it as much as I can? Thanks.— Bukhari (Talk!) 06:50, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

 Done --Bbb23 (talk) 13:47, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Chzz ANI discussion closure

Sorry I just wanted it on the record that's all. Wasn't trying to undermine your closure. -- œ^™ 22:47, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Hate to ask...

...and I'm only doing so since a new editor was been BLP edit-warring since yesterday — currently up to eight revert in less than 24 hours — and there's been no response at the 3RR report, even though admins have addressed items before and after it. If it weren't a BLP issue going on for nearly a day, I wouldn't have asked specifically for an admin's help. I just don't know what else to do at this point. Thank you if you can look into this.--Tenebrae (talk) 00:48, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

You can stop edit-warring.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:49, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – July 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2019).

Administrator changes

28bytes • Ad Orientem • Ansh666 • Beeblebrox • Boing! said Zebedee • BU Rob13 • Dennis Brown • Deor • DoRD • Floquenbeam¹ • Flyguy649 • Fram² • Gadfium • GB fan • Jonathunder • Kusma • Lectonar • Moink • MSGJ • Nick • Od Mishehu • Rama • Spartaz • Syrthiss • TheDJ • WJBscribe

¹Floquenbeam's access was removed, then restored, then removed again.

²Fram's access was removed, then restored, then removed again.

Bureaucrat changes

28bytes • WJBscribe • Wizardman

Interface administrator changes

MSGJ • TheDJ

CheckUser changes

Beeblebrox • BU Rob13 • DoRD

Oversight changes

Beeblebrox • BU Rob13 • DoRD • GB fan

Guideline and policy news

• A request for comment seeking to alleviate pressures on the request an account (ACC) process proposes either raising the account creation limit for extended confirmed editors or granting the account creator permission on request to new ACC tool users.

• In a related matter, the account throttle has been restored to six creations per day as the mitigation activity completed.

• The scope of CSD criterion G8 has been tightened such that the only redirects that it now applies to are those which target non-existent pages.
• The scope of CSD criterion G14 has been expanded slightly to include orphan "Foo (disambiguation)" redirects that target pages that are not disambiguation pages or pages that perform a disambiguation-like function (such as set index articles or lists).
• A request for comment seeks to determine whether Wikipedia:Office actions should be a policy page or an information page.

Technical news

• The Wikimedia Foundation's Community health initiative plans to design and build a new user reporting system to make it easier for people experiencing harassment and other forms of abuse to provide accurate information to the appropriate channel for action to be taken. Community feedback is invited.

Miscellaneous

• In February 2019, the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) changed its office actions policy to include temporary and project-specific bans. The WMF exercised this new ability for the first time on the English Wikipedia on 10 June 2019 to temporarily ban and desysop Fram. This action has resulted in significant community discussion, a request for arbitration (permalink), and, either directly or indirectly, the resignations of numerous administrators and functionaries. The WMF Board of Trustees is aware of the situation, and discussions continue on a statement and a way forward. The Arbitration Committee has sent an open letter to the WMF Board.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:19, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Possible username change

Hello Bbb23. I am a new user here who is trying to start editing Wikipedia. However, I am worried that my username, "Whaddup, bruh?" is offensive ("bruh" is a commonly used word by us millennials) and I wonder if the username is fine with the Wikipedia policy. Is the username inappropriate? If not, how can I change it? Or even better, can you change it for me? Thank you. Whaddup, bruh? (talk) 23:07, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Jahmalm

A tag has been placed on Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Jahmalm requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:10, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

• (talk page watcher) apologies, I evidently overlooked this category from merging two cases earlier today. Now fixed. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 03:14, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Contributing on Wikipedia is Wastage of Time

This is very unfortunate that experienced editors on Wikipedia discourage new users. I still didn't understand what was promotion in Gandhi Mandela Award article. And how can you decide that i am a paid user. Do you think that Government will pay me for creating an incomplete Wiki page? That was my own interest to create an article for my nation. Now it seems like contributing on Wikipedia is only the wastage of time. Lastin4 (talk) 05:25, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Another one

Hello, there's more socks of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/RadyoUkay819/Archive, and the accounts is User:CottonSwabs100 and User:Healing2019. Please check because that is the person's 6th/7th/8th account.Triila73 (talk) 05:10, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

@Triila73: Please reopen the case and file a report about the two accounts. I'd prefer a record, but I'll address it after you've filed. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:43, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

@Bbb23: I've never done it before. I do not how. Triila73 (talk) 21:55, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

@Triila73: The only report in the case was filed by you on June 20, 2019. If you've forgotten how, I recommend you follow the instructions at WP:SPI. Click on "Show" in "How to open an investigation:". (BTW, you don't need to ping me on my own Talk page.) --Bbb23 (talk) 22:12, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm back and I have reopened the investigation. Now waiting. Triila73 (talk) 10:07, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigations policy

Hi. About Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Charito2000, sorry I wasn't aware that the policy on Eng WP didn't allow to connect ip to named accounts (it seems not to be the case on French WP). Now a new suspicious named account appeared since the request: should I open an new request or modify the ancient one to ask for a CU for this new account? Cheers.--Phso2 (talk) 09:16, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

@Phso2: I don't know what CUs on fr.wiki do as a matter of practice, but all projects are controlled by the meta CU policy, although they are free to change local policy provided it doesn't conflict. Meta policy does not permit the disclosure of IPs of named accounts except in rare circumstances, which, practically, never apply. In any event, don't open a new request. Just edit the existing request, putting your evidence, etc., of this named account in the "Comments by other users" section and at the same time adding the named account to the suspected puppet list. You can also change the status back to CU, and I or someone else will re-evaluate the request.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:19, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Sock puppet case

Hello, Bbb23,

I just blocked Elevatorphanatic who recreated some train station categories that were already created twice this week by socks of The Train Master. You might want to review it and make it a checkuser block if you have the time. Thank you! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:19, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

96.245.161.108 is making similar train station edits and protested the deletion of some of the Train Master's train categories but I know you don't connect IPs to created accounts. Just thought I'd pass it along. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:27, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

A Dobos torte for you!

Lightburst (talk) 20:40, 3 July 2019 (UTC) has given you a Dobos torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it. To give a Dobos torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Schoko-Lala

Looks like the creator of Schoko-Lala is a sockpuppeteer, figured you might want to check that over. Wgolf (talk) 21:58, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Forgot to put the user name User: Bptbinch there! Wgolf (talk) 22:20, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

@Wgolf: Actually, I figured Bptbinch out on my own, but it never hurts to be more explicit. The two accounts are now blocked and tagged. Pretty childish edits. Thanks for the heads up.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:33, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

User page picture

Your user page picture is beautiful. I downloaded a copy to use as my desktop background for a little while. Your other landscapes on the Commons are also very nice (although my favorite is still of Bourdeilles). Take care. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 00:53, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

@Wallyfromdilbert: You clearly have good taste. --Bbb23 (talk) 22:34, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Disruptive user

Hi B, I'm trying to figure out wot to do with CalEditerILikeTrain. I'm about to block him for incompetence and for not being here to build an encyclopedia, but he's been doing some weird shit, like creating templates (see Template:Reference unclear) and a second account CalEditerRep., which he's labeled as a semi-retired sockpuppet. Note also his deleted contributions. Anyhow, with the creation of the second account, I'm starting to wonder if this is somebody who's been indeffed before. Thoughts? Should I just indef both and call it a day? Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:11, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

A check turns up only what you would expect. There may be a master out there, but I don't know who it is. I'd definitely block both accounts.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:34, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks mate. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:20, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Charles Gasparino edits

Please note that Mr. Charles Gasparino has again removed the section about his false claim to a Pulitzer nomination. I've added an edit warring notice to his user talk page, and added a section on the talk page of the article about him. I won't add the section again to the article, as he would just remove it (he has already removed it six times). Perhaps another editor can add it. I don't want to engage in edit warring. I suppose he'll continue indefinitely until blocked. I'm not sure what else to do, but wanted you to know about the new section on the talk page.Extremely hot (talk) 22:53, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

@Extremely hot: I've already blocked him for legal threats. However, as long as you're here, I've read the material you added to the article, and I have problems with it. I haven't verified every source, but I did verify one, and I'll assume for the sake of argument that the facts are as you stated. But that doesn't mean the material is acceptable. I think something about what happened in 2012 should be in the article, but it should be short and not occupy a separate section. As it "was" (it's not in the article now), it is grossly WP:UNDUE, which, in and of itself, is a WP:BLP violation. --Bbb23 (talk) 23:00, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. FYI, it's nearly identical to the longstanding section in Jonah Goldberg.Extremely hot (talk) 23:08, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Actually, yours is easily twice as long. Perhaps you should seek opinions from editors at WP:BLPN.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:12, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. I appreciate your comment and will try to cut down that length! And thank you for removing my provocative comment.Extremely hot (talk) 23:58, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure what to do, not being an admin, but user charlesgasparino has come back as the puppet chuckgasparino, again editing his own bio. Should he be blocked as well? Should this be escalated to [WP:BLPB]]? I was waiting to do that until a fuller discussion could be held on the talk page.Extremely hot (talk) 00:08, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Jayasurya

Yeah, sloppy on my part... I got thrown by it being in draft.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:46, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

No worries. You're usually very meticulous about your tagging.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:48, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

WP:ANEW

Hello Bbb23. We haven't spoken in awhile and I'm positive it's because of something I've said or done. I believe it's because of my spat with Drmies on an Arbcase a few years back. Drmies offered an olive branch but I wasn't ready at the time. I know you two are close and I suspect that's why I haven't seen you around my talk page. I still value your opinion, though, and I hope that because you're active on WP:ANEW, you can tell me if I err'd in either my comments or my actions here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Dcflyer_reported_by_User:Snooganssnoogans_(Result:_Blocked). Thank you.--v/r - TP 23:29, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Hey TP, you're always welcome on my Talk page. I know we've had our differences in the past, but I also have positive memories of you as a person and of your administrative skills. As to your question, you're, as usual, a braver man than I, tackling the hard ones at ANEW. I usually leave those for others. Your block of Dcflyer was fine. I personally might have also blocked Snooganssnoogans for edit-warring, but if you felt you were WP:INVOLVED, I can understand why you didn't. Snooganssnoogans proved, though, that no good deed goes unpunished in their obnoxious comments after your block.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:44, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

I usually don't wade into politics because administrators of all flavors will make no friends there. But, I felt there was a clear bright line crossed in this case. Thank you for looking and for your kind words.--v/r - TP 23:48, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Signature Bank - Department and Subsidiary Info

Good Afternoon,

I noticed that you reverted some edits that I just made on the Signature Bank page, with a note that it was "promotional." Could you elaborate a bit on that, please? The information seemed to be pretty similar to info that's on other pages about banks and other financial institutions:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bank_of_New_York_Mellon#Operations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citibank#Products_&_Services https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morgan_Stanley#Organization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amalgamated_Bank#Products_and_services

I appreciate any insight you may be able to provide. Welltraveled (talk) 16:34, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Sure, stop editing the article. You've been blocked twice before for your problematic editing. You'll just push yourself into an indefinite block if you persist.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:49, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't understand what about my edit was problematic. If you look at the full edit history, there were a number of 'sock puppets' (or maybe it was just a single person?) that were undoing every edit made to the page before all of their accounts got shut down. I'm not sure why an edit like this, which expands on the information about the business, isn't allowed. Welltraveled (talk) 17:15, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

@Bbb23: I'm still hoping that you can help me understand what about my actual edit was "promotional" and what I need to edit to satisfy your litmus test, as I do believe the information is both valuable and relevant. I've opened a discussion on the article's talk page, as well. Welltraveled (talk) 03:41, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

5Ept5xW

I almost reacted. I feel trolled. LMAO.  Dlohcierekim (talk) 23:32, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

I revoked TPA. They refactored your edits. I reverted, and they did it again. Some people just don't get it.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:36, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

BTW, thank you for the clarification on what someone can and can't do during a block. I was hoping he'd understand the process a little better, but it doesn't look like it's worked. Almostfm (talk) 07:31, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

User:Dftyapo

Hi, I think you misunderstand, the edit I made was to their userpage, which User:Dftyapo cannot edit because he is blocked. For some reason User:17 kutalmis bercin was making posts there Rockstonetalk to me! 21:19, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

You're right, I did, and I reverted myself. My apologies.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:21, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

No worries! I thought it was their talk page too at first; but when I realized that it wasn't, I felt that it wasn't fair since they can't delete anything on the page during the block. Best, -- Rockstonetalk to me! 21:23, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Guidance

Hello again and thanks for your patience when I file inconclusive SPIs. I would be grateful if you could look at the last thread at my talk page. Does this fit the definition of outing? Revdel welcome if so. May also be interesting in relation to a case you know. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 06:36, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't follow it. If you're concerned, you should e-mail the Oversight team with specifics.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:22, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Not particularly and the facebook link was redacted by the one who posted it already. It basically confirmed off-wiki canvassing in relation to Sukavich Rangsitpol. —PaleoNeonate – 08:33, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Sleepless in Seattle

Why? There is a plenty of soundtracks featuring certified salesDhoffryn (talk) 18:52, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

If you want it in the article about the movie, take it to article Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:53, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Edf55

You recently blocked Edf55. I think it's worth noting that it appears this user is a single purpose account. If you look at his global contributions [33], virtually all of his mainspace edits across many language wikipedias are working to remove photos uploaded by a person with the pseudonym Nightshooter who has not been active for six years. See Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard#User:Nightshooter_-_block_&_deletion_request. It's a complex tale. Nightshooter was obviously using Wikipedia to promote his images [34]. Edf55 appears to be a single purpose account working to go against Nightshooter's efforts. Edf55's two unblock requests have been declined so far. Just want to give you a heads up about a complex scenario around this account. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:43, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Well, on Commons they looked on Edf55's arguments favorably, despite his, uh, tone. Indeed, they indeffed Matt Campbell, the user with whom Edf55 was edit-warring. That doesn't mean Edf55 can continue to behave here the way he has to date, but it is worth noting.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:42, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

False positive

Based on IRC interactions with TruthBear2019, I am reasonably confident that they were trying to do the right thing in terms of reporting incipient vandalism (and, indeed, the article was undergoing substantial vandalism at that time). They went about this in entirely the wrong way, but I am inclined to assume good faith in this particular incident; as such, I politely request that you unblock them. DS (talk) 18:14, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

A user should not be unblocked unless they make a request at Wikipedia explaining why. IRC, which I personally don't like or use, is okay for drawing someone's attention to their request but is not a substitute for a request. If you want to explain that to the user, that's up to you. AFAIK, you're always polite. --Bbb23 (talk) 18:18, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion NT of RS

Is it a problem to elaborate on refusal to remove Republika Srpska national basketball team, because I am bit confused: if it falls under at least A7, shouldn't article be deleted; not to mention it actually falls under A11 as well since subject of that article is being completely made-up institute - doesn't exist!?--౪ Santa ౪^99° 23:15, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

An article that is eligible for a7 cannot be deleted as an a11. If you believe the team doesn't exist, then it should be tagged as a hoax (g3), but you'd better be damned sure there is no such team. And how can you possibly think g6 applies - non-controversial clean-up? On an article that has existed for years? As for the a7, when an editor scattershots meritless tags at an article, an administrator is not likely to delete based on the one tag for which the article is eligible. But putting my reaction to your tags aside, I think it would be best for you to send it to AfD.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:29, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

I am inexperienced with these nominations, I never wanted to meddle into these processes - it wasn't abuse of Twinkle, it's not easy for someone trying to use it once or twice - by the way, this particular case really falls between A7 and G3, which complicate things quite a bit. Why not simply go with just A11, or just A7 ? Regardless I am willing to go even with G3, despite quite unsettling tone about it from you, rather than consume people's time at AfD. However, I am sure that team doesn't exists as such, unless someone with a knack for playing Balkan's politics and semantics come along and start claiming how it would be enough to dig out from Internet someone mentioning some kids who assembled, somewhere, sometime, in some town in Republic of Srpska or Serbia and call themselves National Team of a non-nation known as Republic of Srpska, which is an administrative entity without foothold for such institute in law or in constitution of an actual nation-state called Bosnia and Herzegovina. These Bosnian entities have their own local sport associations, as low as municipality level, like any nation in Europe, but without right of making separate so-called National Teams - to institute national team that is prerogative of the nation-state of Bosnia and Herzegovina and its umbrella-organizations in all of sports, not of any of the two administrative units. Such would never get recognized by any international sport association, not to mention that anyone who chose to endorse or host such rogue teams would get punished. Part of the country called Republic of Srpska could, however, decide to disobey all national laws and ignore international associations' norms and treaties, but then their sportsmen/women, teams and organizations would lose privilege of playing/competing on national level (Bosnia) as well as on international - they could compete with South Ossetia and such, though. Thanks for the input.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 01:43, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Only experienced editors should tag articles. You shouldn't. As I stated, your best option is to send the article to AfD. I have nothing more to say.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:05, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, of course, only you can't get experience by not doing it or at least trying. Thanks.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 02:39, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

@Santasa99: The vast majority of articles that are tagged for speedy deletion are new articles. Those articles are patrolled/curated by experienced users with special permissions. See Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Reviewers. If I wanted to gain experience in tagging articles, I would start by watching that page to see what others do and why. Jumping in and tagging an article that has existed for a long time and tagging it is not the way to gain experience. I would also study the various tags that can be applied to articles, reading each carefully and more than once. As far as I can tell, you did none of this, and I suspect you're not interested in it, either.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:09, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks on your input, I really appreciate it. You are mostly right about my interest, but I am getting interested, more and more, in learning these procedures and processes, especially as I slowly realized how neglected Balkan sphere of the project is and infected with sockpoppeteering and ethno-nationalistic POV pushing by mean of sockpuppeteering. Thanks, best regards.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 21:31, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Sockpuppet of Zawl

Hi Bbb23. I'm almost certain we have another sockpuppet of Zawl in the form of Applesaurus. Same sort of topics, trying to throw editors off by acting like a newbie and a really earnest user page that's quite similar to confirmed sock CoffeeMusicGym's. However, the way they speak to others and the topics they've edited is a giveaway. Could you please run a CU on them and see if there are any others out there? Applesaurus has now also downloaded Twinkle and knows how to use it already, and they have certainly very quickly started correctly categorising using HotCat after pretending they didn't know how to use it several days ago, which doesn't strike me as consistent with the earlier newbie act. (As with other tagged socks of Zawl, this is not the first time they've tried this newbie tactic.)

This message they left for a user by the name of "SpicyMilkBoy" also strikes me as fishy. The KoopaLoopa account you blocked tried in late May/early June to get CASSOPEIA to take them on as a trainee for the Counter-Vandalism Unit, and SpicyMilkBoy actually succeeding in doing this and is currently(?) CASSOPEIA's trainee. The name alone is suspicious, but the rest of it I'm not so sure about. Anyway, I'm not 100% sure about SpicyMilkBoy given their very thorough interest in medicine, but Applesaurus I am 100% sure about: they have also edited after me on several music articles (probably followed me to them, which wouldn't be unheard of for a sock of Zawl): [35], [36]. I just thought a CU might uncover this and more. Thanks. Ss112 10:13, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Ss112 - Have you filed a report at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations regarding Zawl/FWTH and with an in-depth explanation of the evidence you found that links the accounts together with the account you uncovered? If not, you need to do this right away. Please respond with a follow-up comment that you've done this and provide a link to the report. Once an SPI report is filed, someone (if not myself) will get the investigation process started. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:19, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Never mind... It looks like the Applesaurus account mentioned above has been confirmed and indef'd by a CU. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:21, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Oshwah: TonyBallioni already handled this. I understand the process and I have filed a couple of SPIs before, but as I'm sure all are aware, the whole SPI process usually takes at least a few days and allows the user to continue editing/disrupting using the sock account during that time. Sometimes more immediate action is needed. Ss112 02:23, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

​Well, I have that SPI watchlisted, but I also understand that there are very legitimate reasons why you may not wish to file for that particular case, so I don't mind you emailing me. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:34, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Why won't you let me remove a closed discussion on a blocked user?

Hi Bbb123, why won't you let me remove a closed friendly discussion on a blocked users page? The user has lost access to his page and only the unblock requests could append to it. Shencypeter (talk) 14:41, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

With limited exceptions that are not applicable here, you have no right to remove anything from another user's Talk page, whether they are blocked or not. You did the exact same thing on July 1 and I undid your edit with the edit summary "no basis for removing this". Leave the page alone.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:45, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Sorry I missed this memo. Shencypeter (talk) 02:45, 11 July 2019 (UTC)