User talk:Bbb23/Archive 55

Archive 50

←

Archive 53

Archive 54

Archive 55

Archive 56

Archive 57

→

Archive 60

Abbasmilani

Hi Bbb23! 80.5.133.175 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), the IP mentioned at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Abbasmilani, is back and editing both of the affected articles. Do you think a block is warranted? DanCherek (talk) 12:30, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Blocked for one week.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:02, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Charli

Hey, looks like 77.11.113.86 (talk · contribs) today. Same articles as the other ones. Kante4 (talk) 13:30, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Boo!

Happy Halloween!

---

Hello Bbb23:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!
    —usernamekiran • sign the guestbook • (talk) 21:16, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Um, did I stuff up?

Hello, I noticed your edit summary when you removed my update to the edit war page. Do you mean that I should go to Page Protection Requests?The Alternate Mako (talk) 15:02, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

You're referring to Stephen Sharer. No, as far as I can tell, no administrative action is required.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:28, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Question regarding revisions

Good afternoon, @Bbb23. I have a quick question for you. You were the administrator that put a block in place on my account; I noticed that you then also reverted some of my edits (as an example a quick note on a talk page here). I was wondering if it is standard to just change all recent edits if you believe an account is a sock; if so I was going to revert that one and others that were changed just for that reason. I didn't want to revert a change you made If was made due to the actual content of the edit, however. Please forgive me lack of knowledge in this area and advise me as to the appropriateness of reverting those reverts. Thanks in advance! FranMichael (talk) 19:23, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

In glancing at your contributions, other than the one you highlight above, I don't see that I reverted your edits. Maybe I missed one, though; you'd have to give me a diffs for any others. As for the Talk page edit, you can reinstate it if you wish, although it's unlikely to go anywhere. As an aside, you don't need to ping me on my Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:59, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Right.. I knew that! Sorry about the ping, doing too many things at once. I'll take a look and if I have any questions I'll give you the diffs. Thanks for your response, happy Halloween! FranMichael (talk) 20:25, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – November 2021

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2021).

Administrator changes

Clpo13

Brian0918 • JDoorjam • Karanacs • MrDarcy • Mindspillage

Interface administrator changes

Evad37

CheckUser changes

Dreamy Jazz • Ferret • GeneralNotability • Girth Summit • RoySmith

Oversight changes

Dreamy Jazz • LuK3

Guideline and policy news

• Phase 2 of the 2021 RfA review has commenced which will discuss potential solutions to address the 8 issues found in Phase 1. Proposed solutions that achieve consensus will be implemented and you may propose solutions till 07 November 2021.

Technical news

• Toolhub is a catalogue of tools which can be used on Wikimedia wikis. It is at https://toolhub.wikimedia.org/.

Arbitration

• GeneralNotability, Mz7 and Cyberpower678 have been appointed to the Electoral Commission for the 2021 Arbitration Committee Elections. Ivanvector and John M Wolfson are reserve commissioners.
• Eligible editors are invited to self-nominate themselves to stand in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections from 07 November 2021 until 16 November 2021.

Miscellaneous

• The 2021 CheckUser and Oversight appointments process has concluded with the appointment of five new CheckUsers and two new Oversighters.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:43, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Dean Louton

Hi Bbb23, since you were the one to block RJV123 as a sock of Dean Louton a few months ago, you might be able to have a look at Ponydices, who, during the past few days, has created this bizarre fictional vanity page. I'd take it to SPI, but I'm not terribly familiar with the process and this also seems unambiguous enough as to not necessarily require a CU. Thanks. AngryHarpy‍^talk 17:05, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:39, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Mohammed106 (again)

Hello, Bbb23. With some delay (as I myself noticed it very recently), I want to inform you that banned user Mohammed106 (talk · contribs) edited again, some days ago, using this IP – 41.254.64.195 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). I am informing you about it pretty much 'just for the record', since the editing occurred about ten days ago. —Sundostund (talk) 17:58, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Boo!

Happy Halloween!

---

Hello Bbb23:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!
    —usernamekiran • sign the guestbook • (talk) 03:00, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Vandalism

Hi Bbb23, that person is reverting my edits and vandalizing multiple times, can you please warn him? [[1]] --Static Hash (talk) 14:48, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Tim Bagley

Why did you removed the tables in the above article but left sections like Television and Film careers as unsourced?--Filmomusico (talk) 02:23, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

The only tables I removed were the two one-entry tables for written works and producer.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:19, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that's fine, but why living other unsourced sections?--Filmomusico (talk) 16:54, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

It's a matter of discretion. Those sections mostly discuss his appearances in shows, all of which are verifiable, unlike personal data where sources are required.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:57, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

User:Maurice Flesier requesting unblock

• Maurice Flesier (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Unblock request

Hi Bbb23. This editor, blocked indefinitely by me in 2015 per AN3, is now requesting unblock. I'm considering granting the request but would like at least a small amount of external input. You're one of the blocking admins. Would you like to give an opinion? He was forthright enough to provide some IPs he has used to edit during the block, and this does cause me concern, but I think the last IP edit was in June. Thanks for any response, EdJohnston (talk) 18:58, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

There may be more different IP addresses, but as I said before, they do not violate Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Of course that's false as they are clear block evasion no matter the merits of the edits themselves. I think at a minimum you or some other checkuser should determine if the user has been evading his block in the last 90 days.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:11, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

The user has been blocked for six years so any logged-in edits would be stale. Can a check reveal anything slse of interest? EdJohnston (talk) 23:53, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

He just admitted to another IP who edited last month. The account is not stale as he has made several edits on his Talk page this month. In addition, you would be able to expand your search against the IPs he notes, the IPs he uses for his logged-in edits, and appropriate ranges of those IPs. Even if nothing other than what we already know is found, I wouldn't unblock for six months from his last block evasion, meaning until April 2023. He also needs to understand that what he did was a clear violation of policy and, in my view, defeats his argument that he is ready to be unblocked. At best there is a serious lack of understanding of how things work.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:09, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Charli

Another one 77.13.106.141 (talk · contribs) here. Kante4 (talk) 14:54, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Curious about sockpuppet

Hi! You recently blocked User:Brancrandran and reverted a change they made to Mary van Kleeck, a page on my watchlist. Apparently they're a sock of User:Ellsiemall. I have no problem with any of that. But I'm curious, because I don't know a lot about sock investigations - what are the circumstances under which an admin can just block a sock without a CU investigation? I assume there a lot of edits you can see that I can't, as an admin, because I can only see one edit ever from Ellsiemall, which makes it strange to see Brancrandran blocked due to having similar edit habits. Ganesha811 (talk) 20:07, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Any administrator can block an editor for socking. Neither a CU investigation nor a WP:SPI is required. Perhaps it'll help if you look at 雷頓2021 and USSR Kamakura who have more edits.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:42, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Ok, good to know, thanks. So am I right to think that there are edits from Ellsiemall that I cannot see? Happy editing! Ganesha811 (talk) 20:49, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Nope, just the one edit way back in 2013. For the answer as to why I tagged the socks with Elsiemall as the master, you'd have to look at ja.wiki where Elsiemall is very well-known. I spent a LOT of time there earlier today. Good luck! --Bbb23 (talk) 20:59, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Another one

User:Indianews2122 is another new editor fixated on Faizabad/Ayodhya: see eg User:Rockymumbai99. Oculi (talk) 19:05, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

 Done.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:06, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Curious (3)

Curious boy km appeared today with Special:Contributions/110.44.124.166. Same few articles; is modifying sourced content elsewhere, and adding fake refs to their favourite article Nepali Congress. I checked the /23 and there are IPs they've edited from but also other unrelated editors. Related but not related, the proxy bot is blocking some of their IPs. I was wondering why some IPs it blocks as proxies and others are left alone. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 10:47, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

What /23 range exactly?--Bbb23 (talk) 13:03, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

When I tried whois for this IP, the result said "asn cidr" is Special:contributions/110.44.124.0/23, so that's what I looked the contributions for. I also tried Special:contributions/110.44.124.0/24, and it was not the same. I don't really know what the difference is, but that's what I checked. Most of the entries are obviously this editor but some could be unrelated, such as this, this and this. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 13:40, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm not an expert in this, but different ranges have different characteristics. An IPv4 /24 range is usually one household; anything wider can include different users, and so you might have collateral damage if you block such a range. The /23 range affects twice as many IPs as the /24 range. As to proxies, you'd have to give me examples of individual IPs in the /23 range that have been blocked as proxies, but, even then, I'm not sure I could provide you with a decent explanation as to what's going on. Some users who know more are ST47, Zzuuzz, and SQL.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:56, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

I haven't checked all the block logs, but I can see one currently blocked (110.44.124.151). The thing to note about IP addresses from Nepal is that they're persistently plagued by open proxies, and these proxies (much like the users) wander around different addresses in the networks. We tend to only block the ones which are active at the time. There's actually not really many addresses in Nepal. I don't know this user by I'd guess they're actually in Nepal and not an open proxy user. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 14:10, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

I think I understand. Thank you both. Usedtobecool ☎️ 05:57, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

• Special:Contributions/110.44.120.15 today. I thought they'd gone after the initial burst, but no, they're still editing three hours later. Usedtobecool ☎️ 10:27, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
• Hi, they are at Special:Contributions/103.10.31.60 today. Same topic area; about 2 edits per month this year among Special:Contributions/103.10.31.60/24 are unrelated to this editor; the rest are all topics of this editor's interest, including their disruptive edits to ANI and user talk pages in May and August.
  I think the blocking and mass-reverting is working; they are showing up much less frequently. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 10:34, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

P.S. They edited from Special:Contributions/103.10.31.4 yesterday. In [this edit], they added a copyvio image that one of their named socks you blocked here earlier had uploaded to Commons. Usedtobecool ☎️ 10:45, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

• Special:Contributions/103.10.31.57 today. They've submitted a draft. It's an IP they've edited from before. Earlier today/yesterday, they were at Special:Contributions/103.10.31.5, and also Special:Contributions/103.10.31.61. Usedtobecool ☎️ 12:41, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
• Usedtobecool as a heads up, Nepal might be the worst country on en.wiki when it comes to traffic from the same IP and stuff being dynamic. Without getting into too many details, IPs change constantly, everyone uses the same device, and people who are obviously different people and probably are in different locations can share the same IP minutes apart from one another (Worldlink in particular is terrible when it comes to this, in case you're curious.)
  All that to say, blocks aren't always the best way to deal with Nepal because of the collateral. Sometimes it is unavoidable, but it is oftentimes just as meaningful to revert as the issues arise. I'll ping zzuuzz in case he has thoughts as well, but to expand on what he said about Nepal having limited IPs: Nepal has roughly the population of Canada. Nepal has 0.8% of the IP addresses that Canada has (586,786/72,537,333 for those following at home). Do the math on the potential for collateral. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:23, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

• @TonyBallioni: If 2+2=4 and 2x2=4, then 2/2=20. Canada has about 1/3 more people than Nepal, so we should all move to Nepal to make your stats more accurate. BTW, thanks for posting here: it keeps the thread from archiving thereby preventing the likelihood of "Curious (4)".--Bbb23 (talk) 12:40, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

• Ha! I got that statistic from friends I know from Nepal. Never bothered to verify it. I should be more like the Russians and trust and verify. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:10, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

  TBF, but for men spending their most productive years in slave labour abroad, we might have "roughly" caught up to Canada by now. Speaking of things you might hear from Nepalese, did you know that if Nepal's surface were to be spread out into a plain, it would stretch from Ceylon to Lhasa and Kabul to Malaysia? Usedtobecool ☎️ 09:02, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Way ahead, Big B.[2] Usedtobecool ☎️ 09:06, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks @TonyBallioni:! Considering the potential editor base from Nepal is likely to be much smaller than from anglophone countries, I think it would not be that big; some typos here and there, but not much more, especially if account creation is still possible and blocks are set to expire shortly. Point taken though. I am happy to do as you would advise; that's the principal reason I chose to do this on an admin's talk page. I have never had an editor target me, then persist this long in their abusive editing, so I really don't have an opinion of my own on what would be the best way.

This editor's edits are good 50% of the time. So, it takes a lot of time to review their work. And they start increasing their volume and frequency if they don't get quickly reverted and blocked. I know they can be blindly mass-reverted but I haven't done that so far. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 09:46, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

• New named sock: Unified star. I was busy the last few days, and they've managed to get multiple articles to mainspace just by posting to user talk pages. They were initially working from Special:Contributions/36.252.111.154 which also created multiple articles yesterday. Draft:Gajendra Bahadur Hamal which they created even earlier from a different IP is still in the AFC pile (it has been edited by multiple IPs and the named user). Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 03:14, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
• B, we've got a new sock: Karanliboy. First edit was creating an article. Created two, and started editing with IP again. So, I thought maybe he's abandoned it, but apparently not. He's started editing again. History of the first article. History of the second article; it's still in draft so no IPs yet. I think it's pretty obvious from Special:Contributions/Karanliboy. Please let me know if you'd rather I made a proper case. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 17:34, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

  Thank you! I have received confirmation here, btw. Usedtobecool ☎️ 18:39, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Deleted category pages

Among the pages of User:Brancrandran that you deleted there were also a number of category pages that seemed perfectly valid, e.g. Category:American LGBT poets. Two days ago there were around 100 articles in the category and I added some 80 more in the past two days. Can you please have a look? Marcocapelle (talk) 20:37, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

I tried to empty the cats Brancrandran created before deleting them, but the sock was prolific to say the least. I've restored the above cat.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:40, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. The same applies to about 20 sibling categories of Category:American LGBT poets. Could you restore these as well? Marcocapelle (talk) 21:52, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Please list the ones you wish restored.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:07, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for any emptying of categories you did, Bbb23, as according to WP:REVERTBAN, categories are often an exception to CSD G5 because, unlike articles or files, they can impact so many other pages. Also, it seems odd this user is a sockpuppet of User:Ellsiemall as that account had one edit in 2013 and isn't even blocked. Did you mean a different sockmaster? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:02, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

See the section above.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:06, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Oh, right, scan the whole page. Thanks for the explanation. I see a lot more of his categories popping up on the empty category list so I'll take care of those. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:06, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

I have reviewed all that user's deleted categories and either checked that they were empty, emptied them manually, or undeleted them if populated and possibly worthwhile (about 90). – Fayenatic London 16:50, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Nathan Edmondson

Hi. My attempts to get others to help regarding an editor blanking content from the Nathan Edmondson article, and refusing to discuss the matter, have only been slightly successful. I've contacted three other admins, and put messages on the WikiComics Project talk page, and only two other editors have so far responded. Since you've participated in disputes regarding comics articles before, can you offer your views in the discussions? My analysis of the blanking, which I did at the request of another editor who alerted me to the problem, is here. The subsequent RfC began here. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 18:20, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Undeleting Hopper

Please can you undelete my Hopper article and be more careful about deleting good articles uncritically labeled as "unambiguous advertising". I am not paid for my contributions and don't appreciate the insinuation. Wikipedia lacks many articles about notable travel industry companies, like Siteminder, which I will write now. FailedMusician (talk) 21:45, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

A Barnstar for you!

		All-Around Amazing Barnstar
		I was bored so take this! Lopbunny69 (talk) 19:19, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Further suspected sock of User:Clemper

Hi there, could you possibly look into User:Patches320 as a suspected sock of User:Clemper, also in the future whaat would be the best way for me to alert admins about sock behaviour like this? CaffeinAddict (talk) 19:14, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Could you give me some diffs please?--Bbb23 (talk) 19:54, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

[3] - new account, seems to be editing the exact same manner, same sentence in lead section previous two users were hung up about. CaffeinAddict (talk) 19:58, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Also is disruptively undoing reverts. Zefr has made the most recent edit. [4] and [5] CaffeinAddict (talk) 20:01, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

I need diffs of the blocked accounts also, either or both.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:02, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

My apologies for not getting back sooner but appears this issue has been rectified. Thanks again. CaffeinAddict (talk) 04:06, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Ado Campeol

Wow! That's quite the personal attack! I have zero "feelings" about Ado Campeol and no connection at all with his restaurant or his region or rival restaurants or regions. I am an experienced editor in food history (starting in 2004!), having contributed to articles about everything from Steak Diane to Whipped cream and Fettuccine Alfredo. My contributions are all heavily supported with solid reliable sources and I have never been the subject of administrative action. So I'd hope that you would assume good faith rather than interpret my edits as constituting some sort of vendetta against Campeol.

My goal is to get a properly balanced coverage about tiramisu. You say that I have "disparaged" Campeol, which baffles me: what words or actions of mine do you interpret as disparagement? I am not "slyly manipulating the outcome" of the AfD -- I am trying to make sure that the article is of good quality and properly constructed. In particular, the section "Le Beccherie and tiramisu" says nothing about Campeol himself except that tiramisu was supposedly invented at his restaurant -- all the rest of the paragraph is about other people's activities -- so that section belongs in the tiramisu article and not here. Including it here gives the false impression that Campeol was a central character in creating tiramisu and therefore notable. When I deleted that section with the clear Edit summary "Tiramisu history belongs in that article", it was peremptorily re-inserted with the comment "don't do that while the article is at AfD". My understanding is that improvements to the article are encouraged during AfD. Obviously you disagree with my judgement that removing that section was an improvement, but the usual way to handle content disputes like that is with discussion on Talk, not reverts.

As for "pushing my agenda on the Talk page", I have made a number of substantive points about the Campeol and the sources about Campeol which remain unrefuted. In particular, the claim that he "has been called 'the father of tiramisu'" is problematic. I reported that I had found zero mentions of that name before his death after looking fairly thoroughly, and no one has refuted that claim.

I have made also the point that the sources for the article are almost all uncritical news articles which are largely clones of one another and not original reporting, and therefore not independent reliable sources. Where are the multiple, independent, reliable sources?

Best, --Macrakis (talk) 18:08, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Sock Puppet Report

Hello, should I remove the potential puppetees main account from my comment also to prevent IP ties to the user? I am nee to this so not very experienced. Sorry about that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/JohnGotten Thank you. OyMosby (talk) 15:43, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Your request for a CU was declined. There's nothing you need to do. Someone will look at the IPs, although I've removed one that has zero contributions.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:46, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

The IP continues to now tit for tat remove content here . I can’t revert as it would violate 3RR. I will just wait for now. OyMosby (talk) 17:48, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Vandal?

Please take a look at this. I am not sure why such removal of sources and information before any discussion is even necessary. The user Suthasianhistorian8 removed so much of information that I am not sure where to begin with.[6]. And after removing the whole section on the article, the user posts message on talk page providing his reasoning. [7]. Shouldn't the user have consulted before removing the whole section? You might want to look into it as your opinion will matter most in this circumstance. MehmoodS (talk) 19:15, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

I have no special expertise in this area. If you object to Suthasianhistorian8's edits, discuss them on the article Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:22, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

I thoroughly examined the original section of "Media Coverage" along with others such as "Sikh-Nirankari Clash 1978" and the corresponding citations going through numerous pages of journals and books. Any admin or you MehmoodS is welcome to see the difference between the article then and now. Also sift through my edits and see my reasonings. If you want to discuss this further, go on the talk page of the article 20:25, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Charli

Another one 77.191.88.76 (talk · contribs) here. Kante4 (talk) 18:43, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks as always. Kante4 (talk) 19:07, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Yet another one

User:Five5599$ is yet another new editor fixated on Faizabad/Ayodhya: see eg User:Indianews2122, User:Rockymumbai99. Oculi (talk) 20:25, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

New Sockupuppet account reporting

Update on SPI investigation you closed Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Al aman kollam/Archive. A confirmed new account is created and I reported it here. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/0"cleopatra"0. You blocked the last account. So I updated you. Thank you Onmyway22 talk 08:29, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Page protection request for Batman: The Adventures Continue

Hi, did you even look at the edit history of that page? UK IP editor(s) have been adding the same, repeated nonsense over and over again for months, if not the entirety of 2021. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Batman:_The_Adventures_Continue&action=history Posters5 (talk) 06:36, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Leonardo Glauso

Hi. I saw you were the admin that salted Draft:Leonardo Glauso after it was G5ed. Since then, two new editors Metaverseadnart (account created 28/10/21) and Cattixart (account created 15/11/21) have created Draft:Leonardo Glauso (artist) and Draft:Leonardo Glauso (italian photographer) in attempts to bypass the salt. Could there also be sockpuppetry here in defiance of the original editor (can't see who)'s ban? Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 15:03, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I've blocked them both and deleted the drafts. The problem here is I don't know who the master is. There are a lot of blocked socks, all focused on Leonardo Glauso, but none is tagged, even the ones blocked before I noticed them, so I just continue the unfortunate pattern. Thanks for bringing this to my attention.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:13, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Reporting another sockpuppet

49.149.188.69 is a possible sockpuppet of User:Funk Hipster, he already admit it, Special:Diff/1055198756, you can see on his contributions. —It'sCtrlwiki • talk • 01:00, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Block 192.225.184.50

Hi Bbb23, great to see you coming to my aid! Any way we can block "192.225.184.50" ASAP. He is clearly a vandal wrecking ball. Thanks! Th78blue (They/Them/Their • talk) 23:24, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

 Done.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:25, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

Thanks for the block of that vandal. It is much appreciated. Th78blue (They/Them/Their • talk) 23:41, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

IP: 2600:1700:C1A0:F3B0:D61:4779:AF9D:4DB please block

Hi again,

IP 2600:1700:C1A0:F3B0:D61:4779:AF9D:4DB has been repeatedly vandalizing an edit on Greenfield, New Hampshire by adding a "all around good guy" "Notable people" edit... Please assist. Th78blue (They/Them/Their • talk) 05:24, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Liz assisted.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:37, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Query

Hello, Bbb23,

A 4 day old account, User:Mr.NuggetGuy has gotten extremely busy nominating articles for AFD discussions and tagging 15 articles for CSD G5 speedy deletion that I rolled back because they didn't fit the criteria. He is talking about doing WP:BEFORE searches and all kinds of language that a 4 day old account should not have encountered. I wish I had a better instinct for sockpuppets and that I could recognize who he is and file a SPI case. I am usually a bit dense about sockpuppetry but he can't be a new editor given the way he jumped into article deletion. Thanks for any clarity you could provide. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:15, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

He continued to tag pages for deletion despite my request not to so I have given him a brief block for disruptive editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:18, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Instead of going to bed as I should, I've spent the last 30 minutes staring at his contributions. The problem was there were so many sockmasters he could be, but I wasn't sure which one. Anyway, I blocked him indefinitely as a sock of someone and without TPA. I also got rid of all the AfDs he'd created, not to mention the GA thing he initiated. G'night.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:56, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for delaying your bedtime to look at this. I guess he was so obvious, even I could tell he was a sockpuppet. It helps when they aren't very good at it. Only active for 4 days but he caused a lot of mischief. Thanks again! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:58, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

For what it's worth, it's MRY: compare Special:Contributions/VladimirBoys. Both accounts later posted flags of ISIS on my Commons talk page. JavaHurricane 04:33, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Wow, just charming. I'm sorry you've been targeted like this. I never think to check their activity on other projects. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:55, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

@JavaHurricane: You know, I noticed that edit on Commons, but I didn't look at the history of your Talk page or I would have found VladimirBoys. MRY was one of the masters I suspected, but I'm a little more wary of blocking based on behavior without tells that I recognize. I should have looked at the LTA page. Two bullets there would have been helpful: (1) "Commonly impersonates several other LTAs including Supreme Genghis Khan, BMX on WheeIs and WhenDatHotlineBling" and (2) "Trolls the users that they dislike by putting disruptive images on their talk pages". I didn't know, though, that he disliked you. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 12:36, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Oh, and funnily enough, Mr.NuggetGuy was globally locked a few minutes after I locally blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:43, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Block of User:1100035309hi

Just to let you know, this user actually created the test page at Draft:O2 before, not after, receiving their final warning about inappropriate page creation from User:Liz; I just didn't see it and subsequently tag it until afterwards.

Thank you, Passengerpigeon (talk) 23:24, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

SilverWolf2323454545964

I'm inclined to agree the creations are non-notable. GiantSnowman 09:46, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I've nominated for deletion the two pages that haven't already been deleted.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:34, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Sockpuppets

Hi Bbb23, I have a strong suspicion that

• 42.117.54.26
• 115.78.4.62
• 115.79.24.116
• DUYX
• Hocimi
• Zingvin (already blocked for sockpuppetry)

are accounts of the same person (and is thus continuing the sockpuppetry). All the accounts show the same edit style, the same areas of interest and the nationalistic edits. Could you please look into it? Thanks, WA8MTWAYC (talk) 11:19, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

That's a very long time ago. You'll have to file a report at WP:SPI.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:54, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I've opened the report. Cheers, WA8MTWAYC (talk) 21:06, 18 November 2021 (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. Sapedder (talk) 09:05, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

@Sapedder: I'm afraid I can't help you. Off-wiki activity is something I rarely get involved in, and I never look at Reddit if I can possibly help it. If you think the IP's edits constitute WP:OUTING, you should contact the WP:OS team.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:58, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Jan777 sock

Hello.

Please be informed that the user Karlaz85 (talk · contribs) is a Jan777 (talk · contribs) sockpuppet according to the RuWiki CU. Please block her here too, or else she will continue her PR campaign. --Mykola7 (talk) 20:07, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Wow, that was a long time ago. Blocked and tagged.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:33, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

It almost never stopped. You haven't seen what a mess they made in UkWiki. Thanks. --Mykola7 (talk) 22:58, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

AIV

Hey Bbb. I don't think we've spoken since you returned, but for what it's worth it's good to see you back. Anyway, just FYI I blocked MANSION77 after you declined an AIV report. I wouldn't normally override another admin like that but that account's only edits were to introduce a spam link on their user page. Someone who starts like that is unlikely to become a productive member of the community. Hope you don't take offence. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:05, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

No problem. My rule of thumb is a new user has to do at least two spammy things before I block. Otherwise, I'd be blocking so many users, and most people think I block too many as it is. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 14:14, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Generally I'd agree with that rule of thumb but if their sole purpose in being here is to promote themselves/their company/their website, there's nothing to be gained by keeping them around. They're unlikely to promote themselves in one place and write about, say, extinct spiders somewhere else. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:39, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Ah well, I'll stick with my rule of thumb. I've found that most go away. What do you do if you get an editor who promotes extinct spiders? Maybe Ron Weasley?--Bbb23 (talk) 14:50, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

I can't see the exact deleted text, but I can see the page creation log, and based on that I am quite sure that is yet another Indonesian slot spambot; I've been dealing with those for months on Meta and SWMT wikis. There's a fair few casino sites from that group that I reported to the blacklist at Meta. Might be worthwhile doing the same here as well. Pinging Beetstra, who regularly works at the blacklist. JavaHurricane 17:33, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello Bbb23, the words Online Slots together with external links usually indicate a spambot (that and the filter log). Regards Ruy (talk) 14:47, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

The online slots are an issue, I would blacklist and block without question, and probably here on a first edit. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:25, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Block evasion

See User:Flesekunbanned. Srnec (talk) 18:48, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

That was rather transparent. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:58, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Hecta Token importance

Hello dear I am writing to you to inform you that new article about Hecta Token that you have deleted, is important due to functionality that this token present first time in cryptocurrancy field. And the functionality consists Hyper-Deflationary, NFT marketplace, DEX and gaming platform which all of these come through Hecta project. Publishing this article can help crypto-fan Enthusiasms to familiar with this ecosystem. Best regard — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crypto.en (talk • contribs) 19:56, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Of course you may search other similar pages as tezos or safemoon or shiba inu crypto. But nevertheless none of them has ability of NFT and game to earn and deflationary system at same time. This modules are most important features that each defi ecosystem may have together. Please consider these features. Sincerely Crypto.en (talk) 20:47, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Accusation of taunting

Hi, sorry about bothering you with this, but can you please clarify this sth? I asked user Khirurg to be more careful with the tone they used towards other editors [8]. They removed my post without explanation [9]. After I added it again, they said that I was "taunting" them [10]. I told them that I was not doing that [11] and they repeated the accusation [12]. . Khirurg continues to accuse another editor of "threats" [13] even after the editor said their statement was not a threat and asked Khirurg to not mention words just as "threat" and "taunt" [14]. Since you intervened two days ago in a discussion some editors including me and Khirurg participated [15]. Are my comments "taunting" or is Khirurg's comment on me inappropriate? If my comments indeed constitute "taunting", should I modify them? If you do not want to get involved, I understand. Best. Durraz0 (talk) 19:16, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

I have blocked Khirurg for 24 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:28, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Sorry Bb23 to intervene, but those edits [[16]][[17]] seem to me an obvious case of edit conflict, not intentional removal. It would seem too weird to intentionally remove comments Khirurg is replying to.Alexikoua (talk) 00:14, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Quick note on Jayanti (film)

Thanks for your edits to Jayanti (film). they already have a draft which is been rejected a couple of times. Draft:Jayanti (film). Which tells us that this is a clear promotional attempt. how do we go about it in such a case? QueerEcofeminist[they/them/their] 17:48, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Take it to AfD.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:49, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

thanks I will do that. QueerEcofeminist[they/them/their] 17:52, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:20, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Fath Abad Garden

I wanted to create the page Fath Abad Garden but noticed that you have previously deleted the page once because its writer was blocked. I wonder if it would be OK if I created it again. --Salazar the terrible (talk) 13:28, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

I take this silence of yours as approval, I will make the page. --Salazar the terrible (talk) 07:42, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

your recent block of user:Winter Solstice Despised Icon

Appears to be socking as Brad Paisley Bobby Pinson (talk · contribs). Same pattern of making changes and immediately self-reverting, including overlapping articles and some of the identical edits made by Winter Solstice Despised Icon. Meters (talk) 02:07, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Sro23 did the necessary.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:40, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll add the SPI to my list so I'll know it next time. Meters (talk) 07:43, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

ETHA Lend (blockchain platform)

Hello Bbb. I messaged you as regards your deletion of the page ETHA Lend, a blockchain platform, after it was tagged for speedy deletion. Based on the research I did before I started creating this page, ETHA Lend seemed to be a blockchain protocol with significant notability. I did not set out to advertise the protocol nor do I have any reasons why I would do that. If the page comes off as "unambiguous advertising," It is either due to some careless use of words or the effect of subsequent editing after going live. I would be glad if you could bring back the drafted version of this page so I could work towards rectifying the issues raised and see if it could be published. I have a fair number of contributions on Wikipedia and I am not known to be a fervent rule breaker or something. It is understandable if you choose not to but I would love to know what went wrong with the page. Thank you. Pete Is Black (talk) 21:13, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Seems to me that you are an undisclosed paid editor, which is a policy violation.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:56, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

I am impressed at how you connected the dots. Wow! Pete Is Black (talk) 11:52, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Parents of Hridayeshwar Singh Bhati's accounts

• Sarower Sigh Bhati (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Dr Meenakshi Kanwar (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Hridayeshwar Singh Bhati (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

They are related accounts.

• Hridayeshwar Singh Bhati - subject of article
• Sarower Sigh Bhati - father of subject [18]
• Dr Meenakshi Kanwar - mother of subject [19]

However, they were blocked 8 years ago and Hridayeshwar Singh Bhati died of cardiac arrest on 15 June 2021. In my opinion, it would be better unblock accounts of his parents. Sharouser (talk) 16:32, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

If someone wants to make an unblock request, they can do so themselves.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:18, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Re: Draft:Cristopher Siachoque

Hello to too. I have blocked the user on es-Wiki. If you check his global account in Meta, you can also see that he is an evasion of this other previously blocked here. And he has not stopped trying to publish his biography invented other names to evade protections and deletions. Greetings Geom (talk) 17:06, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

 Done.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:24, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Taborah

Hi Bbb23, hope you're doing well 🙂 thanks for stepping in with Taborah. I've been talking to them in VRT ticket 2021112810004204, and was wondering if you would be willing to unblock them if they agree to edit their draft (Draft:Taborah Adams) constructively? I think getting multiple emails at once was a little overwhelming and may have contributed to some terse words.. TNT (talk) (she/they) 20:47, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

@TheresNoTime: I don't think she should be unblocked. On many levels, I do not see her as an asset to the project. However, you may unblock her if you think that's best.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:52, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Sam, what do we gain by unblocking someone who just wants to write about themselves, citing Facebook and YouTube as references (and apparently copying and pasting from their own website anyway)? I agree with Bbb, who just happened to swing the banhammer before me. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:00, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

@Bbb23 and HJ Mitchell: I'm of two minds in this - its no secret that I'm quite the deletionist, and I take a pretty hard line against paid/promotional editing. That being said, the page in question (Taborah Adams) had existed for quite some time before it was edited by Taborah, and was tagged for deletion instead of the promotional edits reverted. We're at a net loss on content, and editors, from this interaction so far. Asking the editor to work on the draft has two outcomes - one, a non-viable draft and two, a draft which is worked into a viable article. I'm not a betting woman but those odds look worth a try at least TNT (talk) (she/they) 21:13, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

TheresNoTime, But that "gain" is an editor who only wants to write about themselves, and a promotional autobiography on a non-notable musician sourced to Facebook and YouTube. That doesn't seem like much of a gain. If she wants to write about something other than herself, or provide reliable third-party sources on a talk page, I'd welcome her back with open arms. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:32, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't think this editor is sufficiently competent to edit anything. I also think it likely that if she is unblocked, she is likely to throw tantrums again, claiming mental illness.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:54, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

@Bbb23: I don't think its fair to anyone here to associate "throwing a tantrum" with "claiming mental illness" /pos   --TNT (talk) (she/they) 23:13, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

@TheresNoTime: I have a great deal of sympathy for anyone with any kind of mental illness. I have family and friends with various problems. So I'm not trying to diminish the person's issues, whatever they may be. However, this is Wikipedia, not real life, and the Wikipedia reality is that when such problems interfere with the person's ability to edit and to collaborate with others, we can't afford to treat them differently.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:36, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Urgghh, I seem to have stepped into this pile of s mire too, with this; that page is likely to be deleted in a week or so unless someone comes up with a rewrite. My 2 eurocents: I don't think we unblock people so that they can continue promoting stuff, and I don't think she's going to agree to stick to editing other articles. Two things to take away: if by some miracle you have a promo page here that has escaped attention, whatever you do don't touch it; and if people can set up to receive an email every time they get a talk-page message, someone (oversighters, stewards, the office?) should have the power to over-ride that if it's causing distress. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:53, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

As an update, I'm not going to be unblocking the user - if Taborah Adams is notable, someone else will sort the draft into an article, copyright issues notwithstanding. I recall now why I just stick to the CU/OS VRT queues 🥲   --TNT (talk) (she/they) 23:13, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Sock case

Hi Bbb23. Your closure of a recent AN3 led me to file the issue at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nabasile. EdJohnston (talk) 19:18, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: I wondered about Nabasile but wasn't sure enough. Thanks for dealing with it and the heads up.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:21, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Oleg Kharuk

Would you be open to reconsidering? This article has all the hallmarks of a UPE/promo article, including 1. creation by a new editor 2. mention of non-notable awards 3. mention of charitable work with sources that don't mention the subject etc. I think this is a clear G11. JBchrch talk 21:35, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Baqibillah Mishkat Chowdhury

I noticed that you recently deleted Draft:Baqibillah Mishkat Chowdhury. The draft appears to have been recreated in a form which is exactly as I remember it was before deletion. Salimfadhley (talk) 23:06, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:27, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Category:Venues of the 2032 Summer Olympics

I request that this category is deleted, as Category:Venues of the 2032 Summer Olympics and Paralympics takes its place. Thank you :) Mwiqdoh (talk) 00:39, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Liz, can you look at this? You know more about cats than I do. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:40, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

GuyForceOne

Aside from spamming greetings on user talk pages, do you see any problematic content contributions from this user? I'm having trouble seeing what justifies the WP:NOTHERE block. Article-space edits you reverted were good-faith improvements. The greetings seem to have been in response to help received at WP:Teahouse. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:36, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Maybe good-faith attempts at improvements, but many, albeit not vandalism, should not have been made. When I got to the user, he had just spammed all those "greetings". I still think he's a troll, but if you think differently, unblock him.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:45, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

Thanks for the block of that vandal. "It takes a team to keep the wiki clean" they say, eh? Th78blue (They/Them/Their • talk) 01:37, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Socking spammer

This person is back, and also asked for help with their spam in IRC – would you mind deleting/blocking? Thanks, Giraffer ^{(talk·contribs)} 10:16, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:10, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

IPsocks of Nabasile

Nabasile has returned editing in range 185.69.144.0/23. Mostly his edits in that range today. Little collateral. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:17, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

My god, he's prolific. The CU block from 2018 is interesting.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:11, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

IYourpritam new sock

They've returned as YourPritamYoutuber - added and image here that was uploaded to commons by IYourpritam, plus the name. From the images they uploaded on commons, it's a kid that just doesn't know better. Ravensfire (talk) 19:10, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Blocked. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:15, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Reverting my warning

Hello. You reverted my warning, which is a little unusual without letting me know. [20]. Please, have a closer look. The initial warning, by another editor, was for tripping the edit filter. My warning was for the edit that made it through later. Also, I did not report to ARV - that was yet another editor. Let me know if you have questions. Ifnord (talk) 03:03, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Attention needed urgently

@Bbb23: Greetings from this end. A user you blocked recently (Pro Jwizzy) who created the deleted draft Miami Boats Marketplace has come back into the picture with Doland Ken(account created 49 minutes ago) and created the same draft which I just declined. I don't really know if they are the same person but surely it's the same aim of creating that none notable article. Please just look into the issue and do something -- Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 00:28, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Dunno about "urgent", but all done.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:37, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you

Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 10:16, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

InternetScavenger89‎

Agree to disagree with you there. I'm tired of trying to stay alive on wikipedia. is unsettling to say the least for me. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:38, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

That plus the latest is a "yikes" from me. clpo13_(talk) 19:47, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Agree about the latest. I removed the "dead" comment and revoked TPA.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:48, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm so sorry you all have had to deal with this from this user. I tried giving them the best advice I could as their selected mentor, when I thought they were new, and it doesn't look like I was alone in that. It's a drain on the community to even have to and I'm glad it was stopped when it was. Thank you, @Bbb23--ARoseWolf 13:10, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Email

There should be a mechanism letting people know when email notifications are active. Just in case they're not, have sent you an email about a tedious janitorial issue. -- Euryalus (talk) 04:59, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

There should be all sorts of things on Wikipedia. I replied to your e-mail.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:17, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	For being an amazing contributor and a extremely great administrator on Wikipedia. Thank you for your administrative work! Severestorm28 (talk) 18:49, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Enormous Efrit

Seen you just raised revert an Ant Sting constribution. I've just raised an AIV and if you look deeply probably need to block all raised there and get content forks removed. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 13:38, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

If there is something I haven't dealt with that you believe still needs attention, please let me know what it is.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:53, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Article Nominated for Deletion

Bold text

Hello, you nominatedmy article on Galaxy Heroes Coin for deletion. Kindly assist me with what I can do to improve the article. It's kind of my first and I'd like to do as much as I can to get it live. I'd appreciate your assistance.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Masterchib (talk • contribs) 04:06, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Steiger

Yes, I had noticed, though I didn't respond by e-mail, obviously. I am amazed at his sheer nerve.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Deb (talk • contribs) 09:11, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Block evasion - User:Parthempire30

Hi, you indef blocked User:Parthempire30 as a spam only account. Looks like they are now doing it as an IP creating Draft:Parth Siddhpura. -- Whpq (talk) 13:42, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:56, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

DRAFT PAGE DELETED

Hi you deleted my Wikipedia page. This was a draft page that I was working on within my SandBox. This was a final project for a class. I really need it back. Could you please either "undelete" the page or allow me to download the raw data? Also, I am brand new to Wikipedia so I apologize if I did this completely wrong. Ajallphin (talk) 16:28, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

You pretty much copied Photon-counting computed tomography.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:58, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

I started with that article and was making updates (wording changes, adding figures, adding additional sources, etc...). I was working on those updates in my SandBox before publishing to the original page. I really need my work back.Ajallphin (talk) 17:33, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

If I restore it, how long will you need it for?--Bbb23 (talk) 17:43, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

How about 20 minutes. I will just save a local copy of the information.Ajallphin (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 17:45, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

 Done. Please let me know when you're finished. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:49, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

 Done.Thanks. You are the best.Ajallphin (talk) 17:54, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Good luck with your project! --Bbb23 (talk) 17:56, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

I already e-mailed them a copy of the deleted sandbox content. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:22, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Well, I guess now they have two copies.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:29, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Non-admin closure of Sexual slavery in Islam renaming

Hi Bbb23,

I saw that you were watching the discussion at Sexual slavery in Islam, and I was expecting that you would be the one that would do the closure. The page in the end has been moved to History of concubinage in the Muslim world by Sceptre (non-admin closure). But there is clearly no consensus for that (8 votes in favor of the new title, against plenty of alternatives and 8 votes explicitly against the new title, including that of one admin, Andrewa (#1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6, #7, #8). How could this be possible? --Grufo (talk) 18:47, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

I never intended to do the closure. You'll have to discuss the issue with Sceptre if you haven't already.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:38, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, Bbb23. Done already (anchor). --Grufo (talk) 20:53, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

IPsocks of Sogitani

Hello. The User:Sogitani that was blocked by you is back and is edit-warring again, this time with some new IPs – [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26]. -- Tobby72 (talk) 19:46, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

If you throw all 7 IPs in the same basket, the range is so wide the system can't block it. Blocking them singly is a waste of time for one edit. Still, I did block a smaller range, but, frankly, the way this user IP jumps I don't think it will stop them.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:01, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Aside from filing the case under the wrong name...

Would you critique my SPI case filing and associated behaviors on Dillon Ransom? It's the first one I've done since I've taken on the trust. Came to it through RFPP/Increase. Lots of passive aggression from blocked sock on page talk (while I was compiling the case). Took me about 30 minutes to read everything; could have done it more quickly but chose to do it carefully. Ways of improving/streamlining? BusterD (talk) 21:17, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

@BusterD: I think the presentation of evidence was excellent. BTW, an easy rule to remember: if there is at least one named account, an IP can never be the master.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:31, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Mistake made, one I can avoid when it becomes more complicated. Thx. BTW, the statement at the top of your talk resonates with me. I find myself wrestling with willingness from time to time. BusterD (talk) 23:53, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – December 2021

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2021).

Administrator changes

A Train • Berean Hunter • Epbr123 • GermanJoe • Sanchom • Mysid

Technical news

• Unregistered editors using the mobile website are now able to receive notices to indicate they have talk page messages. The notice looks similar to what is already present on desktop, and will be displayed on when viewing any page except mainspace and when editing any page. (T284642)
• The limit on the number of emails a user can send per day has been made global instead of per-wiki to help prevent abuse. (T293866)

Arbitration

• Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee Elections is open until 23:59, 06 December 2021 (UTC).
• The already authorized standard discretionary sanctions for all pages relating to the Horn of Africa (defined as including Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritrea, Djibouti, and adjoining areas if involved in related disputes), broadly construed, have been made permanent.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:24, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

your recent block of this user

Might be a good idea to remove talk page access from this user since the user is claiming mental health issues from Wikipedia interactions. Meters (talk) 20:25, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

My edits

Hi there User:Bbb23

I was wandering if I can actually have some feedback on why you keep rolling back almost every edit I make? Even on something as uncontroversial as Marathi Christians all my edits were reverted despite this just being me copyediting as a newcomer task? I am actively trying to be helpful, but I just get rolledback with no commentary as to why? Thanks. Such-change47 (talk) 00:42, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Administrators will no longer be autopatrolled

A recently closed Request for Comment (RFC) reached consensus to remove Autopatrolled from the administrator user group. You may, similarly as with Edit Filter Manager, choose to self-assign this permission to yourself. This will be implemented the week of December 13th, but if you wish to self-assign you may do so now. To find out when the change has gone live or if you have any questions please visit the Administrator's Noticeboard. 20:05, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

• Took the liberty of adding this so you don't get patrolled notifications every time a NPPer reviews a sock tag. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:17, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks, I was going to add it myself because of all the pages I create in userspace, but I hadn't gotten around to it.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:59, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

SP case

Please see [[27]] Shadow4dark (talk) 08:01, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive editing/Vandalism by Saminem 4lf

This user in the name of Saminem 4lf vandalized the article Dremo and it's talk page(changing what is in the article to that of themselves). I have however restored revision to the last edit I made sometime in November and also warned them in their talkpage. Their userpage was recently deleted by Materialscientist. I was thinking a block will be a better option since they are not here to build an encyclopedia but to promote themself. You can check the edit history of Dremo to have a full view of what I'm saying. Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 11:25, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree. Blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:50, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 22:20, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Abusing the Wikipedia process

… Alexander Davronov is warned that if he continues to abuse Wikipedia process… on [19:32, December 9, 2021]

Is this accusation of some sort of misbehavior given lightmindedly? If serious, I request to bring evidence on how I "abuse" the "Wikipedia process". I don't think that by means of peaceful, well-reasoned discussions conducted in full accordance with established policies one (me or anyone else) can actually "abuse" something. I usually ignore suggestive remarks but given that administrator makes them it requires clarification. As a compromise I propose to strike out that sentence and I will just move on. My best.

AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 20:25, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

There's no "compromise" here. The warning stands, and the fact that you don't understand it is simply more evidence that it is warranted. Listening to others is not your strong suit.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:36, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Protection (NIMH)

The person who keeps making the disruptive edits waits a month to do it again. How is one supposed to deal with that loophole? LittleJerry (talk) 22:34, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Revert them when they edit.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:35, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

So IPs are allowed to be disruptive as long as they space it out. Great. LittleJerry (talk) 23:22, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Marie Claire Mukasine

Hi Bbb23 -- was there a particular reason that you draftified this one? It looks relatively promising to me. Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 02:39, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

I thought it was so poorly written that it was more likely to be improved through WP:AFC.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:02, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

With all respect to the editors working at AfC, they don't usually have time to do copy editing. I've had some luck with articles about women asking for help at WP:Women in Red. Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 01:12, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

She's not going to ask for help. She doesn't talk.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:56, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

That's not what I meant. I don't expect the AFC editors to improve the article directly, but I do think their feedback can help the author improve the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:19, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm not that optimistic... In my experience it mainly works where the creator is (probably) paid, and willing to jump through a few hoops to get the payment. For run-of-the-mill contributors, especially where English is not their first language, I fear AfC capsule rejections are usually not enough to help, especially when the backlog means they take a couple of months to arrive. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:48, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Glock requested

Are we allowed to shoot sock puppets now? Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 20:33, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Great Job !

On this. One pertinent trait of yours i missed during your hiatus was your apt & swift response time. Celestina007 (talk) 14:09, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

List of North Korean websites

May I ask who tagged the article for speedy deletion so that I can ask them for more information about their concerns? If you deleted it without the involvement of other editors, I'd like to ask the same from you. I believe the article topic is notable and tenable and it seems to me like it was deleted for surmountable content-related reasons. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:38, 12 December 2021 (UTC) Edit: the tagger seems to have been Taking Out The Trash. I'll drop a note on their talk page, but in the meantime, can you as the deleting admin move the deleted contents over to Draft:List of North Korean websites, please. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:57, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

I can't imagine what would make such a list notable, but I also have concerns with the author of the article, Ryugyong, as one of the websites listed said in the "description" "A list of websites on the .kp domain, run by Ryugyong Computer Editorial Company". I'm reluctant to even move the article to draft space. BTW, it was created once before years ago and deleted at an AfD. The only reason I didn't use WP:G4 as the basis for deletion is the two versions weren't the same.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:12, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I think there are pretty solid arguments for the notability of the list topic, although I also note that it was, strictly speaking, not deleted on notability, but content, grounds today or in 2006. As with all lists, the notability of this one stems from the fact that it's been extensively discussed as a group in reliable sources. Just think of the story from a few years back that was covered by many, many mainstream news outlets, not to mention news or research outlets focusing on either tech or Korean affairs. This, by the way, was ten years after the AfD. There may have even been enough sources back then, there were certainly by 2016, and there have been many more since. We also have List of North Korean websites banned in South Korea that survived AfD twice, and since that is only a subtopic of the scope of this article, it would make sense to think that if that is notable, this one is too (all sources for the notability of that article are for the notability of this one, and there are many additional ones).

The A7 argument can be easily defeated by stating what these news items said. I'd rather spell it out fully in a draft, but the gist of the reporting was that: North Korea is a peculiar country in that it has very few websites, experts have been cataloging them for years but this has always been hindered by technical difficulties, the websites offer varying contents ranging from "mundane" to outright "weird", targeting foreign audiences via websites is an intensifying effort by the regime, and there is a marked contrast between this and North Koreans' limited access to the Internet, etc. The aforementioned projects to catalogue them are obviously significant coverage as well, and many works in North Korean studies focus on what kind of scholarly conclusions can be drawn from these public websites.

I know that notability issues are not always straightforward, and with lists there are always legitimate WP:NOTDIR/content issues. But this is not List of American websites, the scope here is actually justified and tenable. I do not know Ryugyong other than I saw them editing .kp and suggested on their talkpage to create this very article, as I've always been wondering about it. We have a lot of new editors in related topics, most of them are in good faith. If I had just gone ahead and written the article myself, with an actual proper lead that doesn't scream A7, with clear inclusion criteria, and dozens of sources to demonstrate notability, no one would have batted an eye. It wouldn't have been the first time I've recreated an article on a North Korea topic AfD'd a decade ago, sometimes through WP:DRV, because I know my way around research/scholarly/foreign language sources when it comes to this topic. I'm sorry for the long message. Like I said, it would be easier for me to simply demonstrate this by writing the lead, then run it through you or DRV. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:34, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Wow. I'm not sure what's best here. Perhaps it's the title that's offputting. Generally, with lists, each entry has to be notable on its own. I can't imagine that's true for each of the websites listed; they certainly don't have articles as most lists do. Perhaps a better title would be something like "North Korean Internet". In any event, at this point, given your lengthy and well-written thesis (smiling) above, I will move the deleted article to draft space if you think it will be useful to you. Let me know.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:40, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

I will probably start from scratch when inspiration hits me and do not need the deleted version. Thanks for being patient with me. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:16, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Syed amjad08 possible new account to watch?

May want to keep an eye on Arqamyaseen. Might be another sock, started up on amjad08's favourite topic as soon as the others got blocked. Hopefully not, but... Mako001 (talk) 14:42, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Jo Dyer

You've deleted without explanation updates on Jo Dyer's page. Why? I had hoped to update the page as more information comes relating to the election. AusHistory2000 (talk) 19:59, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

What difference does it make? You just wholesale reverted my edits, some of which were just copy edits. I don't have time for it or for you. Knock yourself out.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:53, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Another User:Hollybh Sock at Devon Werkheiser

Based on the recent edit at Devon Werkheiser, it is obvious that User:Hollyb78872 is another sock of User:Hollybh (see also: User:Hollybs8 who was blocked by Ponyo). Just so you know. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:29, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Some baklava for you!

Please don't block me, as I have now understood my mistake for thinking WarnerMedia Direct & Warner Bros. as related. I will not add those Direct shows now. Please don't block me. Imtiaz.kazi3 (talk) 08:32, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Charli

Hey, sorry but he is 78.55.4.126 (talk · contribs) back. Kante4 (talk) 16:04, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Another one 77.183.49.171 (talk · contribs). Kante4 (talk) 11:22, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks again. See you tomorrow/or later i guess. -.- Kante4 (talk) 12:09, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Sooner than i thought. 77.244.126.49 (talk · contribs). Anything more we can do? Kante4 (talk) 12:35, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

New day 77.244.124.183 (talk · contribs). Thanks for your time and effort. Kante4 (talk) 09:31, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Special:contributions/77.244.124.0/22 blocked for two weeks. The IP hopping, as usual, is very hard to control. Usually, by the time I look at the individual IPs, they're done, and even range blocks are of limited value.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:17, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, thought like that. But thanks. Kante4 (talk) 14:21, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

78.54.78.220 (talk · contribs) New one here. As always, reverting an update just to make it himself afterwards. Kante4 (talk) 15:09, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

He made a new account Fanbasketball 03 (talk · contribs). Kante4 (talk) 18:03, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Next one. JL 2333 (talk · contribs) Kante4 (talk) 19:52, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Kante4, blocked and tagged. Perhaps you could take care of requesting global locks for Fankbasketball 03 and JL 2333? Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:58, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

How do i do that? :D (I can find it out i guess) Not that familar with requesting blocks and stuff. The admin on the German WP has not been active for over a week, as i added it to the subpage from RoBri (talk · contribs) with linking him. Kante4 (talk) 20:01, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

I used to occasionally do it but haven't done so in a while or I'd do it myself. It's easier when you're a checkuser and can confirm the relationship. Don't fret about it.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:06, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Will see what i can do. Thanks for all your help. Kante4 (talk) 20:16, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Can you have a look at this?

Would you be able to take a look at some deleted contribs, per my request on the Syed amjad08 SPI? Mako001 (talk) 05:26, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Songs of the season

		Holiday cheer
		Here is a snowman a gift a boar's head and something blue for your listening pleasure. Enjoy and have a wonderful 2022 Bbb23. MarnetteD|Talk 05:34, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Page protection

Hi. Earlier you declined semi-protection on the BLP for Tati Westbrook, saying it was not enough recent vandalism. I have read both WP:SEMI and WP:SEMIGUIDE and couldn't glean any numerical requirements (other than to expect 5% vandalism). While I know each admin probably have their own preferences, what would you say is something I could use for reference so I don't waste admin time in the future? Cheers, --SVTCobra 22:20, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

At the time I declined it, there had been 3 reverts today (the first was of an edit that occurred almost 24 hours before the revert). Since my decline there's been one more revert. It's still kind of borderline, but given the nature of the IP edits (vandalism as opposed to disruption), I've gone ahead and semi-protected it for 3 days. Unfortunately, I'm afraid I can't give you much guidance for the future. You're correct that administrators are not uniform in their responses to reports. I'm guessing that some think that semi-protection is cheap and should be liberally applied. I think I'm a little stricter. The only thing I can suggest is you monitor RFPP yourself and see when articles are semi-protected and when they're not. Perhaps that will help.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:34, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

The King349‎

Thanks for spotting the duplication in my SPI earlier today. I had a feeling it was bigger than that and you were obviously right in spotting it earlier. Given the blocks implemented and the large number of accounts involved, does Wikipedia:BE now warrant going after all those nasty stub articles he/she created for deletion? 10mmsocket (talk) 22:23, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure what we can do. I've already gone ahead and G5ed all creations that occurred after November 29, which, if you read my comments at the SPI, was when one of the socks was blocked independently of the SPI. As for BE, I don't see how reverting helps. If they were articles we could A7 them, but they're drafts, which are harder to get rid of.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:36, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

I hadn't see the G5's. Thanks for your help. 10mmsocket (talk) 22:39, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Query

Hello, Bbb23,

Not sure what to make of User:Loved2001 who tagged their own user page with a sockpuppet tag and created Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of WikiLoverFan1007 which has been tagged for deletion. But for me, it's the end of a long day on Wikipedia so I might have a lack of imagination right now. So, I'm hoping this makes sense to a checkuser since you all have seen everything. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:15, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Blocked as a sock. I'm tired too. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 03:24, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Re: Draft:Moneybarn

Hello, my draft was removed while it was under review. It was removed for G11 (which I don't disagree with - it was not intended as advertisement, which was reflected in my last revisions) so I'm contacting you in hopes of getting some guidance on this before the page is recreated. Thanks. MrInaugural (talk) 09:33, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

IP socking

That New Jersey [28] was blocked a few days ago as a sock of User:Deucalionite. After the block expired, they returned to make the same edits, even with personal attacks [29][30]. Can you take a look because I am not sure if the right thing to request is a another block for socking or semi-protection for the two articles? Ktrimi991 (talk) 17:59, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

No worries, the IP just got another block. Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:00, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

I've redirected my talk page

I hope it isn't a problem to temporarily redirect ones user talk to the Main Page to temporarily block editors from it who should be taking their issues to the article talk? Mako001 (talk) 15:06, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Not okay, no.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:42, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Hello Bbb23: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:55, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year

Hi Bbb23, Wish you a Merry Christmas and a very Happy New Year, Thank you for your support and great work on Wikipedia. Happy Holidays. DMySon (talk) 15:04, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Checkuser data

Hi Bbb23, I hate to bother you, because I know admins are super busy, but I have question to ask you. Is there any data publicly available about how many SPI investigations are opened annually, and how many result in confirmation? I've searched the web but could only find secondary sources that give uncited figures for certain years.

For example, a quote from Case Study of Sockpuppet Detection on Wikipedia":

"Sockpuppets are a prevalent problem in Wikipedia, there were close to 2,700 unique suspected cases reported in 2012. "

This is helpful, but I can't find any facts on the number of sockpuppets investigated/confirmed for 2014, 2018, or 2020, etc.

Are these facts even formally collected and disseminated? If so I would greatly appreciate knowing where to find them. Thanks for your time.

By the way, I am aware of this SPI archive, but it dates back to the 2000s and seems inactive, and not very quantitative. To clarify, I'm looking for more recent figures, rather than a list of cases. Hunan201p (talk) 09:28, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

I can't help you. I wasn't aware of the Alabama paper or the on-wiki archive. Why are you interested?--Bbb23 (talk) 13:47, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm writing an essay about sockpuppetry on Wikipedia. I think it's preposterous if Wikipedia doesn't compile data about how many SPI cases are filed yearly. It would be like if the USA didn't compile crime statistics. If there's no data available on the scale and extent of sockpuppetry here, how can we even address the problem? We can't, because we don't even know what is happening. And I have to imagine that the number of cases filed every year has risen since 2012. Thanks for reading and replying to my question, besides. Hope you have a Happy New Year. Hunan201p (talk) 15:30, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Archived report at WP:ANI

Hello Bbb23. A few days ago you prompted to file my report at WP:ANI, since WP:AN/EW wasn't the correct forum (diff). I noticed today that my report was archived without any comments by fellow editors (diff). Any advice (please ping me, since i don't have your talk page on my watchlist)? Demetrios1993 (talk) 16:53, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Happy Holidays and a Happy New Year!

Hello Bbb23, Between all the details of the case, I have almost overlooked your "Merry Christmas"! Thank you very much and the same to you!

Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:48, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Retrive my NEJM Evidence

User talk:Giraffer/Archive 2#Retrive my NEJM Evidence mentioned you and I'd beg you to do somthing.... — Kennyluck (talk) 22:27, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

I've moved it to Draft:NEJM Evidence. You must use WP:AFC rather than move it to article space yourself.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:42, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Done and thanks! — Kennyluck (talk) 23:05, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Charli

Merry Christmas, and of course he is back 77.13.18.211 (talk · contribs). Kante4 (talk) 15:25, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Reg. a personal attack

I saw you listed in the currently active admins feed. I'm curious what sanctions would be applied to personal attacks like this. User accounts can be blocked under WP:NONAZI, but I'm not sure about the IPs. It maps to an ISP AS (so, I guess it's not a web host/VPN). Do we append that IP in denylist for account creation, or block them from editing? WikiLinuz🍁(talk) 03:53, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Clappa Don

Hey, Bbb23,

You blocked User:Veron Dob for being an advertising-only account for writing versions of this article and now User:Robdon1 has shown up to try his hand on writing a bio of this teenage rapper. DUCK? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:21, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, blocked and tagged.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:51, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

While I'm in the neighborhood

Took a peek at your logs because I like seeing a nuke in action, and noticed your R3 of Philidelphia Phillies. Not sure if that was a PW82 page or not, but assuming that that pointed to Philadelphia Phillies, would you consider restoring? Or if it had a different target, or if it's a DENY situation, would you object to me recreating with that target? It seems pretty plausible (accurate GHit count), and I think it would be kept at RfD with that target; Philidelphia has existed since 2005. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 16:53, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

 Done --Bbb23 (talk) 16:55, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Question re closing ANI discussion

Dear Admin, you’ve closed the discussion about edit warring by Grandmaster and Brandmeister here https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring The closing remark says “we’re done here”, focusing on the fact none of the editors in question edited the article in question since ANI discussion creation. Did you really find Grandmaster’s and Brandmeister’s repetitive and potentially well-calculated reverting to keep the article the way they want justified? Don’t you think this is going to reinforce wrong ideas in them? Best wishes --Armatura (talk) 17:15, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

PaleolithicWalinski82

Hi, Bbb. Hope all is well this holiday season. PW82 is now evading on 73.61.12.0/22 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)). See Special:PageHistory/Reggie White and other recent (pre-indef) football edits from that range. Also very blatant overlap on testwiki, which is where I noticed this. I'd deleted all of it, but have temporarily restored testwiki:Special:PageHistory/TomBrady as evidence. (I'm supposed to be on partial wikibreak, but keep stumbling my way into things.) As you can see from that page's history, they were also active there on testwiki:Special:Contribs/73.61.10.46, but nothing on enwiki yet that I can see from 73.61.8.0/22 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)).

Too much collateral on the range to do much, but maybe 24 hours for 73.61.12.0/22 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))? Or maybe just wait and see. I'll note that Rrmmll22 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) (SPI) has been on 73.61.10.250 in the past, but I can't really get a behavioral read on whether this is the same person... Leaning that it isn't. (And, full disclosure, looks like I was in a content dispute (well, gray area between content and conduct) with another 73.61.10.x in July, but needless to say that's not my motivation here.) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 16:06, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Whoooops, that was a ping, wasn't it. See, a week away from anti-abuse work and I'm already getting rusty. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 16:07, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for all the information. I don't think it makes sense to block the IP range. I'm more interested in whether PW82 is a sock of Rrmmll22. I understand your behavioral concerns, but there are also a lot of coincidences. Perhaps Dreamy Jazz could take a peek/check?--Bbb23 (talk) 16:40, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

It's less that I have a strong feeling about whether they're Rrmmll, and more that—unusually for a case I've clerked multiple times—I just don't feel like I have a strong sense for Rrmmll yet. I agree a check would make sense. Until that edit you reverted to their talk, I would have placed this in "CU's discretion" territory, but now I'd probably endorse were this at SPI. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 16:53, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Looking wrt the account Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 23:05, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

PW82 is James8333. Technical evidence also suggests PW82 could be Rrmmll22. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 23:30, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

@Dreamy Jazz: Thank you.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:02, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

I've filed pro forma at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rrmmll22 for this and four other accounts. Courtesy ping Dreamy Jazz. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 01:04, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Wait, shit, I... somehow completely read past the first sentence of Dreamy Jazz' earlier message. Ugh. Guess I've got some paperwork to undo.  Self-trout -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 01:05, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Another sock

Hi Bbb23. You previously blocked Charlesrosen and Mrtarkin. The user appears to have returned as Mrbarron. Does it appear that way to you too? Thanks. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:27, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

@Paul Erik: Absolutely. I've blocked and tagged them. Thanks for catching it.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:08, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

G5 ineligibility

Could you elaborate as to the ineligibility re G5 here please. Can it only be applied when the sock is blocked? Mutt Lunker (talk) 17:17, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:23, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

From previous form I suspect User:Metrosteve will IP-hop now but could you swat User:2A01:4C8:1488:8B62:F997:1338:1555:BB9F while they're there please? I've requested page protection at the articles in question. Mutt Lunker (talk) 21:33, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

SPI

Hi,

how long do I avoid commenting at SPI? Also, if the "avoid commenting" is short, can you give me suggestions on how to improve commenting at SPI. Also, Happy New Year! Severestorm28 22:54, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Deletion of Draft:Thompsons Solicitors Scotland

Hi Bbb23, I see you have dleted the draft page for Thompsons Solicitors Scotland. If possible I would like to retrieve the deleted material for future reference and improvement. Many thanks ShimsCabot (talk) 08:48, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks (SPI cleanup)

Thanks for cleaning up that SPI - I'm unfamiliar with the process and didn't format it completely correctly. - Special-T (talk) 14:49, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

You're welcome. Normally, you don't list already-blocked accounts. If you want to refer to them, you can always do so in your evidence. Also, any comments you add after filing the initial report should be in the Comments by other users section. The bottom section is reserved for checkusers, administrators, and SPI clerks. If you want to reply directly to a comment in that section, you can still do so in the section above with a ping, or at least the editor's name, to make it clear to whom you're responding.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:01, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Deletion of UMM Digital

Need to retrieve the page Umm Digital as the page has a generic relevance with most of then news articles talking about them including The Hindu and The Times of India.Ramesh Surana (talk) 07:08, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Ramesh Surana. There is zero evidence in that deleted article that UMM Digital complies with WP:NCORP. What would be the point of restoring it when there is no genuine evidence of notability? Cullen328 (talk) 07:22, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Just a note

Thanks for advising me to remove my SPI clerk request. Zippy (talk) 13:48, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

You're welcome. Best of luck to you.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:54, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Is this page up to the WP policy marks?

Rudralife Ramesh Surana (talk) 15:09, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Apropos your latest

Many thanks! SN54129 — Review here please :) 19:15, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Have you had any interaction with Educationtracker?--Bbb23 (talk) 19:17, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

According to this, none at all until todays reverts; perhaps they are also someone else who I've also annoyed. Perfectly probable! (And, yeah, apologies—I only hit rollback for their latest edit, thus forcing you to go further back and so save you no time at all...) SN54129 — Review here please :) 19:23, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – January 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2021).

Administrator changes

Amalthea • Ihcoyc (deceased) • Kateshortforbob • Kirill Lokshin • Rifleman 82 • Ryan Norton • Wrp103

Interface administrator changes

Mr. Stradivarius

CheckUser changes

Cabayi • Donald Albury • Enterprisey • Izno • Wugapodes

Opabinia regalis

Casliber • David Fuchs • Newyorkbrad • SoWhy

Oversighter changes

Cabayi • Donald Albury • Enterprisey • Izno • Wugapodes

Opabinia regalis

Casliber • David Fuchs • Newyorkbrad • SoWhy

Guideline and policy news

• Following consensus at the 2021 RfA review, the autopatrolled user right has been removed from the administrators user group; admins can grant themselves the autopatrolled permission if they wish to remain autopatrolled.

• Additionally, consensus for proposal 6C of the 2021 RfA review has led to the creation of an administrative action review process. The purpose of this process will be to review individual administrator actions and individual actions taken by users holding advanced permissions.

Arbitration

• Following the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been appointed to the Arbitration Committee: Beeblebrox, Cabayi, Donald Albury, Enterprisey, Izno, Opabinia regalis, Worm That Turned, Wugapodes.

Miscellaneous

• The functionaries email list (functionaries-enlists.wikimedia.org) will no longer accept incoming emails apart from those sent by list members and WMF staff. Private concerns, apart from those requiring oversight, should be directly sent to the Arbitration Committee.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:24, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

DRV accounts

I'm 99 percent sure that the two accounts (StevenIs8000 and Donn) are DRV. This recent blocked range of MusicLover doesn't use any edit summaries at all, and edits in more general music topics instead of just rappers. DRV uses edit summaries quite a lot, as seen with this blocked IP of DRV. The accounts and DRV IPs also have similar wording in edit summaries. DRV and these accounts also vandalize cross-wiki, MusicLover really doesn't (as per Steven and Donn's CentralAuth and this DRV range's global contribs) wizzito | say hello! 01:47, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

I understand, but you still need to talk to someone first. From my perspective, I tagged Donn76 based on the tag on StevenIs8000, and that tag was made by RoySmith. Given that Roy is a checkuser, I would defer to him. You're welcome to talk to him or perhaps he'll join us here because I pinged him. BTW, one person made a typo at another Wikipedia and said they were the dug/rapper vandal. I thought that was cute.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:57, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

When I see DRV, I think of WP:DRV. I assume that's not what we're talking about here? -- RoySmith (talk) 02:08, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Hehe. Dog/rapper vandal or John Kwiecinski.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:45, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

User:Yuvraj rathore2424

You blocked Yuvraj rathore2424 a week ago for edit-warring on the Atrangi Re article. They've gone right back to the same reverts. Maybe a longish block from the article? They firmly believe they are in the right [31], but there's no discussion (and to be fair, by anyone involved) on this. Ravensfire (talk) 18:12, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Block of Bryan296

Regarding your sockpuppet tag for this user, how did you determine who the sock master was? I haven't seen an SPI or anything that mentions the new account. With that in mind, maybe Hassanjalloh1 was in the right to revert them all along as sock edits are exempt from the 3RR rule (in which case I apologize for reporting someone who reverted a sockpuppet's disruption). Pinging admin Ohnoitsjamie for notification as that was who blocked both users for edit warring. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 01:35, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

You're only exempt from edit-warring if you revert a known sock. I don't need an SPI to block a sock. You might also look at the CU block of the user on Commons by Elcobbola, although without a tag.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:38, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Snuggums, Bbb is smarter than me; I do need CU, and I didn't know this one--but they're confirmed with User:GiantEagleMontrose and a bunch of others. Drmies (talk) 01:39, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

@Drmies: Thanks for the confirmation.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:41, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

No, thank you. Stay warm. Drmies (talk) 01:43, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Very well. I should've guessed that exemption wouldn't apply for unconfirmed socks. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 01:43, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm unsure whether input is needed from me, but Bryan296 is indeed confirmed to be Pcgmsrich; the lack of a tag is per DENY. Эlcobbola _talk 02:17, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Question: linked accounts SPI?

I just saw you blocked Kuhnaims under and tagged an SPI of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nyxaros2, however regarding this old edit [32], seems to link straight to this old SPI, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bablu Baghel. Should they be linked together? Regards. Govvy (talk) 14:41, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Kevin Goetz

Hi! I saw you deleted the page I wrote myself for Kevin Goetz. Can you assist me in making the necessary changes I need to make, so I can revert it back? Please assist - thank you so much! — Preceding unsigned comment added by BenjiMinpinPotato (talk • contribs) 22:03, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) The draft cannot be restored because it was determined to be a copy of https://kevingoetz360.com/about/. See our policy on copyright violations. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:37, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

How we will see unregistered users

Hi!

You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.

When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.

Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.

If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.

We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:14, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Embarrassing gobbledygook.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:37, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

This looks possibly controversial. Is it? -Roxy the dog. wooF 14:45, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

I think the simplest answer is to just turn off IP editing altogether. Has the sky fallen on the Portuguese Wikipedia where this was trialled? I don't think it has. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:38, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

About my comment

Respected @Bbb23: May I know why you removed my comment? ওহিদ (talk) 13:48, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

here, thanks ওহিদ (talk) 13:50, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

My edit summary is self-explanatory; you cannot restore comments to a user's Talk page if they have removed them.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:02, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, I didn't see. After reading Ishan87's comment, it is understood that he did it in anger. To correct EdJohnston's mistake, I am helping Ishan87 by reaching his word to EdtJohnston. Because Ishan 87 had forget to ping. Now can I restore it again? Thanks ওহিদ (talk) 14:20, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

No, it's not your place to infer other editors' reasons for removing comments from their Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:24, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Another sock

Hi Bbb23. You likely recall Charlesrosen, Mrtarkin and Mrbarron. The user appears to have returned as Drcramberries. Does it look like that to you too? Thanks again, Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:21, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

@Paul Erik: Yes, blocked and tagged. Thanks again for spotting these.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:32, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Now back as Mrswooner, I think? Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 13:05, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Looks like we have our own little SPI going here. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:28, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

About my Wiki edit.

Hi Bbb23. May I know why did you reverted my changes made to Nemanja Vidić's wiki page? There are many reliable sources which states that he is one of the greatest defender in Premier League history. He was also voted as premier league's greatest ever defender. Many football pundits and professionals football players have also stated as such. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZexaXIII (talk • contribs) 09:38, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

That article already has too much promotional material as it is. It certainly didn't need more. Wikipedia is not a fan magazine.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:51, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Suspicious sock

Hello Bbb23 - You temporarily blocked a user Suthasianhistorian8 on Dec 7, 2021. And it seems like the user created a sock account Aleena98 seven days later on Dec 14th, 2021. Once again, highly suspect because both users made edits to similar pages such as Singh, Kaur, Seva (Indian religions). The method of using the source template is also very similar where both cite source from (google.ca). Such as here is by Suthasianhistorian8 [33] and here is by Aleena98 [34].

Also the initiation of Rajput by both account such as here is one by Suthasianhistorian8 [35] and here is by Aleena98 [36]. Both accounts also tried to add similar citations, here is by Suthasianhistorian8 [37] and here is by Aleena98 [38]

Now I may be wrong but I have noticed several activities that felt highly suspicious so maybe this is something that you can look more into. MehmoodS (talk) 16:39, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

@MehmoodS: In addition to what you've said above, I've done my own investigation, and I'm not confident enough that they are the same person to block on my own. Although you note the similarities, I've also seen some differences, e.g., Suthasianhistorian was much more aggressive and removed all warnings from their Talk page, whereas Aleena appears to be more cooperative and responds constructively to notes left on their Talk page. The differences don't necessarily mean they are not socks, but it makes me reluctant to block without technical corroboration. I therefore suggest you file a report at WP:SPI and request a CU.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:30, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

@Bbb23: Yes I noticed the difference of aggression as well but felt as if its a cover up. Because I felt aggression on the recent updates on article Kaur as someone not being cooperative. Also as aggressive editor as Suthasianhistorian was, it seems unbelievable that he won't return. But again its all just suspicion on my side. I am reluctant to pursue to file a report just based on suspicion, so I will just pass. But thank you for looking into it. MehmoodS (talk) 19:06, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Last edit of Uvhw

You blocked this user. The last edit by the user was an apparently trivial edit inserting space into policy:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Edit_warring&diff=prev&oldid=1065209494

It's the edit summary that bothers me: it includes a message in Vietnamese together with a Bitcoin-backed signature. I think we should delete this edit from the history. — Charles Stewart (talk) 19:37, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

The Vietnamese message is innocuous. On what basis would I delete the "Bitcoin-backed signature"?--Bbb23 (talk) 19:41, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

On the grounds that the edit does the encyclopedia no good at all and is possibly abusive. — Charles Stewart (talk) 20:09, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, that's not a reason to rev/delete an edit.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:20, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Question

How do I provide edit summary using rollback? Like what you did at this edit. –Ctrlwiki (talk) 06:46, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure I can give you a complete explanation, but my interface allows me to click on "sum" if I want to undo multiple consecutive edits, and sum permits me to enter an edit summary. The system tags my action as "rollback" and minor, but I don't think of it that way. All of this may have something to do with Twinkle and my Twinkle settings, but then again it is not tagged as a Twinkle action. It's been this way for a very long time, and I'm not really sure why it's there. BTW, I can click on the rollback button itself, but I don't use rollback in the circumstances here.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:57, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Yuvraj rathore2424

Yuvraj rathore2424 (talk · contribs) has returned to change the cast order on Atrangi Re again immediately after a week block for edit warring over the same. Perhaps a block extension or an indeff block from that page? Regards -- Ab207 (talk) 06:43, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

I was about to leave the same message about this matter. I second the recommendation of an indefinite block from that page to see if they can change their ways. EDIT: I am discouraged from seeing that they've changed the cast order on other articles Mujhse Shaadi Karogi on Jan 5 and OMG – Oh My God! on Jan 13. No edit summary for explanation. Ravensfire (talk) 21:35, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

User talk:2001:56A:7B14:CC00:DDF2:13F3:4A27:E79D

I've noticed that you stated on the talk page on the IP address' talk page, stating "IP, you are not allowed to use this Talk page to ask for edits to articles. If you do so again, I will revoke your access to this page." Now he is repeatedly creating new sections on his talk page, 4 sections were sections named "Hi". Is it possible to revoke TPA? Severestorm28 21:48, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

AN discussion: block of LittleFinn9

Please see WP:AN#Block of LittleFinn9. Enterprisey (talk!) 06:20, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Issue with an editor reverting

Hi, you seem to have dealt with Pisarz12345 before. They are continually adding a Saint infobox to the Guido of Arezzo article (an article which I wrote almost entirely), and continuously reverting me, even though they need consensus and I have explained my rationale clearly. They are being rather nonsensical at Talk:Guido of Arezzo#Infobox and this edit warring needs to stop... Aza24 (talk) 09:04, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

I’ve stopped reverting them because they are persistent… even though this article has been stable without an info box for 10*+ years. They seem to have had multiple blocks in the past… would you rather I take this somewhere else? Aza24 (talk) 18:39, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

You have undermined your position by being part of the edit war. I'm not interested in looking at the merits of the dispute. You can take the problem elsewhere, but I'm not sure where is appropriate. If you took it to ANI, I fear many would say it's a content dispute and not suitable for ANI. You could try another form of dispute resolution rather than arguing on the Talk page. I don't think the other user's language skills are up to the task, or their attitude for that matter. The last block of the user was imposed in August of last year by El C for two weeks for edit-warring. They might be more willing to consider sanctions.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:50, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

I got into medieval music to avoid disputes exactly like this. And it really sucks when I spend so much time on an article just to be reverted over and over by some guy who knows nothing about the topic. I brought it to ANI Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Disruption and edit warring by user:Pisarz12345 Aza24 (talk) 19:04, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

I noticed. Good luck.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:07, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Uncivil user

The user crashed greek on Battle of Peshawar (1758) keeps reverting changes without having a civil discussion. He not only reverted changes without reaching concensus but instead put blame on me which can be seen in his comment. I do not think the user has any intention to co-operate. Here is his comment: [39]. Can you revert changes and possibly warn the user to come to a concensus on the talk page before reverting? I won't be surprised if he reverts you as well with the kind of behavior he has shown so far. But that will make it very clear of his intentions. MehmoodS (talk) 11:46, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

I left the user a warning on their Talk page about personal attacks (socking accusations). I'm not getting involved in the content dispute.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:13, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. MehmoodS (talk) 16:04, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Bbb23 - Your intervention is needed now as user "Crashed Greek" is again not being civil. He even falsely sent edit warring message on my talk page and removed number of references from academic scholars that were added on Battle of Peshawar (1758). Two days ago I added all the citations including his that we had dispute on, back on the article, so that a concensus can be reached on talk page of the article or on WP:RSN where I submitted the request for opinion. Then it can be decided whether to remove or keep the disputed sources. I mentioned all this on the talk page of the article as well. But yet, the user ignored all this and removed the other sources, except his. This clearly shows that the user wants to keep only his sources and no other. Editors on [40] already are in favor of the unreliability of the disputed sources which you can see as well, and one of them responded him on the article's talk page but the user crashed greek refuses to comply. Can you please intervene because this user along with not being civil, is also being disruptive? MehmoodS (talk) 13:39, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't see any examples of incivility. The edit-warring alert was unwarranted and hypocritical, but that's about it.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:32, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Bbb23 - incivility or maybe I should say disruptive as the user reverts and removes multiple sources like he did today for no apparent reason. Falsely adding the description of his revert as "Undo removal of multiple sources", when its him who removed multiple sources. Not only falsely using 3rr alerts but also adding false description during reverts. MehmoodS (talk) 16:12, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

• Bbb23 User:Crashed greek used personal attack again on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Here is his comment even after you warned him [41].MehmoodS (talk) 17:32, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Undid revision Gernot Erler

Hi, I saw that you returned one of the changes to article Gernot Erler. I agree that no sources were included, but I focused on the label of the article (This article may be expanded with text translated from the corresponding article in German.), so I tried to translate a section from the German version. I finally understood the mistake and will include sources in the future. Thx--Tysska (talk) 12:29, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

ToiletBot

I'm thinking that ToiletBot has been here before. Quite a sneaky character that one. Do some vandalism to get everyone's attention and then, whilst at AIV, do a bunch of useful edits, and sit back and laugh your face off when they get blindly reverted. I haven't come across one of those ones before, but I was aware of that pattern, courtesy of the long blocked Blu Aardvark (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Is there a particular name for that sort of vandalism pattern? Mako001 (C)  (T)  23:14, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Not that I know of.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:35, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

F1V8V10V--TylerBurden (talk) 15:46, 19 January 2022 (UTC)6

This user who recieved a warning (along with myself) yesterday has reverted multiple image changes today on Max Verstappen, does this not count as them breaching what was said? --TylerBurden (talk) 14:59, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

It was done after a long time, and I explained why because of Mark83's edit summary. Read it first. I see you're trying soooo hard to 'report' me to admin Bbb23. Also, the admin told us not to revert that again (the "F1/Formula One" bit, not this), the image changes were done in long intervals, and only twice (and after a long time) between me and user Mark83.  F1V8V10V6!  15:10, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Edit: after the admin told us not to revert each other's edits, you were the one who first reverted the lead image change that was done by me previously, today. Right??  F1V8V10V6!  15:29, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm asking Bbb23 a question, on their talk page, not you. Do you stalk my edit history or something? I am just curious because it seems to me that you're still reverting and I'm not sure it's outside of 24 hours since your little edit war yesterday. --TylerBurden (talk) 15:15, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

This isn't Reddit, would be nice if you could format your replies properly. I haven't reverted anything on Max Verstappen unlike you, who even yesterday reverted after your warning which was definetely a violation. --TylerBurden (talk) 15:37, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

I was the one who changed the lead image from the original one to the 2018 one initially. Then YOU reverted it back to a selfie today. So you did revert an edit that was done by me, after the admin warned us not to.

Also, what did I revert yesterday? I didn't even touch the "F1/Formula One" bit at the top of the page.  F1V8V10V6!  15:42, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

@F1V8V10V6: Maybe if you had actually read the edit warring notice I sent you instead of instantly removing it, you would know both how edit warring and the 3 revert rule works. They never said each other, they said revert in general. So don't twist what they said to make it fit your situation. My question here is if you have continued to violate the 3 revert rule, because I think you may have. It's that simple. If you haven't then that's fine and you got nothing to worry about and don't need to come here to argue with me. --TylerBurden (talk) 15:43, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Max_Verstappen&diff=1066492231&oldid=1066486640 This was after your warning, looks pretty slamdunk to me that you violated what was said. --TylerBurden (talk) 15:46, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

The admin told us not to touch the "Formula One/F1" notice at the top of the page, and not to revert each other's edits. The one you refer to was not between us....

Also, how is that an edit war? It was done after many minutes and I clearly reverted that user's change because it was an "UNEXPLAINED REMOVAL" of sourced information. How can you not understand that? After that user reverted my change again by saying "bullcrap", I DID NOT revert his.....instead, I removed the sentence from the Criticism section which is not a revert, but rather a different edit. You forgot the fact that I didn't revert his edit after that...[what happened]. After I reverted his change because it was an unexplained removal of sources info, and after he reverted again, I did not then revert it again, because that's edit warring..  F1V8V10V6!  15:56, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

I understand everything, including that you violated what was said, and the 3 revert rule in general. I just want the administrators input on it, that's all. --TylerBurden (talk) 15:59, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

How is that a 3 revert? I reverted that user's edit ONCE. Because it was an unexplained removal of sourced information.....

I violated what was said? Look at the screenshot....I only reverted it once. How can ONE revert be a violation of 3RR????

You violated what was said by the admin when you first changed the lead image today (because that lead image was added by me, the 2018 one, and then you reverted the 2018 image back to an image that was never there before, a selfie, which doesn't fit the lead in my opinion).  F1V8V10V6!  16:14, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Like I said, you don't seem to understand how reverting works. Me changing an image (that I just for the record wasn't even aware it was you that had added) to a different image (not the one that was there before) isn't me reverting you. I'm not even sure when you added that picture, but it certainly wasn't a revert. So you can stop trying to use that as some sort of ″gotcha″. Again you should have read how it works, even if you believe you are right you shouldn't revert. And 3 revert rule is not reverting 3 times in 3 minutes or whatever you think it is, it's reverting a max amount of 3 times per 24 hours on a single page. Hope that clears it up, now can we stop filling up this poor editors talk page and just wait for what they have to say? --TylerBurden (talk) 16:21, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry but this is hilarious, ″revert back to an image that was never there before″. Do you not realize how silly this is? How can I ″go back″ to something that was never there? Seriously, read more about how reverting works. --TylerBurden (talk) 16:24, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

The admin told us not to revert each other's edits. That other user wasn't you, and I reverted his unexplained removal of sourced info....wait for it...once! [screenshot doesn't lie...] His edit summary is also really weird. I'm pretty sure everyone reverts unexplained removal of sourced info, at least once (isn't that part of the rules, you're supposed to do that, especially if it's done by a user who has less than 10 edits AND also gave a really weird edit summary....)

It doesn't matter if you didn't know, you did revert an edit that was done by me, after the admin told told you not to, and on top of that, you added a weird looking selfie with a weird angle which is way worse than the image that was already there.  F1V8V10V6!  16:33, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Alright, this clearly isn't getting through and I'm not gonna bother explaining it again. You're clearly set in your ways. I'd suggest just waiting for Bbb23 to respond like I and also Evergreen suggested, filling their page up with this garbage isn't good. Not gonna respond to you here anymore, so keep going off on your own if you must. Bbb23, please just take a good look at it all because not only has F1V8 here twisted your words but also my actions, claiming I did a revert that never happened. --TylerBurden (talk) 16:37, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

That's why I posted the screenshot, it doesn't lie. Anyway, Bbb23 said "Both of you are warned that any more reverts may result in a block without notice." Which if you read in context, it suggests that he told us not to revert the whole "Formula One/F1" thing again, which is my interpretation anyway. I might be wrong about that, though. He also said, "because the dispute appears to be resolved, at least at the article itself." So he was talking about that specific topic.

"but great to know that he has administrator blessing to bully his content in without consensus since the person trying to maintain the stable revision will naturally always reach 3 reverts first since they made the first revert. Very functional." TylerBurden, you literally accused the admin of something he didn't do. That I have the "blessing" from the admin himself to "bully" my content in. Oh my God. That is very, very serious. An accusation against an admin, might I add.  F1V8V10V6!  16:49, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Said I wouldn't respond anymore, but this is quite the accusation so feel like I should provide my context. Oh my god indeed, yes I vented my frustrations about Wikipedia policy and the 3 revert rule, I didn't mean the ″blessing″ part quite literally, since you were just going on about how you interpret contexts you should be able to figure this one out. What that meant was that we were both punished, yet I felt (and still feel) that you were the wrongdoer, since you were the one editing the stable version that there was no dispute about and breaching the manual of style. I accepted my warning though because I know that I also did break the 3 revert rule, and have not reverted since, unlike you, which is why I came here. That is all. --TylerBurden (talk) 17:00, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

"but great to know that he has administrator blessing to bully his content in" I would never, ever say that to an admin, because I've been instantly banned on other platforms before for saying softer things to admins than that. You are literally saying something against the admin. That really is serious, no way around that, no excuse to say that. That statement literally means that I have the "blessing" from that admin to "bully" my content in. That IS an accusation against the admin. I can't believe Bbb23 missed that.  F1V8V10V6!  17:11, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

• How about you both stop arguing here and wait for Bbb23 to reply? EvergreenFir (talk) 16:25, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
• Strong agreement on this. This is unproductive in the extreme and burdensome for this user to have to wade through this. Mark83 (talk) 17:15, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

  This is pretty much what the two users did at WP:ANEW, incredible bickering. At ANEW, on January 18 at 14:13, I said that both users had violated 3RR and warned both of them "that any more reverts may result in a block without notice". The core of the dispute was whether it should be "Formula One" of "F1". Still, if they started edit-warring over something else, I would still have blocked them. Since that time I've been watching the article, and as far as I can tell, the only possible "battle" had to do with an image, and the dispute was between you, Mark83, and F1V8V10V6. You've also edited the article in other areas, Mark, as has Tyler, but nothing seemed to be what I would call an edit war, and nothing F1V8V10V6 did appeared to change Formula One back to F1. I know that you can't sanction anyone for editing that article, Mark, but I'd like your opinion on whether I have summed things up approximately correctly, i.e., no one should be sanctioned (putting aside the extended fighting by the two users on my Talk page <smiling>). If you have time ... Thanks. (Tyler and F1V8V10V6: at this point, I do not want to hear from either of you ... please.) --Bbb23 (talk) 18:24, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

  To be really honest, I haven't got into the detail above because it would be a complete waste of my time. I have some concerns about the way F1V8V10V6 is conducting themselves, however I do have to recognise a more collegiate approach today. For example more of a willingness to discuss issues. So my feeling is both need to move on, stop such petty squabbling, and take your advice on not being so quick to revert. If I could slap a sanction on them both for the whole 'debate' above without getting in trouble I would do it... and sleep well tonight! :) Mark83 (talk) 18:42, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

  Heh, thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:47, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

• @F1V8V10V6 and TylerBurden: As I understand what's happened since my warning, I don't think anyone has violated my warning.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:47, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

2601:901:4300:6050:0:0:0:0/64 and 96.68.219.145 block

Hey, I'm contacting you about your block back in 2018 of 2601:901:4300:6050:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) and 96.68.219.145 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). What LTA/user was that? If this was an LTA or someone evading a block, I'd like to tell you that they're pretty active on 2601:901:4300:39D0:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) and the same IPv4. Thanks! wizzito | say hello! 14:33, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Both of those blocks were CU blocks. Privacy prevents me from connecting IPs to named accounts.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:36, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Alright, just saying that if it was the same LTA you CU blocked for, then they likely need a reblock. wizzito | say hello! 14:39, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

AI4ALL

I want to draft an article about AI4ALL--you previously deleted an article with that name. I would use as a template articles about similar nonpofits e.g. Girls Who Code. It was founded by Fei-Fei Li and has substantial independent coverage. Do you have suggestions or objections? HouseOfChange (talk) 19:02, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry about my deletion. I deleted it per WP:A3.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:46, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Your comment

I liked your comment very much. I certainly don’t expect you to listen to me because something is my opinion. Hopefully I describe things accurately and if you come to the same conclusion on your own, that’s great. We need a better system of detecting Sybil attacks and stopping them. The Checkuser tool is no match for VPNs, user agent switchers, and modern privacy browsers in the hands of a determined adversary. Jehochman ^Talk 18:56, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

I dunno - I try to listen to others always - and in your case, I respect your opinion regardless of whether I agree with it. In this case I agreed with the first part of what you said. At the same time, I wanted to clarify that I wouldn't block the user even if the rules didn't forbid it. Not my style. Even if I disagreed strongly with the unblock, which I don't, I wouldn't use my tools in that manner. What I'll probably do, at least in the short term, is watch the user. I suspect he will be more careful, at least for a while.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:55, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

Have a tea !! Onmyway22 talk 11:05, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&logid=126568429

This is in response to your deletion of my page Hessiejones I use this page as a collaboration page with 2 of my colleagues for the Women in Red Articles. I have been away from Wikipedia in the last week and did not have a chance to delete the draft article. Please reinstate my page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hessiejones (talk • contribs) 15:02, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

It's not an appropriate use of your userpage. I can restore it and put it elsewhere in your userspace if you wish.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:04, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Seaville, Brandelhow and Dob Gill Car Park

The articles aren't notable and I checked the citation they added to the page which didn't explain anything besides a hike that started at a unnotable parking area. How do I request for a article to be moved to a draft? I am new to Wikipedia so I am still learning things. The creator of the articles are clearly new so can I request for those articles to become a draft? It seems like the creator of the article doesn't edit much and they created articles that have little to no info with 1 source and no categories, my point is that the articles aren't ready to become articles, they should be drafts so they can get improvement. Thanks for the advice. HelpingWorld (talk) 02:06, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

What does means of revert sock?

I don't know what does means of revert sock?, like this one: Feta or Flag of Sweden articles were reverted. What does is means?, Since January 8, 2022. I Never creates sockpuppet account again. User:180.214.233.69 (talk) 08:35, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

FYI

@Bbb23, Just in case you didn't know, the user Who we not, whom u blocked recently, is a Wikipedia editor. [pun intended] For context see: User talk:Who we not#January 2022 Tame (talk) 09:55, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

AN/I

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:54, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Review

Hi Bbb23 Hope you are safe on this pandemic. Can you review the drafted article upon request? Fade258 (talk) 17:10, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

It's not something I do.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:04, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

North Castle

Hello, Bbb23,

Thank you for restoring this redirect. The page was brought to my attention because there was a broken redirect on the page which I removed but I should have looked into the entire page history instead of just assuming it was a new article. Thanks for returning the redirect to its proper target. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:18, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

You're welcome. We should watch the author who hijacked the redirect, though.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:24, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Another sock

Back again. The editor who was Charlesrosen, Mrtarkin, Mrbarron, Drcramberries, Mrswooner now appears to have returned as Ronaldgovern. Is that how it looks to you? Thanks, Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:18, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Doesn't give up.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:41, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Mehmed Şevket Eygi

Hey Bbb23, I'd appreciate if you'd WP:SILVERLOCK Mehmed Şevket Eygi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views); the frequent IP POV editing is becoming a nuisance. Any objections? Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 17:36, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't think there's sufficient activity to justify protection, but even if there were, I'd feel uncomfortable about doing it myself given my occasional reverts. You can always try WP:RFPP; perhaps another administrator will feel differently.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:45, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Question

Why can’t I babe the banner on my page? -Stiabhna (talk) 23:43, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

babe the banner? What does that mean?--Bbb23 (talk) 23:44, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant have. -Stiabhna (talk) 23:49, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

See WP:POLEMIC.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:50, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Polemic means a verbal or written attack on someone. How am I engaging in that when my banner isn’t attacking anyone? Stiabhna (talk) 23:55, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

The heading ("Very divisive or offensive material not related to encyclopedia editing") is applicable. You will not be permitted to have grotesquely presented anti-vaxx material on your userpage, or indeed anti-vaxx material of any kind. Your behavior at Wikipedia is part of a pattern, and unless you change your approach, you are headed for an indefinite block. And alternately making bad edits and apologizing will only take you so far before such passive-aggressive behavior is no longer credible.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:01, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

I think that’s unfair, but okay. Stiabhna (talk) 00:22, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Delete of Peanut app Draft Page

Hello. You have just deleted the Draft Page for the Peanut App. May I know what is the reason for that, since I'm not related with the specific company, and we were in the process of correcting the content to be approved? Thank you in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emiltak (talk • contribs) 18:30, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

I deleted it because it was promotional. In your creation of the draft you said "I created the page for Peanut App company". Here you refer to "we were in the process..." Who is "we"? It sounds to me like you have some relationship to the company, either direct or indirect. I posted a COI notice on your Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:41, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

When I say "we" I mean the first admin who pointed the corrections that need to be made @Devonian Wombat as well as the Asarta member in the online IRC online help chat. I'm not associated with the company, and please refer to the conversation we have with Devonian about the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emiltak (talk • contribs) 18:51, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Devonian Wombat is not an administrator.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:57, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

As you can understand, and you can see from my profile, I don't have that experience to know who is administrator or not. However he was the person who declined my first submission and pointed the corrections I already made. Also, the way the submission has been written is far from promotional. The app is an app exactly like Bumble and I don't see the reason why it shouldn't have its own page. There are not any advertising or promotional phrases on it, and what Devonian Wombat suggested were removed. Kindly undelete the draft so it can be reviewed again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emiltak (talk • contribs)

Bruno Guimarães

Hello - Looks like I was just behind you in protecting this one. Didn't mean to cramp your style, if I changed any parameters please adjust as required. Best, Deiz talk 21:31, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

@Deiz: I thought it needed a little longer protection, so I changed it back to 3 days. Thanks very much for the heads up.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:38, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello

Why did you advise you answered my request on my talk page? In addition, why did you revert my entry on the Template before a consensus is determined? Thank you ChanziP (talk) 14:24, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

blocking of an uncompleted draft of a new arictle

Yesterday (25 Jan 2022) on User:Rhhslv/sandbox you blocked a piece I was drafting on Holistic Scoring of Writing. Why? When finished, this will be an even-handed synopsis of the topic, with over 100 citations.Rhhslv (talk) 15:00, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

There was one reference (footnote) to your book. Wikipedia is not a platform for you to write what is clearly a personal, promotional essay.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:11, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi Bb23, how does this go against WP:SELFPUB and WP:SELFCITE? Specifically, self-citation is allowed on Wikipedia only when "produced by an established subject matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications" and the article "should not place undue emphasis on your work" (WP:SELFPUB, WP:SELFCITE). Would one citation of his work be considered self-promotion on a topic that he has widely published on by reliable publications? (Google Scholar) Breadyornot (talk) 16:42, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Dear Bb23 I'm asking that you restore my unfinished draft of Holistic Scoring of Writing so that I can finish it. You blocked it when you had seen only two citations. The full pieces has 102 citations. I cite around 150 different scholars, of which I am only one. How is that "clearly a personal, promotional piece"? As I say, the piece is an even-handed scholarly survey of the topic, in no way personal. As for my status as a serious scholar, see my CV at https://sites.google.com/view/rhhaswellhomepage/cv. I have published 7 monographs with academic publishers, and over 50 peer-reviewed studies in the most respected academic journals in the field of rhetoric and composition. I am the co-author of the only scholarly book yet published in holistic scoring of writing (2019), and currently no encyclopedic article of the subject would leave it out, hence my citation of it. So don't I fall under the Wikipedia policies of WP:SELFPUB and WP:SELFCITE? At least give me a chance to complete the draft before you decide whether it qualifies as a bonafide Wikipedia page. User:Rhhslv — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhhslv (talk • contribs) 19:55, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank You

Hi, Bbb23. I deeply apologize for the trouble I caused you. Thank you for giving me another chance to show you that I can contribute wholesomely and effectively here. I do have a quick question, though. What is appropriate for me to add to my user page? Thank you again. Cheers. -Stiabhna (talk) 01:35, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Ruling out what was on your userpage, what would you like to have on it? Different people have different things. Some have elaborate userpages, some have very simple ones, and some have none at all. I suggest you look at the userpages of experienced users; perhaps that will give you some ideas, but I would say it's more what you can't have on your userpage than what you can. See WP:U5 for example.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:21, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Five Tool Baseball

Hello, you just deleted the Five Tool Baseball draft I had been working on. I represent the company. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kampeterson (talk • contribs) 22:11, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

How do I go about getting the company a page on wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kampeterson (talk • contribs) 22:17, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Follow the instructions in the post I left on your Talk page. However, even if you do all it says, your draft has to be encyclopedic. The one I deleted was not. If you can't comply with all of our policies and guidelines having to do with paid editing, you risk being blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:20, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Unsalt req

I created the draft Poizon Green, and can't move it to mainspace cause another admin appropriately salted the page as it was subject and prone to persistent vandalism and unambiguous promo. But I have created the draft maintaining NPOV and introducing proper sourcing. Can you take a look? The page also had an AFD almost 16 years ago, I believe the band over the years have attained notability. Thanks in advance. -- Tame (talk) 10:39, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

The band doesn't look notable to me, but I'm hardly an expert in that area. I've unsalted the article for you.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:29, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

User talk:Gaylebazz

Could we get a talk page ban as well? They're using their talk page to continue attacking Galebazz and I. Thanks! Gaelan 💬✏️ 16:28, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, all my instincts told me to revoke tpa from the get-go. Anyway, it's done now, and I've rev/deleted the offensive edits.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:32, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

No worries, and thanks for the quick response! Gaelan 💬✏️ 16:58, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Indian Ports Association

I was in the process of responding to the article's creator, and got called away on business. I was going to suggest draftifying to them, but you beat me to it. Thanks. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:43, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Reasonable number of alternative accounts

Hi Bbb23, how are you? Hope you are doing well.

I was wondering what a reasonable number of alternative accounts would be. No worries I am just using this one account, and not planning to create others. I'm asking because I came across a user whose only edits seem to be about drug detection dogs and their effect on police force in NSW, and they seem to operate four alternative accounts w/o any visible usecase for having them. Marchjuly asked them on their user talkpage regarding apparent COI concerns, and I inquired about the multiple accounts. However no reaction from the users side. Instead they keep creating/moving articles to mainspace on the same topic with excessive level of detail largely sourced to facebook/twitter/reddit. – NJD-DE (talk) 00:26, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

It looks like the only active account is OpticalBloom241. None of the others has edited since late November of last year.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:44, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Hmmh, reviewing it now another time it seems like you are right. I must've gotten super confused by all these moves, article re-naming and re-creations. Anyway, sorry for that and thanks for the second set of eyes on this. – NJD-DE (talk) 00:56, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

removal of signature image

Hi

I noticed you removed the signature of Katherine Parkinson from the article's infobox. Come on dude people's biographies are getting their signatures added all over the place. What's wrong with adding some peripheral items about that person? Perhaps it's not so important, but that doesn't mean the signature shouldn't be put there. Plz revert you removal if you agree with what I stated above. Theanonymity.de (talk) 23:36, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – February 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2022).

Administrator changes

AustralianRupert • Cimon Avaro • Euryalus • Jehochman • Nunh-huh

28bytes

Bureaucrat changes

28bytes

Interface administrator changes

Evad37 • Galobtter

Ragesoss

Guideline and policy news

• The Universal Code of Conduct enforcement guidelines have been published for consideration. Voting to ratify this guideline is planned to take place 7 March to 21 March. Comments can be made on the talk page.

Technical news

• The user group oversight will be renamed suppress in around 3 weeks. This will not affect the name shown to users and is simply a change in the technical name of the user group. The change is being made for technical reasons. You can comment in Phabricator if you have objections.
• The Reply Tool feature, which is a part of Discussion Tools, will be opt-out for everyone logged in or logged out starting 7 February 2022. Editors wishing to comment on this can do so in the relevant Village Pump discussion.

Arbitration

• Community input is requested on several motions aimed at addressing discretionary sanctions that are no longer needed or overly broad.
• The Arbitration Committee has published a generalised comment regarding successful appeals of sanctions that it can review (such as checkuser blocks).
• A motion related to the Antisemitism in Poland case was passed following a declined case request.

Miscellaneous

• Voting in the 2022 Steward elections will begin on 07 February 2022, 14:00 (UTC) and end on 26 February 2022, 13:59 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
• Voting in the 2022 Community Wishlist Survey is open until 11 February 2022.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:01, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Block evasion?

Hi Bbb23, you recently indeffed SAMAR FIRDOS ASHRAF (ASHRAF ALAM) for abusing multiple accounts,

The account SAMAR FIRDOS ASHRAF (ASHRAF) was created today and edited the same page

 Looks like a duck to me? Justiyaya 08:03, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, blocked and tagged. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:43, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Maybe you can have a word with an editor

@Johnsmith2116: who you blocked eight years ago[42] for disruptive editing, has again done a similar edit[43] to a golf article when play was as yet not completed. There is discussion on this talk page[44]. I feel this editor's attitude shown in this reply[45] is less than optimal. Maybe a warning from an administrator is needed. Thanks in advance....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:05, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

That was a very long time ago. Other administrators have blocked the user far more recently. Perhaps you should talk to them. In addition, I don't see that a warning from an admin is necessarily more valuable than other editors challenging his edits. If you feel there's a current pattern of disruptive editing, I suggest WP:ANI.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:28, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Rollback query

Hi Bbb. I saw that you reverted Elendil's Heir's post for not being signed, but I think it's a valid question, so if I might pose it myself, can I ask which of the rollback criteria this revert fell under? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 18:50, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Did you look at the edit?--Bbb23 (talk) 18:54, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

(Noting a response removed as unsigned.) I see that there was a whitespace issue. But most of what you reverted was a valid content addition. Under the rollback policy that's an edit that should be copy-edited, not rolled back. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 02:59, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

We worked it out. Thanks so much for your help. And, btw, this discussion, such as it is, is now closed.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:01, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

HI BBB23

I SAW AN ARTICLE jAI VEER HANUMAN WHICH HAD NO CONTENT AND HAVE NOMANITED FOR DELETION BUT YOU HAVE ROLLBACKED MY EDITS MAY I KNOW WHY Mstae12 (talk) 13:24, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Because your tag was disruptive; the article (Jai Veer Hanuman) was not even close to empty. And don't shout.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:43, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

I am not shouting my pc was in capslock mode Mstae12 (talk) 13:58, 8 February 2022 (UTC)