User talk:Bbb23/Archive 30

Sockpuppet investigations/Nickaang/Archive
Hi, for some reason, did not show up in my notifications. In fact, I looked now and it still does not show up there. (I have no idea if it's just a fluke or if there is some incompatibility with other templates on the page or what. I noticed it because I saw the close in my watchlist.)  In any event, unfortunately, I cannot provide a direct link to the off-site evidence, but if you go to  and scroll down, you see lots of people thanking Nick→ Aang for the work he did creating their Wikipedia page. If you click "Show More", you get some more of them.

Most of them are names that I have no earthly idea what article they are thanking Nick for creating; picking out a random example, I couldn't begin to guess what article Nick created for "Norman247". (Now, he thanked Nick a month ago, so if I were to happen upon a spammy article for a non-notable company whose CEO is Norman, and whose creator fits the pattern of the Nick Aang accounts, we could guess that we've found it.)

For some of them, on the other hand, it's blatantly obvious what article they are thanking him for. For example, "Candymanvending" thanked Nick four months ago. Well, Draft:Andre Bramwell (created by ) and Candyman Vending (created by ) both are suspicious and seem at least somewhat likely to be NickAang sockpuppets. Amakaullu, in fact, I see has already been blocked as a MehulWB sockpuppet.

Second example: Jasondoshi thanked Nick five months ago. Loanscribe's founder is Jason Doshi and that article was created almost exactly five months ago. So I'd bet is another Nick Aang account. (This account is not blocked.)

Unfortunately, there's no way to directly link to the particular entry of Nick being thanked - you have to scroll down to it.

I hope this explanation helps. --B (talk) 14:39, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * If you wish to pursue this, I prefer to unarchive the SPI and reopen it so you can add the above comments or whatever you wish to that page rather than deal with the issue here. Regardless of the outcome, it's much better for the future. Sorry about the notification. It's a very touchy system and has wrinkles that many people aren't even aware of, as well as out-and-out bugs. Let me know what you want me to do.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:46, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure, if you want to unarchive this, I'd be happy to paste the above there. I don't know that there's any action possible for a checkuser at this point since the one new sock I had has been blocked as a MehulWB sock and Mutallyediting is stale.  But for the sake of having this documented for whoever the next person to look is, it would probably be useful to have it there.  --B (talk) 14:50, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Done. Back to you. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 14:55, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I have moved these comments there. --B (talk) 15:08, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Along with the user Asgarinamdar
There was a IP that kept on removing the speedy on the page he made that I'm sure was him avoiding getting blocked. Here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:183.87.117.170 Wgolf (talk) 05:06, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Now that the named account is blocked, please let me know if the IP does anything further. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:08, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigations/Thigle/Archive
Bbb23, thank-you for your time re. the recent Joshua Jonathon / Thigle SPI. It is ironic that, while this investigation was going on, there is another editor who visits the same cluster of pages, who does look very much like Thigle in behaviour, whom I believe JJ may have given support to, and for which he was then mis-identified. Although I have been on WP for over a decade, I'm not au fait with the SPI / ANI / etc. protocols at all - so I don't really know if (or whether) there is anything to do about this. If you are interested, I would prefer to use a private channel. You and I are both very busy - so I'll leave it at that. Thanks again (20040302 (talk) 14:01, 16 March 2015 (UTC))
 * Without knowing what account you're talking about, I have no idea what to make of your post. If you don't want to post the account here, you're welcome to e-mail me. I don't normally respond to e-mail, but I will, of course, read it. Despite your reluctance to do anything at SPI, the usual way to report a sock is to open an SPI. In this instance, you would "start" an SPI, naming Thigle as the master and listing the account you suspect as the puppet. You'd have to, of course, present evidence supporting your suspicion. If for whatever reasons you don't wish to do that, it's unlikely I would act on my own. I do, of course, sometimes act without an SPI, but it has to be pretty obvious, and it doesn't sound like your concern falls into that category.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:56, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Alakzi
Please explain. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:53, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Engboy142
They're back again at User:JustDanceYoullbeokay. I'd open a report, but I'm short on time, but wanted you to be aware that I will open on in the next day or so... if they have not gotten themselves blocked yet!  livelikemusic  my talk page! 16:41, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Disruption at 3RRN archive
Hi Bbb23. As a 3RRN regular, can you please look into a case regarding edit-warring by a user who insists adding comments after the 3RRN report, for which he was blocked, was archived. Thank you. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 17:25, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Oldjoe2
Oldjoe2 is a sockpuppet of Mirrortoamermaid and his vote at Articles for deletion/Tim Smart (healthcare administrator) is abusive. Since you have already closed the report at WP:SPI, let me post the evidence on this Talk page.

Mirrortoamermaid was involved with pages concerning Birmingham University. He started several pages on Birmingham University alumni; some of them are non-notable. See:. In "Judges" segment, there is Alan Taylor. On 17 February 2015, Mirrortoamermaid stopped editing. The account Oldjoe2 was created on 20 February 2015. He started the page on Alan Taylor and voted on the AFD. Oldjoe2 contributes exactly like Mirrortoamermaid. This is a case of WP:DUCK. UI1990 (talk) 03:26, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Just go to WP:SPI and put in Mirrortoamermaid as the master, and it will then start a new investigation based on whatever evidence you have. I don't want to handle this on my Talk page. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:33, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your thoughtful reply. I've no experience with SPI. UI1990 (talk) 10:50, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Just to clarify: I no longer use the mirrortoamermaid account (I have forgotten the password and do not have an email linked to it so cannot ask wiki to send me the password). OldJoe2 is my new account. On the point of His Honour Judge Alan Taylor, wiki guidelines do staight that regional level judges may be of notability, so it is at least debateable. UI1990 has him/herslef clearly stated that Mirrortoamermaid stopped posting on 17th Feb and oldjoe2 started posting 3 days later, so its obvious that there is no attempt to run two identities in tandem, which is what I assume a 'sockpuppet' is. So it does appear a bit unfair to talk of 'sockpuppets'.Oldjoe2 (talk) 17:51, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

SPI
Right after I submitted I realized the SPI should actually be on MonsterMike, who is the oldest account out of the three and has already been the subject of an SPI in the past, which found it likely that he was indeed socking. Should I be renaming/moving it given that a pre-existing SPI already exists? Am I suppose to notify them?

Thanks for your help. CorporateM (Talk) 17:56, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll fix the master problem at the SPI. You don't need to notify them.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:59, 20 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks! CorporateM (Talk) 18:13, 20 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Getting tied down with a bunch of other stuff (broken dishwasher, other Wikipedia pages, a meeting, preparing for poker night at my place tonight, etc.), but I'll be on this very soon.
 * I wanted to ask for a clarification though. Pauloperry and Intchar haven't made substantial edits elsewhere, so there's no way to tie them to MonsterMike on other articles, because they haven't edited any. So my presumption is that you were asking for behavioral patterns that are consistent across MonsterMike and the other two. In which case I need to start doing a deep dive into Monster's editing and see if he shows similar patterns as these two. The thing that is consistent across all three that has made me suspect socking is COI editing on the Kheradpir page. So I would be looking to see if Monster has similar COI editing patterns (language, etc. other things) on this or other pages. Do I have that right? CorporateM (Talk) 19:47, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I've never heard a poker game as an excuse before. There's no rush as long as you add evidence say within two days max. If you can't tie the puppets to MM based on other articles, then you're stuck with behavioral/stylistic evidence. A similar COI editing pattern is possible; just make sure it's not too remote.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:56, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, do you know if there a tool to find out which pages he has edited the most? It would be too time-consuming to verify if he mis-represented sources on other pages, but I can look for patents, promotional language, and other common COI indicators that occurred on the Kheradpir page with these other two accounts on the pages he has edited most heavily that are COI targets (BLPs on currently living, rich people). A lot of astrotrufing companies drown out their COI edits with random volunteer edits, but the COI editing would be much more heavily concentrated. CorporateM (Talk) 20:29, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Or better yet, a keyword search of their contribs. I'm looking at MonsterMike now; it does look like an obvious paid editor. CorporateM (Talk) 20:42, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * This page has a list of tools/gadgets that may help. Unfortunately, it's not easy to wade through them, and only some of them are clickable. Some are also buggy, meaning they don't work all the time or they don't respond (that's usually a function of the server, not a bug). This page, when it works, gives you the most heavily edited page by MM: Rajat Gupta. There may be a way to search the user's contributions with a keyword, but I'm not aware of it. I'd ask narrow questions like that at the help desk. Some of the help desk patrollers are very knowledgeable.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:50, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * When you add new comments or evidence to the SPI page, don't refactor your previous comments. Put in a new comment and sign it. Otherwise, it gets very confusing.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:57, 20 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Hey, I gotta go grab dinner, then people are going to start showing up at my house shortly for poker night. I won't be able to get back to it until tomorrow later afternoon. Is it possible to put it on hold or something? Then I'll keep working on it based on whatever direction you suggest. CorporateM (Talk) 22:41, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * He says it's not him. I'm going to try to get those diffs before ppl get here. Then I think it might be set? Being that I don't know of any better way to collect more evidence. CorporateM (Talk) 23:25, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You can ping me at the SPI itself when you add more. The page is on my watchlist as well. Have fun tonight.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:01, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Already drinking, so if you see my words slurring - har har. Thanks for all your help Bbb23!! The "blame" tool didn't seem to actually work. I apologize if I'm dragging my feet. The whole thing is - well, I don't like it. CorporateM (Talk) 00:13, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Socks
Just FYI. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 04:17, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Request to Block Vandal IP 69.172.85.34
I would like to bring to your attention to block an unconfirmed user making disruptive edits with the above mentioned IP address. Here are all the disruptive unconstructive edits logged: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/69.172.85.34

The user has been warned multiple times on the talk page. Before it gets chaotic to undo the edits, please consider blocking the IP address. Would you temporarily protect the pages being disrupted? Kapil.xerox (talk) 23:22, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I blocked the IP for violating WP:3RR at Bochasanwasi Shri Akshar Purushottam Swaminarayan Sanstha. Next time, though, please take the IP to WP:AN3 (I set it up by warning the IP). I'm not inclined to unilaterally block the IP for disruptive edits. As for protection, please take any requests to WP:RFPP. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:36, 16 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks User:Bbb23 for pointing out the combative administrative links. I have gotten less into the Administrative side of Wikipedia as I am more into content creation now. But would also like to get my feet wet on the Administrative side of things too. I will copy those links to my notebook! Cheers! Kapil.xerox (talk) 15:39, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Jet.com
Sure, Jet.com shouldn't be in Encyclopedia Britannica for a few years, but Wikipedia is better than that. The Jet article should be up now. U9y0x46md247bg5ivb7z (talk) 18:24, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * "better than that"? What does that mean? You want to add an article for a company website that isn't even working yet? So we beat others to the punch? Frankly, I don't get it. I don't know if you've been told this, but you should consider changing your username. It doesn't violate policy per se, but it is "highly discouraged".--Bbb23 (talk) 18:53, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Over editing once again by a repeatedly blocked IP
User:200.219.132.103 is once again changing all the reference formats and introducing multiple errors. Can we block this yet again? --Michael Goodyear (talk) 20:36, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * For a year this time. Thanks for the heads up.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:02, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oops, there were two of them, as before. I blocked User:200.219.132.105 first and just now 103.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:06, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Bridge hoaxes SPI
I'm glad you found this, and apologise for not notifying you - I misread the master's block log and thought the comment about an earlier account came from Ohnoitsjamie, so I notified him instead. JohnCD (talk) 09:43, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * No problem. I noticed your comments at Ohnoitsjamie's Talk page and assumed that was precisely what had happened.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:33, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

George Reich
George Reich is back, already! 220  of  Borg 16:07, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Disruption at 3RRN archive continues
Hi Bbb23. One of the reasons of asking you the first time to intervene in this was that I knew that stopping this disruption was going to be difficult. Despite the warnings he received from other users, and from you, has resumed his edit-warring at the 3RRN archive; this time he used the edit-summary to reply with sarcasm telling me to just click Edit to reply to comments. Thank you again for your help and sorry for the trouble. Take care. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 16:08, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I hadn't noticed that you had already blocked the editor. Either that, or you traveled back in time a few minutes. :) Thank you, regardless. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 16:38, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Bbb23!  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 21:33, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Crystal ball
Perhaps already your S.O.P. ... but you may want to keep Burzynski Clinic on your watchlist after it comes off protection next weekend. (my spidey senses and all) — Ched : ?  21:40, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't have a SOP, . What you're really saying is you want me to create more work for myself. I've put it on my oversized watchlist, but I don't promise anything. I always enjoy hearing from you and your spidey senses, though. Regards.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:53, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Well - it looks like a "POV" issue with a few folks strongly entrenched on opposite sides. There's a touch of "fringe" thrown in just for flavoring I'd say.  Being familiar with at least one party, I'm pretty sure at least one editor there isn't likely to just "walk away" from a contentious issue, so I suspect we'll see more problems on that page in the future.
 * I had my watchlist down to under 1500, but that was a while back - I should trim it back again. :)
 * And always good to see you about too Bbb. — Ched : ?  22:03, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

c'mon, you don't need spidey senses to read something in gazillion foot high neon letters across the sky ! -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 21:44, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I did LITERALLY LOL at this RtD. — Ched : ?  22:03, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Gilbert Gottfried
Dear Bbb23,

All due respect; Gilbert Gottfried has discussed his Jewish heritage with the public on many occasions. The reference I cited (Jewcy.com, a part of Tablet Magazine) is a reputable resource for information on issues related to Judaism: http://jewcy.com/jewish-arts-and-culture/gilbert-gottfrieds-got-balls-and-hes-not-afraid-to-use-them. The article not only includes a personal interview with Gilbert Gottfried about his heritage, but also his own "tweets" from Twitter in which he states and jokes about his being Jewish. Gilbert Gottfried was also listed on a Comedy Central list of top Jewish comedians, narrated by Richard Belzer.

I will attach more sources to the article.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Jeff — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeffgr9 (talk • contribs) 01:58, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of OrthoCarolina
Please explain how the OrthoCarolina content was so insignificant as to merit deletion of the page as well as the edit history. --Xyzerb (talk) 02:41, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The article said nothing more than (1) this is a healthcare provider and (2) this is kind of healthcare provided.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:12, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I also included links showing their support for medical education and their charity work. Another admin helped me with this--I'll create draft articles from this point on. Although I don't have a copy of my previous work, it should be easy enough to recreate. I'll include info about their medical patents and published research in hopes that it satisfies the notability requirement.--Xyzerb (talk) 17:36, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * If it helps you, I can WP:USERFY it for you.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:36, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I grabbed a copy a few minutes ago. I'll submit it through the draft process this time.--Xyzerb (talk) 21:46, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/86.131.166.83
Possibly a sockpuppet from MariaJaydHicky. He/she recently focused on some Rihanna pages. 115.164.82.47 (talk) 14:41, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the delay in getting to this. I don't know if you're still around, but I agree with you and have blocked the IP for one month. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:50, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

User:IDriveAStickShift again
See Special:Contributions/75.162.237.213. Range block time? See also User_talk:Beyond_My_Ken JoeSperrazza (talk) 07:03, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Sock blocking
Can you block these new socks please? Sockpuppet_investigations/Bishal_Khan -- Rahat  (Message) 12:05, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I reverted your changes. First, you can't just go in and edit the page. You have to do it properly. The easiest ways is to go to WP:SPI and open up a "new" case putting in the master and then follow the instructions. That will create the case properly. Second, you included zero evidence. You can't just list puppets and that's it. Please try again. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:19, 25 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the bad formatt. I am now at a rural area, no computer with me and editing from mobile phone that's why can not use twinkle. I am quite sure the accounts are of Bishal Khan, as he is always an anti-bangladeshi, and the name of the new accounts are similar to the blocked sock. e.g. সিঙ্গাপুর উন্নত (Bengali) Singapore is developed (English).
 * And the sockk always tries to prove that bangladesh is less developed than any other country, e.g. Singapore or others. - Rahat  (Message) 06:52, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation. You don't have to use Twinkle to open or reopen an SPI. You can do it directly from WP:SPI, although, honestly, I don't know how anyone edits with a mobile phone. In any event, I went ahead and opened the report for you.--Bbb23 (talk) 10:35, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the SPI report. - Rahat  (Message) 10:45, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Breaking the 1RR or the 3RR
This editor violated the rules of reverting he rv 2 time today and 1 yestearday,Assuming that the 1RR applies to 24 hour periods, on this this page.Lindi29 (talk) 20:39, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I blocked the editor but based on a page ban rather than violating 1RR. You should be careful yourself, though, because your two edits could be construed as violating WP:1RR, and you're no stranger to this policy given your block log. You may think your first edit didn't revert anyone, but you changed material, which many admins, particularly on this page where changing material is generally a significant change, would consider it a revert. Some of it might depend on how long ago the particular material you changed was last touched, and I didn't feel like researching that without an affirmative report that you had violated 1RR.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:24, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I know how admins work I am really familiar with they work,just an explanation If you look how he rv without a source so he broke the rules of editing 3 times beacause he rv 2 other editors to.My edit wasn't e rv but a normal edit I edited with a source also we disscused that on the talk page but he just keeps reverting and for that I rv him with [WP:POV] beacasue a consensus was not reached also he was vandalising the article and breaking the 1RR and for that I got block for following the rules and rv a vandal.Lindi29 (talk) 15:25, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

CSD
Thanks for reverting this. It's hard to tell what was the disruptive part or not when using STiki. Still think it's not notable so I renominated it. Cheers.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 05:17, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * No problem. I'll let another admin handle it, though.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:19, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Not a problem. Thanks!  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 05:21, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks
Enjoyed working with you, but just fyi, I've retired and expect to be desysopped soon. Good luck to you! Dreadstar ☥   16:38, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm so sorry you're leaving under such difficult circumstances. Wikipedia can be so stressful and judgmental. Hopefully, you'll put all of this in perspective in the absence of Wikipedia from your life. Best, as always, and if there's anything I can do, please let me know.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:34, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Voting on functionary candidates
This is occurring at Arbitration/Requests/Motions. Courcelles (talk) 19:30, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd like to hear from you about the comment that you wouldn't use OS often. We do need Oversighters to be active. Thanks. Please ping me in any reply, which you can make here. Dougweller (talk) 07:12, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * My interest and work at SPI make me a good fit for becoming a CU. It's also something I really want to do. When I was considering applying for the privileges, I had some discussions with, who was very supportive of my applying. She was also helpful (is she every anything else?) answering my various questions (I always have so many). I wasn't sure about applying for the OS privilege as it wasn't as obvious a fit and I wasn't as interested in having the permission. Ponyo's initial comment during the community discussion sums up nicely what happened before I applied. Nonetheless, I felt it important to be honest in my candidate statement so the community knew that I felt differently about the two privileges. Frankly, I was suprised when a few editors opposed me because of my statement.
 * It reminds me of an employer interviewing people for a particular position. The ideal candidate walks on water. They are skilled in every facet of the job. They are easy to get along with. They need very little guidance ("hit the ground running" is the awful cliche). And they want to work their butt off, extra hours, etc., in a salaried position (meaning no overtime pay). Of course, no one ever finds this mythical candidate, but that's the standard some interviewers have in their brains.
 * As I think you know, I'm very conscientious in my work at Wikipedia. Every time I use the tools, I think about it and whether it's the right thing to do. I'm not afraid to use the tools, as evidenced by my stats, but I try to think about what's best for the project when I use them, and I also try to be fair, which sometimes is painful, e.g., when it means blocking someone I like. If I am appointed as an OS, I believe I will use the permission wisely. Although I may want to use it less than others, that doesn't mean that I won't try to do my fair share. And for all I know I may grow into it and learn to "like" using it.
 * But let's assume I don't use the permission as frequently as some. Is that really a problem? If appointing me means that you don't appoint someone else who would be more active, then I would say yes, that's a problem. However, if it simply means that, like some admins who don't act as often as other admins, I don't see that as a big deal, particularly if when I do use it, it's helpful to the community. Now, if I were appointed and found that I barely used it ever (hard to conceive), I would resign it. I don't want a tool I don't use; I don't see the point.
 * Sorry for the very long answer. I hope it helps. One final thought. If you decide - for whatever reason - that you must oppose my OS appointment, you should do so. Even those who have already opposed me did so constructively. I have no problem with it.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:06, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello Bbb23!
There is a long standing request to Wikify the article on Dr. Eric Topol. Why did you remove added data? I hope to contribute more to this article. Cheers! Shir-El too  16:11, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't know what you mean by "wikify", but I reverted your changes because you cannot add crucial biographical data to a WP:BLP without reliable sources to support them.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:45, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The information was obtained from US Public Records via the Geniology site at this location:https://familysearch.org/search/record/results?count=20&query=%2Bgivenname%3Aeric~%20%2Bsurname%3Atopol~. I should have referenced it before adding. There are several records pertaining to Eric Jeffrey Topol (aka Even J. Topol) which corresponde with his places of residence. Cheers! Shir-El too  18:19, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Genealogy websites are not considered reliable sources. You need to find a secondary source, such as a newspaper or a magazine.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:26, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Gotcha! BTW wikify is a term I learned here, to indicate an item that needs additional work to bring it up to standard. Cheers! <font color="F64A8A">Shir-El <font color="DF73FF">too  18:30, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * That's not the way the term is usually used. See WP:Wikify.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:35, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion of Daniel DC Caldwell, I
I do not want to be impolite, but please allow me to express my standpoint. This person page was inappropriately and ARBITRARILY flagged for speedy deletion under the A7 tag specifically contrary to the guidance of that criteria, then the flag was PROMPTLY contested showing the article cited MULTIPLE credible, notable, relevant, and reliable sources (at least one for every part of a claim), and the article was still removed without ANY discussion. Please revert and restore the deleted page.
 * "It is irrelevant whether the claim of notability within the article is not sufficient for the notability guidelines. If the claim is credible, the A7 tag can not be applied. Often what seems non-notable to a new page patroller is shown to be notable in a deletion discussion." Meanwhile, by comparison, Keyaira D. Saunders, another candidate, has not been so rudely discriminated against. Who am I supposed to report this abuse to? (besides Bbb23, as the deleter, of course)DCdanielcaldwell 03:53, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You are the subject of the article, and when you contested the speedy delete tag, you said, "for the sake of equality, demands that challengers be allowed the same opportunity for name identification afforded to the incumbents at least during the period between candidate filing and the date the election results become available. In other words, fairness requires that either I get a profile, or the mayor loses his, too." As for the Saunders article, despite your best efforts and those of your ""associates", it is headed for deletion as well, Indeed, one administrator recommended speedy delete.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:33, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Deletion review for Daniel DC Caldwell, I
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Daniel DC Caldwell, I. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. DCdanielcaldwell (talk) 06:54, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Earth100
...appears to have left a notice very recently on 11 March 2015. Maybe you should respond to him (since you were the blocking admin)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.114.239 (talk) 17:19, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't know who you are or why you're interested in this, but thanks for heads up.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:55, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments making sure that my role is clear. My hope is if he can provided us with an indication of his thought process and show us that he can cooperate with other peoples thoughts then he can be unblocked by you, or another administrator since that was one of the main problems that lead to his block.Jason Rees (talk) 20:04, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The poster is allegedly IPhonehurricane95, the sockmaster troll who had a tendency to edit tropical cyclone-related articles. IPhonehurricane95 impersonated a couple times to make it appear that Earth100 had created new accounts to get around his ban. Inks.LWC (talk) 01:41, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * That's weird. Why would he want to help Earth100 and why would he want to admit who he is? Nonetheless, the IP geolocates to the same place as another IP blocked for block evasion. It's almost like he wanted to be blocked, or at least wanted to preen. In any event, I granted his request and blocked him for a week.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:50, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * My guess is that IPhonehurricane95 was hoping that you would deny his request (or even remove his talk page access). All the IP posted on my talk page was "Just so you know, he is back." Inks.LWC (talk) 03:42, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Suspicious
Hi! I was reviewing the Sockpuppet investigations/Nickaang case, when I noticed this: diff. Spdydre was accused in that case, but found unrelated by a CU. Why would he removed those cases from the archive if he is unrelated?  Vanjagenije  (talk)  21:59, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Dunno, but it could be that he's angry at for accusing him of sock puppetry. If you look at his few contributions, he also vandalized B's Talk page a couple of weeks ago. In any event, I reverted the edit and left him an "only warning" on his Talk page. I can still block him if he's disruptive, regardless of whether he's a sock puppet. Thanks for catching the blanking and the heads up.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:12, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * He vandalized my page BEFORE I added him to the SP request. His only prior edits (deleted or otherwise) were the deleted Andre bramwell article from February 2014, which was one sentence and two links - nothing like a Nick Aang article.  Had he not vandalized my talk page while I was in the middle of filing a sockpuppet request, I would have never had any reason to suspect he was Nick Aang ... but if he's completely unrelated to Nick Aang, that's some pretty incredible timing there.  He comes out of a year-long retirement to vandalize my talk page when I had nothing to do with deleting his article and I just so happen to be filing a SPI request about someone else who created a similarly named article?  --B (talk) 22:34, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the correction, . I didn't reread the old case, but now that you mention it, I do remember your commenting about the vandalism at the time. There's clearly something wrong with the account. All I can think of is meat (or meatish) rather than sock, and not very competent meat at that.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:51, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Nathan Fillion
Just FYI, in case the IP you reverted presses the issue, Nathan Fillion does sing, and has sung professionally. That said, describing him as a singer might be stretching it just a bit. --Drmargi (talk) 13:08, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Where in the article does it talk about it?--Bbb23 (talk) 21:16, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Have you seen Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog? It's very entertaining. Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 01:15, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Nope. He never sings on Castle.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:21, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

SPI report question
It's easy enough to figure out who I'm talking about from my edits but I will talk in general terms. A few days ago I noticed a new editor adding links to blogs which were authored by a person having a related name. They got a spam and COI warning from me. Today, another new editor undid one of my reversions and added a link to a different article to another blog written by a person having a related name to the first editor. Could drawing attention to these identities in a SPI report be considered outing? --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 23:43, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You're just lucky I like you so much. You made me work for my "money". You're talking about Vindicated8912 and Missimagin. I don't see any outing problem. It's not clear to me, though, that the two accounts are socks. It's possible they are meat. I say that only because some of their edits are very close together in time. If you start an SPI, please let me know when it's opened. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:48, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * In an abundance of caution, I'll qualify my outing comment. It may depend on the language you use when you open the SPI. If you want to run it past me first, feel free.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:00, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * What happened?--Bbb23 (talk) 11:17, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Given there's been no activity, I think (hope) the two editors have given up. However if you think it's worth it, I'll file. I'll email you the proposed wording right now. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 13:11, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Congrats (condolences?) on your CU appointment. Hope you have enough clerks to make up for the loss of experience as you step into your new role. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 03:16, 31 March 2015 (UTC) And please don't perform a CU block on me. Sorry, couldn't resist... --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 03:19, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Patsy Presley article
Hi Bbb23,

There is a problem at the article Patsy Presley which is currently up for AFD. An editor is removing things, sources and references from the article while it is at AFD, as apparently a knee-jerk response when it was pointed out at AFD that the article subject had at that point had 17 references and sources listed in the article. It was like they suddenly wanted to gut out the article. I noticed the same behaviour by the same editor at another AFD where you commented to the afd there.

"leave the article alone, whether it has unsourced material or poorly sourced material in it. Editors who evaluate the notability of the subject can easily see what is sourced and what isn't and how. You're also free to comment here on the sources rather than deleting material from the article. The article is short; it's not that hard to go through." from here

I attempted to address this with the editor on their talk page but they promptly deleted it after they put down a rude response. I also tried to address the gutting issue on the article talk page here. 

Could you please evaluate this situation and find a way to make the AFD for the Patsy Presley article more fair so all the editors can evaluate the article and sources however they may be nearer to the time of the AFD nomination? Thank you or your time. WordSeventeen (talk) 04:19, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Swamiblue reverts inspite of "strict" warning - again edit warring on the article
User:Bbb23, despite giving a clear warning on "not to revert" on the user's talk page and to stay away from controversial edits, User:Swamiblue's revert (here is the revert) has again given way to an ongoing edit war on the article. See the article's history. In this regard, I would urge you to administer a more severe block. Based on the user's ongoing conduct, I would not be pulled into the user's soft arguments on promising to be any better. Please take a look at the uncivil language used in the talk page discussion here: see diff here. Again it seems to me that this user is not keen to apply Wikipedia policies to argue his/her case (such as lack of citations) but somehow is bent on pursuing a specific agenda and goes on to label users when found in disagreement. Would you please take steps to prevent further disruption of the article. Thanks for taking a look into this. Kapil.xerox (talk) 07:27, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I was aware of the problems, not just with Swamiblue but also with other users involved in the article. I wasn't aware of the latest comments on the article Talk page, though. I'm not sure I would label Swamiblue's comments as "uncivil". They are misguided, though, in that they accuse other editors of having a conflict as a defense to their own position. It's true that I warned Swamiblue before the revert, but I chose not to take action after the revert, although I did take him to task on his Talk page. I'm considering a number of possibilities but haven't quite made up my mind which to take. I appreciate your staying out of the battle on the article. Obviously, you are welcome to express your views on the Talk page (and it's best to ignore any comments by others that are unrelated to the content).--Bbb23 (talk) 12:42, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I was reading Wikipedia:Your first article and planning to create my first article on Mahant Swami, the current administrator of BAPS. I noticed that under the section "Are you closely connected to the article topic?" it states Don't remove negative/critical text from an article and Don't neglect to disclose your affiliation on the article's talk page. Does this mean mean if you are a member of the group of an article that you are editing on and constantly removing negative/critical text from an article then they should be warned or blocked? Also in the baps article many of the citations that are used are from books that are written by baps authors such as HT Dave and more so are they violating the rule about "maintaining a neutral, objective tone in any content." I appreciate your feedback.Swamiblue (talk) 18:17, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * If Editor X is affiliated with the subject of an article, they should disclose it. In the absence of any disclosure by Editor X, Editor Y should not assume that Editor X has a conflict, particularly if it's based principally on the fact that Editor X disagrees with Editor Y about the content of the article. Also, discussions about possible editor conflicts may be initiated at WP:COIN.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:12, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Bbb23. I do not want to make any assumptions so I will ask before going to the WP:COIN. Kapil.xerox are you affiliated with BAPS?Swamiblue (talk) 19:28, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * @User:Bbb23, User:Swamiblue has made every possible effort in their string of personal attack towards me and other editors. I have remained quite for a while but it looks like User:Swamiblue is less interested in correcting their conduct. They haven't even spared the article talk page. Instead of discussing content they are making personal attacks. Calling editors lazy and ignorant (see this diff here) and even going to the extreme to accuse me of having a leash around you (as in this diff). This has happened before several times. I have warned the user for a third time now on their talk page. User:Swamiblue was warned not to revert the article after a strong warning for one last time - but the user decided not to heed the warning and chose to revert even when a consensus hasn't reached and so far no editor has yet agreed with the citations and the arguments they are trying to make. Maybe, it is time this user be blocked again for showing severe disregard for following instruction and failing to comply with Wikipedia policies. Your look into this matter will be highly sought. Thanks Kapil.xerox (talk) 04:19, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I did not edit anything that was at contention. I have asked User:Bbb23 to help me and asked for clarifications many times. I apologize to you when you left me a warning on my talk page and if that wasn't clear, I will apologize again for the comments that were unnecessary. The edits that I made are not related to the doctrine issue at hand and I waited a few days for the legal part and no one said anything on the talk pages when I literally begged to have that address. Many times you have personally attacked me in your comments and gotten other users involved to reach an unfair consensus. I strongly believe that you have a conflict of interest and you are not disclosing whether you are a member of the group. I was warned not revert anything regarding the discussion taking place on the talk page but I did not make any reverts just edits and then another IP reverted my edits and yours and removed your unsourced statement. Then you reverted all my edits that were not related to the discussion and called on this Admin to block me. How is this an appropriate way to handle things? Swamiblue (talk) 04:28, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Congradulations!
Congrats! Good luck with CU! Origamiteⓣⓒ 03:26, 31 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Welcome CU, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:56, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Jets100's sockpuppets
Hello, Bbb23. I want to inform you that, apparently, banned user Jets100 returned once again via another sock puppet. Just two days ago, you banned his sock GreekGreenAnarchist100 (his contributions - ), and now he's back as The Greek Historian 1204 (his contributions - )... IMHO, this is a clear DUCK. --Sundostund (talk) 12:12, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm here per my talk... I commented at the SPI. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 17:25, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Leaf (Israeli company)
That was an unpleasant comment. I was editing to make the article better but was not successful. Using "gut" as a synonym for editing is hardly collegial. I am miffed. You are supposed to look at the article, not at the editing of the article. If you would like to apologize to me, I suppose I would feel better, Sheesh. No wonder editors drop out. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 05:59, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You shouldn't remove a significant amount of material from an article based, at least in part, on lack of reliable sources (your first of the series of edits) and then tag it for speedy deletion. A7s aren't evaluated on how well an article is sourced. Thus, by doing what you did, unless an administrator were to look back at the history, they would think that the article's claims of significance were far less than they in fact were and might delete, even though it might be the wrong thing to do. You may, of course, remove unsourced material from an article if you think the removal is warranted. But then you can't slap an A7 tag on it. You could, of course, nominate it for deletion as that deletion process is evaluated quite differently.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:00, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your comments, and I'll be more careful in the future. I think I have been asking for too many Speedies anyway. Thank you.. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 22:19, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. It wasn't my intention to offend you. There's only so much one can put in an edit summary, and I can be blunt at times. I should have explained the decline on your Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:21, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Wester
You blocked this guy the other day for edit warring, and while he's back to argue over the issue that he was edit warring over, he is also making unwanted edits to my user talk page. I've asked him twice to stop posting on my talk page, , yet he has edited it four times since. I've had about enough and left him a "last warning" message on his talk page. Can you let me know the procedure if he continues? Thanks, Bretonbanquet (talk) 15:20, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I posted a warning on Wester's Talk page. You should have received a ping, but I would not post any further on Wester's Talk page. It would only serve to inflame the situation. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:32, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I can't believe how Bretonbanquet is doing his best to escalate all of this. Not only the 3RR-rapport (which was unnecessary since there was no ongoing edit war and made me mad quite frankly) and now this. I should report him for harassment. Neither post of my on his talk page was unfriendly. Tell me, which rule prevents posting non-aggresive and non-offensive comments on someone talkpage? In fact, the only one unfriendly on that talk page is Bretonbanquet.--Wester (talk) 22:41, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I blocked you for edit warring, and you disagree with the block. It still bothers you, so you're going after the user who reported you. As for "the rule", I already explained that to you on your Talk page, which you've since removed, so don't ask that here. You want to report Bretonbanquet for harassment? That's up to you, but I seriously think you should consider WP:BOOMERANG before doing so.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:52, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * No. I commented on a remark on his talk page directed to me. And that was only once since my block, not four times as Bretonbanquet seems to imply. As a mod I would assume that you research those things better. The sames goes with that block you gave me yesterday. If you'd followed the discussion you'd see that I had the best sources and also the only one which had any valuable sources (a first person source). Bretonbanquet's explanation on racing nationality was simply wrong since FIA Rules clearly say the nationality of the passport should be followed. The discussion today was about the question if he had a passport or not. Also a new article emerged which further explained things not known yesterday.
 * You also forgat that there was no edit war. I even started a discussion. 3RR is good in case of an ongoing edit war. But that was not the case here. It was more an way to come to a compromise. As you noticed that the text was different every time and more and more a compromise.


 * Also: 3RR does not a provide a rule that a user is automatically blocked. It's not that strict. It's only meant to stop edit wars. If there is no ongoing edit war there is no reason to block a user. It's unbelievable. 10 years active at the English Wikipedia, had much tougher discussions than this minor one, yet the first time I was blocked. Your block was a disgrace, bad judgement. It was totally uncalled for (I wasn't even active the time you blocked me), unjustified and only resulted in escalation of things. If you had not blocked me I probably even haven't looked at the talk page of Max Verstappen today.


 * As for WP:Harassment. I've read that page in detail. First sentence: "Harassment is defined as a pattern of repeated offensive behaviour". Tell me, which comment on the talk page of Bretonbanquet was offensive? "User space harassment" also does not apply since according the rules that involves putting questionable 'warnings' at someone's user page and restoration of comments. Neither of those two was done by me. It was also no "wikihounding" since Bretonbanquet and I had an ongoing discussion and I needed to contact Bretonbanquet to reason with him about his unjust report at the 3RR case. So I did nothing that contradicts that page. WP:Harassment is not meant that users could have the last word and prevent others to respond on that. BTW: The only one being offensive is Bretonbanquet with his last remark. I will not post on Bretonbanquet's talk page to avoid escalation (which actually started by Bretonbanquet's constant reporting of minor stuff and you that blocked me). But bear in mind you have no case. WP:Harassment does not provide a single argument for disallowing non-aggresive, non-offensive comments in an ongoing discussion on some-ones talkpage.  --Wester (talk) 23:12, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * , you made four edits after you were asked to stop commenting. That's easily seen. Harassment is also continuing to edit someone's talk page after they tell you to stop editing it--that's simple. Now, I am glad you have stayed away from their talk page and I trust you will continue to do so. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 03:17, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Winklevi
The link Winklevi posted is to WP:VPT, so they can't remove it (without socking). I have, as uploading an image of a blocked user's talk page to commons is clearly baiting. NE Ent 01:50, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:53, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Won't be on Commons, for long. Sorry about that, the intention was to display the glitch/april fools happening, but looking back I can see how it went the wrong way. Sucks that was the only screengrab I got too :( EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 01:55, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It's gone now. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 01:56, 1 April 2015 (UTC)


 * It would be helpful if you semi the user page. NE Ent 01:57, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * If you mean Winkelvi's user page, I offered to do so, but he didn't take me up on it. I would do it anyway if there was enough vandalism to warrant it, but one piece of puerile nonsense isn't enough to justify doing it on my own.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:34, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

need some help
I want to add some information on Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University.

I wanted to know that whether this source is considered reliable or not. 

This website is not associated with the organisation so it is 3rd party source.

I don't want to add it without knowing it is reliable or not like I did last time. Supdiop (talk) 06:29, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * That source is not even close to reliable. It is essentially a forum/blog, and an obviously biased one at that. I've therefore reverted most of your edits (I left in the See also addition).--Bbb23 (talk) 20:59, 2 April 2015 (UTC)


 * why did you remove 'Hyderabad,Pakistan' edit? Saying it started in india is misleading. The place where it started is currently in Pakistan. It is more accurate to specify the place.


 * Supdiop (talk) 01:33, 3 April 2015 (UTC)


 * @Supdiop: I have to agree with Bbb23 on the point about the country name. Pakistan did not exist, strictly speaking, prior to 1947, so it is anachronistic to say it started in Pakistan. (It might be useful to use a term like "Hyderabad, north-west India (current-day Pakistan)", but that should be discussed on the talk page.


 * (I edit a lot of ice hockey players' articles, and this is an issue there. Many players are born in what is now Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, etc.; however, at the time of their birth, it was still the USSR, so that's how their places of birth are written in their articles.) —C.Fred (talk) 02:27, 3 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes 'Hyderabad, north-west India (current-day Pakistan)' is good.
 * Supdiop (talk) 03:23, 3 April 2015 (UTC)


 * This is a statement from Wikipedia ''How to identify reliable source"
 * "Blogs" 'in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some news outlets host interactive columns they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control. Posts left by readers may never be used as sources


 * That website is of ex-BKs so they have lots of information about BK.


 * Even though authors will of course add some biased content into their books, they are considered reliable.


 * I did not use the comments in the website. I used the information in home page's about, in which it explains what Brahma Kumaris is.Supdiop (talk) 02:25, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I would not use that website for any material. It was created by disaffected BKs and used by disaffected BKs. It has zero reliability. That does not mean everything on it is inaccurate, but that doesn't matter. It just cannot be used.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:33, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Yr Warning Regarding Moore's Law
I have no problem with your warning both of us, but shouldn't you have reverted to the original edit rather than allowing the disputed edit to remain in the article? Tom94022 (talk) 22:03, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * No, it doesn't work that way. The only time I revert is it is clearly required by policy, e.g., a blatant WP:BLP violation.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:26, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * What about violations of the WP:BRT guideline? In the absence of reversion, the last warrior's edit remains - that doesn't seem reasonable.  Tom94022 (talk) 15:58, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of Steve Hanson (Writer)
02:03, 24 January 2015 Bbb23 (talk | contribs) deleted page Steve Hanson (Writer) (A7: No credible indication of importance (individuals, animals, organizations, web content, events): G12 (http://www.zero-books.net/authors/steve-hanson)

Hi, this page was deleted despite a clear link to the Zero Books author page, and he book published by them in 2014, a new book is pending, from Repeater, in 2015.

Is it possible you could restore the page or put one up? I have worked on it again to make it (hopefully) more legible.

Best regards,

Wikihandle72 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikihandle72 (talk • contribs) 16:04, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It was deleted because it was copyrighted text, which Wikipedia cannot accept, and didn't demonstrate notability. If you wish to write another page about Steve Hanson, it would have to be written from scratch and incorporate third-party sources which demonstrate how he is encyclopedic. We are not a free advertising website, so the mere fact that he's writing a book doesn't mean that he gets an article. Origamiteⓣⓒ 19:39, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

A pie for you!

 * Thanks,, would you like a real address to send it to? --Bbb23 (talk) 17:32, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd love one, but you'd probably prefer my BBQ... Today's cook!

--Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 17:55, 5 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Actually, I prefer the pie. I don't eat most meats. However,, who'll eat just about anything, might enjoy it.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:49, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * yumm-o. Bbb please move this to the bottom: mobile editor does not let me scroll. Happy Easter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drmies (talk • contribs) 20:25, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Tags
Sure thing, my friend. I was just trying to help! Mea culpa! (I thought proven was the new, correct parameter given the circumstances, but I defer to you). As I said, sorry. No offense intended. Cheers, JoeSperrazza (talk) 00:05, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * No offense taken. Choosing suspected or proven is a judgment call based on the strength of the evidence. I reserve proven for obvious behavioral socking.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:08, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Chris Alexander (editor)
Hey, just letting you know- one of the IPs tagged at the Bud Cortman SPI is starting to edit the article again. They only tagged one of the links with a dead link (I've since linked to an archived version of the page), but it's still something to watch out for. I can't remember if there was an official topic ban or not, but I think that it would probably be a very, very good idea for the IPs to be banned from editing Alexander related pages because of how nasty everything got at the various different arenas this went through. I don't know if I could request that now before things start getting nasty or if I have to wait for them to start acting up again, which is likely inevitable given the past actions and accusations at the page, which got bad enough that Alexander himself came on twice and tried to defend himself. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  05:00, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I've blocked the IP for three months. I don't know of any authority I have to topic-ban the IP.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:11, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I was wondering about that since normally topic bans are given to people with accounts, but I figured I'd ask anyway since the guy has been editing from the same IP address or at least the same IP addresses. Thanks for blocking him! I didn't think about block evasion at all, to be honest. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  05:14, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Chealer redux
Hi Bbb23. Sorry for bothering you again but I am becoming increasingly concerned with 's behaviour. Lately he has been messaging and templating for reverting his longterm tagging-related edit-warring on the articles of Wikipedia and English Wikipedia. The longterm edit-warring and now the escalation represented by the unfair targeting of EvergreenFir really concern me. Is it possible you can offer some help or advice in this matter so that we can avoid further escalation? Thank you in advance. Best regards. Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.5ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις 05:06, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi, I'm not sure what I can do. Chealer doesn't listen to advice. If your main problem is you believe Chealer is harassing EvergreenFir, such a claim would be better coming from EvergreenFir rather than you. If you believe this is a more generalized problem of misconduct, you should take it to ANI. I'm also about to go to bed, and I can't seem to even get off my Talk page. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 05:17, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much Bbb23. Sorry for adding to your workload, especially so late at night. My concern is the continuing edit-warring and now the escalation represented by the targeting of EvergreenFir. I tried to avoid ANI, but it seems that's where this is heading. Thank you again and have a good night. Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.5ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις 05:54, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I also see disruption in those edits. I can't promise to be able to devote much time to this or other issues, but I am interested in being kept abreast of developments. Drmies (talk) 15:42, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you Drmies. I will keep you updated. Best regards. Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.5ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις 16:23, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Birth year
What else could be more accurate and reliable than birth certificate of the person? https://hiddendoctrine.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/birth_certificate_of_dada_lekhraj-english.jpg

I want you to take a look again and reconsider your previous revert. Cheers Supdiop (talk) 05:58, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * First, birth certificates are primary sources and cannot be used. Second, you're still getting it from that website, which I've now told you repeatedly you can't use for any purpose. If you persist in this, you risk being blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:37, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

The gutting of a Kbabej created article
The gutting of a Kbabej created article has started again. Please see here. Jakob Denzinger     WordSeventeen (talk) 03:56, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

In my defense, it's an article on my watchlist, I saw it had some changes done, and started to take a closer look at it. I only copy-edited and cleaned it up, there was no "gutting". What's more, I didn't recall until seeing this on your talk page that it was a "Kbabej created article",. -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">WV ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓ 04:12, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

In black and white Jakob Denzinger  = gutting. WordSeventeen (talk) 04:23, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The fact that the article is on your watchlist means nothing. My block notice clearly mentioned articles created by or edited by Kbabej (see here). In any event, that too is immaterial as the Denzinger article was created by the user. I don't believe you "gutted" the article. Nor do I believe that your edits constituted copy edits and clean-up. It was somewhere in between. I don't understand why you keep pushing the envelope. First, revert your edits. I won't do it for you. Second, if you do this again, I don't care what your excuse is, I will not only block you but it will be for a longer duration than if I blocked you now, which by all rights I should.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:44, 6 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I'd appreciate a little good faith here. I'm not making excuses and swear to you, I had no recollection that the article was one that Kbabej created.  I have thousands of articles on my watchlist, this was just one that popped up as having been recently edited, I looked at what had been editing, started reading the article, and saw a number of tone and wording changes that needed to be done along with culling extraneous content.  I will go and revert everything I edited, and take it off my watchlist.  There was no mal-intent whatsoever.  Nothing like that ever crossed my mind, just editing an article, end of story.  I'm not an idiot, and would not "push the envelope".  I will say that while I appreciated you unblocking me early the other day, and the expression of empathy over the socking and vandalization of articles by an imposter was also appreciated, I really don't appreciate your attitude here.  Believe the worst if you want, but you really don't need to.  I'm telling the truth - I don't lie.  Not every faceless account holder in Wikipedia is a dishonest jerk, .  And just to be clear on one point: you did NOT make staying away from Kbabej articles a condition of my early unblock.  If that truly was your intent in unblocking and was something I was supposedly agreeing to, you needed to be clear about that.  -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">WV ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓  04:57, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't need to make it clear. When you're blocked for a particular kind of misbehavior and after the block expires or, as in this case you were unblocked because of your statements that you would behave, you repeat the misbehavior, that's grounds for a block and for a longer block at that. If you want me to believe that you edited the article by accident even though you've edited the article recently, fine, I believe you. So, again. Revert your changes. But now based on what you've said, either go through your watchlist and remove any articles from it that were created or edited by Kbabej, or if that's too difficult, then every time you edit an article, look at the history of the article before doing so. That's all there is to it. No more accidents.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:04, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I consider the list of descendents and spouses of descendents to be a BLP violation, namely, an attempt to shame people based on the misdeeds of an ancestor. But I do not want to jump into the midst of an active dispute. Please do the right thing, Bbb23. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328   Let's discuss it  05:09, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Forgive me,, I don't know what you're referring to.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:13, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Please consider removing this passage from Jakob Denzinger for BLP reasons: "Denzinger had a son while living in the United States, by the name of Thomas A. "Tom" Denzinger. Thomas is married to Patricia "Pat" Bernat, and together they have children Karen Denzinger Schneider, who is married to Tod Schneider, and Paul Denzinger, who is married to Ashley.[3][5] Patricia Bernat Denzinger is the daughter of Stanley J. Bernat and Irene V. Ball.[11] Thomas is a partner at Denzinger Investments, located in Akron.[12]" That's what I mean. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328   Let's discuss it  05:21, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I removed this material myself. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  21:48, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Although I wasn't sure what you were referring to, I would have suggested you do it yourself. You don't need me to remove a BLP violation. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 23:41, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Very true, but I was initially reluctant to jump into the midst of an active dispute between other editors. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  05:15, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

2017 Islamic Solidarity Games
Hello. Please restore this article: 2017 Islamic Solidarity Games. An agreement on holding the 4th Islamic Solidarity Games in Azerbaijan has today been signed. Best regards, --►<font face="Tahoma" color="red">Cekli <font face="Tahoma" color="red">829  17:17, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not how that's relevant to an article deleted per WP:CSD, but if you like, I'm willing to WP:USERFY it for you. Normally, I then recommend that the author submit the article through WP:AFC, but given the fact that you're an experienced editor, that's up to you.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:15, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

your edit warring close
Hello BBB.

I think your close doesn't make much sense and is slightly unintentionally hurtful. I did not call schrocat any names in any of this edit warring discussion. I tried to exercise great restraint, actually, and I just feel like maybe in the future when you close similar discussions you could be a little more careful or considerate or something. I also don't think it makes much sense to close it because you agree with the underlying decision that was edit warred about. Isn't that not supposed to matter?

I have thought about this and think that maybe a block is the wrong move after all, insofar as maybe it would be perceived as punitive not preventative, so I don't fault your underlying decision. But I would ask that you give more thought to your closes in the future. <font color="DarkGreen">AgnosticAphid  talk 01:06, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * What I want to know is are there religious aphids? Sorry you were offended.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:47, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Question
How is this possible? I was always under the impression that only administrators should place block notices on editors' talk pages. Not trying to stir up dust, seeing this just really surprised me. Perhaps I've been under the wrong impression all this time? -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">WV ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓ 03:55, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It's unorthodox. Perhaps User:EoRdE6 just wanted the editor to know about unblock procedures. But my guess is that User:Panewithholder won't be around long enough to need the advice. The thread at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents gives a hint about the situation. EdJohnston (talk) 04:21, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yep you're correct, I think everyone should at least be informed of the correct unblock procedures, mainly to prevent accidental socking, even though it does appear that user has quit... Glad to see WV is keeping an eye on me... EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 05:25, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I think Ed's comment that your posting a block notice was "unorthodox" is too kind. As an administrator, I would not even do so after another administrator blocked an editor. The correct thing to do would be to go to Nakon and remind him that his block comment didn't inform the user of his appeal rights. Another option, although not as good, would have been to simply add something like, "Please read WP:GAB for your appeal rights." The fact that this particular user is WP:NOTHERE doesn't alter my opinion.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:38, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I also noticed that EoRdE6 was editing an WP:RFA. The edits might have fixed an inappropriate filing but it's not a part of the project that a six month old account should be editing in, IMO. There are plenty of admins who keep an eye on RfAs and can handle any misfilings that happen. Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 17:10, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I sorry I fixed somthing -_-. I'm not bothered what part of the Wiki it is, if there is something wrong I do my best to fix it. In this case, I saw the user at The Teahouse giving out rather unhelpful answers. Heading to his talk page to ask him to instead work elsewhere and come back when experienced I noticed a topic about an RfA. Knowing the user couldn't even answers Teahouse questions correctly, I headed over to it Oppose at which point I saw a very messed up RfA. So I looked up the instructions and got it fixed. Following a bit of WP:IAR, I can't really see anything wrong with what I did, but I'm always open to constructive criticism. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 19:14, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Tonight is your turn to be watched

EoRdE6, I had the watchee day shift! ;)    WordSeventeen (talk) 06:32, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

or any other admin, since you don't like me fixing messy pointless RfA's, here is another pointless one I stumbled upon. Since you don't want me fixing it, have fun EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 03:57, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Liz is not an admin. Fixing it wasn't the right way to go. I deleted it.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:37, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Whoops misinterpreted what she was. Thanks anyway! EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 13:55, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

What is needed to show credibility?
Hi,

My article (Jeremy G. Woods) was just deleted, and I was wondering what I need to show credibility on the article so another article doesn't get deleted. I have looked at the pages associated with the reasons it was deleted and cannot find things I should have included in the article to make it "credible." Would this have been helpful? I didn't think about linking this to the article: https://twitter.com/CanadianBible/lists/public-figures/members Grandroux (talk) 05:40, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I think you're focused on the wrong word ("credible"). An article must "indicate the importance or sigificance" of the subject to justify its existence in an encyclopedia. Your article did not.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:43, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Question about a user
Hello, Bbb23! I have a question about a possible sock of. User:Kilebogart45 has recently been created (within the last day or so) and they edit the same things as 55 did. The username is pretty evident itself. I was updating PhilKnight about the socks because I have most of the pages they keep trying to edit on my watchlist but he quit after a while because there were so many and Materialscientist blocked the most recent sock of 55. If you could look into this, that'd be great. <font color="00B4AC" face="Papyrus">Corky  | <font color="00B4AC" face="Papyrus">Chat?  21:37, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:59, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Comment
Very nice image on your user page, I like it. BMK (talk) 01:20, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * And we're going back to that part of the world in just a few weeks. Yay!--Bbb23 (talk) 04:43, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Enjoy! BMK (talk) 22:13, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

It's messy...
...because there are about a half a dozen socks. I'm not going to spend much more time on it though.- MrX 00:13, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll try to step in to sort them out, but jeez, you're right. Origamiteⓣⓒ 00:33, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Any help is appreciated. It looks like Bbb23 is swinging the mop as well.- MrX 00:42, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I just blocked another sock for ducking, not sure if Bbb23 wants to run CU on them as well. § FreeRangeFrog croak 02:24, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Nah, I've done enough work for the night. Suspected works for me.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:35, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking care of the socks.- MrX 11:49, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Muktar allebbey
Hi Bbb23. It appears that Muktar allebbey has created another sock account. Please see here where the Hadraa account links to an email that he indicates was addressed to him. The coding in the email lists "muktar allebbey" as the receiver, and also includes his email address. Best regards, Middayexpress (talk) 20:12, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Not to be difficult, but why me? I've never been involved with this particular master before to my knowledge. The best thing to do, even if it's obvious, would be to reopen the SPI, unless you think there's some urgency based on disruption. If so, tell me and I'll take a look.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:21, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * No particular reason. I already contacted two other admins, one of whom is familiar with the situation. However, they seem to be away at the moment. The editor is annoying more than anything; I'll let you know if the disruption gets out of hand. Best, Middayexpress (talk) 20:27, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you
For this ; I missed it. Too much real life drama, so I'm escaping into Wiki drama for a few minutes at a time...it's 99. Hope you're well. 32.216.147.44 (talk) 20:51, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, I'll be, a delightful voice from the past. I'm hanging in there. Some days are better than others. How about you and the missus?--Bbb23 (talk) 21:09, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You're too kind. We are fine--it's the other generations that bring dubious excitement into our lives. I am enjoying my work a great deal; I hope you are, too. Cheers! 32.216.147.44 (talk) 21:25, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

IP block
Re your block of 76.24.16.127: This IP indicated here that he is User:Dan Murphy editing from home. See also. Does this need to be dealt with through SPI? Coretheapple (talk) 14:48, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

This too actually. By the way, is "focus on the edits, not the editor" a policy or is it rumor? Coretheapple (talk) 14:53, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You people blocked my ip address? Too funny. You're enabling this "Coretheapple" person to edit with a malicious agenda towards one of your article subjects. In Wikipedia culture, it's against the rules to point this out apparently.Dan Murphy (talk) 14:57, 10 April 2015 (UTC)


 * The above account also removed an NPOV tag on MyWikiBiz before the underlying neutrality issues were resolved. I'm not going to edit war with this editor, who is on the warpath and trying to bait me.. Coretheapple (talk) 15:23, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University
Hi Bbb23, I have drafted a change to the expansion section of the article here. McGeddon had made some comments about it on the talk page but didn't want the change inserted based on his approval/agreement alone. I was hoping you would give an opinion about it on the talk page - in my view it isn't controversial, however because McGeddon reverted it, by definition it becomes controversial. There isn't much interest in the article so it's hard to find editors who can contribute to a consensus. McGeddon feels I have some level of COI and so reverts any changes I make if there isn't agreement of others. I have painted myself into a corner by not participating much in Wikipedia beyond this one article, so no real point disagreeing with McG. I would be grateful if you could give a quick opinion. Cheers Danh108 (talk) 19:36, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Frankly, I'd rather let you, McGeddon, and any other editors work out the content issues. Although I have intervened in the article when edits were obviously inappropriate, I don't feel qualified to opine on the subject matter. I also don't really have the time. Sorry.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:52, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Join us
WP:ARS

You would be a very welcome addition. Twolegalsystems (talk) 12:23, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

I believe my Article was notable enough this time
Hello. I believe my Article was notable enough this time however it is deleted without giving me any satisfactory explanation. The procedure i have followed: Make draft, join chat and spend 1 whole day to edit and compose excellent article based on suggestion and edits by experts at the chat, submit draft, draft accepted, draft reviewed and edited by WikiProject_Video_games editor and completely published. Then i ask chat again about isn’t this too much edit? then primefac opens speedy delete then it is deleted without giving me any explanation in matter of minutes. If you check the issue i appreciate ty very much : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MonsterMMORPG. And there were not any discussion it was deleted immediately. One more notice: I checked same genre games articles and majority of them have way more less authority references and even some have 0 references. Thank you very much for your help. OnlineGamesExpert (talk) 12:38, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

ip address vandalising talk page
197.250.52.95 (talk)

This ip address vandalized my talk page by saying that my article was rejected even if it is not rejected.

Can you block the ip address? Supdiop (talk) 08:27, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I noticed that edit. It's rather odd that the IP should leave you such a message. There was no link to the page that was supposedly declined and obviously the IP was not the reviewer. However, I'm not going to block an IP based on that one edit, even assuming it was disruptive. If it happens again, let me know.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:17, 11 April 2015 (UTC)


 * ok, I will let you know if it happens again. Thank you.
 * Supdiop (talk) 16:04, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

A-7 & films
Hi. Sorry about that. Obviously, I didn't know that. I'm trying to help out in the backlog of RPP, is there another tag I should be using? If not, is there a different process if an article does not seem to meet the notability requirements (I notice there is one for music). Thanks for your patience. Onel5969 (talk) 23:03, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * No, you'd have to use a different deletion process (prod and/or AfD).--Bbb23 (talk) 23:06, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Per Siljubergsåsen
You were correct there; I must have been goingtoo fast.  DGG ( talk ) 00:11, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Whenever you tag something, I always think twice if I want to decline it as you are very astute in your tagging. I know what it's like to go too fast.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:42, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of Ervin Malicdem
Hello! Despite the contribution of the subject on Typhoon Haiyan, mapping advocacy, wireless internet mesh, using sources from newspaper (Manila Times) and UNOCHA-owned site (philippines.humanitarianresponse.info) and its relation to various existing pages including Typhoon Haiyan, Humanitarian Response to Typhoon Haiyan, Mount Marami, Mount Pico de Loro, and Mounts Palay-Palay Mataas na Gulod Protected landscape, it has still been speedy deleted. I believe all of those does not meet speedy deletion criteria on A7 nor G11 thus must be brought back. Thanks! Philippine Adventurer (talk) 23:19, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I didn't delete it per A7 but per G11.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:21, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Nor G11 as it was not selling or promoting something. Another purpose of creating wiki article is to connect to Ervin Malicdem and other articles mentioned. Philippine Adventurer (talk) 23:24, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It doesn't have to sell or promote anything in particular, although here it essentially promoted the subject. It was the language you used in writing the article. If you like, I can WP:USERFY it for you so you can work on it and tone down the promotional rhetoric. You can also then submit it to WP:AFC to get others' editors views on the article before moving it to main space.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:38, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Please Userfy it then, Bbb23 and point out to me the things that make it promotional rhetoric in your criteria. As I believe it was in an NPOV manner without exceeding the realms of BLP. Thanks. Philippine Adventurer (talk) 05:25, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

MonsterMike
submitted new evidence to the SPI case and a fresh round of Monstermike socks were blocked. It appears the sock network is from the PR firm Qorvis. This certainly puts my failed SPI attempt in a new light. The socks he was dealing with were blocked, but mine haven't been yet and I'm still dealing with it since January now. Can we re-open? CorporateM (Talk) 04:49, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * What "new evidence"? KazakhBT posted evidence in September 2013 and hasn't even edited since then (why on earth are you pinging him?). KazakhBT's evidence existed when you reopened the SPI. I have no idea what you're talking about, sorry.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:56, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Ooooh my bad. For some reason I saw his string on top of mine and thought it was added. He started the discussion by saying "I'd hate to beat a dead horse" and I thought he was referring to my post. I didn't look at the timestamps. Sorry for the confusion! Someone must have just consolidated the SPI cases. CorporateM (Talk) 05:33, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Bbb23. Sorry to keep pestering you. It seems very likely that at least Pauloperry and Intchar* are socks or meats. Both are SPAs or virtually SPAs. Both push for the same stuff; removing any reference to cost-cutting and out-sourcing and pushing for consumerization/commoditization of IT using only press articles where he is quoted. They tend to back each other and use similar promotional language like "strategic importance" and "leader in three different industries". They both have this very even tone that usually comes from an experienced editor, though their contribution history shows no such experience. I think I could put together a compelling SPI just on those two, without Monster. CorporateM (Talk) 18:56, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators noticeboard
As per your say at this page I respect your view. Also, if you can comment on Talk:List_of_Indian_Premier_League_records_and_statistics page it would be more helpful in solving it. Whatever you say I'm ready to accept it and help the section if needed.--Vin09 (talk) 06:40, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Odd talk page spamming
As I'm sure you noticed, you received a message from about an invitation. Well this is actually the latest in his long line of odd talk page spamming, alongside a few other users. -

- I'm pretty positive that Peas and Read are socks of each other, or closely related in some way, review their contributions to see what I mean. Dfrr has been spamming WikiLove to random users, and one in particular, he solicited WikiLove for Trimethylxanthine on other users talk pages, and filled their talk page with it. I wasn't sure what to do about it so I thought I would mention it to you and see if you had any good ideas. Thanks! EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 18:50, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * And oddly, they are all posting on ' talk page. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 19:02, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * For whatever reason, I received a notification saying I was mentioned in this edit, even though it appears I wasn't. That's a bit confusing to me. Peas and Read are quite obvious sock puppets of each other. However, if anything, Dfrr appears to be a friend or a meatpuppet. The typing styles and interests are quite different. I think we have a couple of kids just having fun spreading wikilove and the seeing the reactions, positive or negative, it generates. It seems like an innocuous game that I, to be honest, find absolutely hilarious. --DawnDusk (talk) 20:30, 12 April 2015 (UTC)


 * , thanks for bringing this to my attention. You do get around., your suspicions are astute but although there's nothing wrong with your being entertained by this behavior, I think it would be more prudent not to encourage it. In addition to the Talk page spamming, there were isolated instances of run-of-the-mill vandalism and more obvious trolling to actual articles. One submitted an article to WP:AFC that was absurd and yet took the time of a reviewer to actually look at it and decline it. Anyway, the only blocking I've done is Peas345 and Read456.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:36, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I'll keep an eye on Dfrr just in case. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 00:39, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I respect your judgement about P345 and R456, and I agree their Wikilove use was excessive. However, I'd like to check in about it. I was pretty sure they were a young (they never told), enthusiatic newbie who needed guidance, not blocking, and I don't know what "obvious trolling" you're referencing—I saw honest mistakes and good-faith contribs sometimes worth keeping. Could you explain what went on here, and why it wasn't appropriate to start by raising the level of my WP:NOTSOCIAL warning ? Thanks. FourViolas (talk) 05:40, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * If I'm not mistaken, they were blocked for sockpuppetry not the WikiLove usage. But I'll let Bbb elaborate more in the morning. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 05:45, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I saw that, but it's not clear to me and almost certainly won't be to peas/read how their sockpuppetry fits WP:ILLEGIT. I had strong suspicions but left them aside to encourage TWA training, because I didn't think anyone would punish them for creating two accounts to say, "You're great!" "Thanks, you too!" (see DawnDusk's take above.) Why not use something like ? FourViolas (talk) 06:48, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

New proposal
pls see Administrators' noticeboard -- Moxy (talk) 16:13, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Userbox
Because of your comment at Vanjagenije's talk and your extensive block log, you are now the second recipient of the soon-to-be-coveted User accidentally blocked userbox. Congratulations :-) Feel free to remove if you don't want it.  Nyttend (talk) 17:00, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh man § FreeRangeFrog  croak 18:34, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I humbly accept the award. I want to thank my parents, my siblings, and my close friends, all of whom supported me in my goal of being accidentally blocked. But most of all I want to thank, without whom none of this would have been possible.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:22, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Hey!! Goes away, sulking. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 22:41, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Awww, do you want one too? You can add it yourself or, if you prefer, I can accidentally add it for you.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:43, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

5 Seconds of Summer (album)
There's uncited genres in infobox that does not contains any article text. I think bot admin would revert that we're an IP. 115.164.62.62 (talk) 05:38, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of Matt Bradley (musician)
I resent the fact you went about deleting an article I started about a notorious vocalist of the progressive rock scene just because you do not know him. The article was a stub and I am collecting details about Matt in order to expand the article. Matt was a vocalist in the progressive rock scene, having participate in projects such as Explorers Club and Dalli's Dillemma. Next time, a message would be nice. --Pinnecco (talk) 08:05, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Mattscards
Get in hole. Dig deeper. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 15:30, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello, I am looking and it seems all my history and "talk" with the users Mandruss, NeilN and others have all been deleted about the Shooting of Walter Scott. Can you restore this to previous status? Thanks Mattscards (talk) 16:39, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Nothing has been deleted. You can see all your history here. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 16:54, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * If you're talking about the discussion, the archive bot moved it to Talk:Shooting_of_Walter_Scott/Archive_1. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 16:57, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Assistance
I'm trying to get an administrator to asses consensus and close this AN/I thread, but no one seems to be taking. I put up an AN/RFC request a few days ago. If you care to, would you please close it? I don't want it to get archived. RGloucester — ☎ 03:25, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your assistance in this matter. Unfortunately, it seems that the above will not be enough. I understand that you are a frequent SPI participant. You may want to have a look at this new SPI. RGloucester  — ☎ 17:45, 16 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Unacceptable to close the request. If you want more evidence, I can provide it. This should be an open and shut case, as it is so obvious as to be idiotic. Please reopen the request. If you want more evidence, tell me what you want. RGloucester  — ☎ 01:02, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I've added more evidence. At the very least, I want another opinion from a different person. However, I don't see how you can't see this. It is all to obvious. It has never been more obvious, in all the times I've dealt with socks. RGloucester  — ☎ 01:17, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I've reverted your change of the case status. If you do that again, I'll block you for disruption. I'll take a look at the additional evidence.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:21, 17 April 2015 (UTC)


 * It isn't CLOSED.  RGloucester  — ☎ 01:22, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Sock again
Check Jimbo's talkpage. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:48, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Lois de Menil
Hi, I'm wondering if you could please take a look at this discussion, specifically because it's been hijacked by a bunch of dubious accounts who have now taken to lecturing me on why it's irrelevant that they're probably sockpuppets and questioning my motivation in nominating this article for deletion. Many thanks. - Biruitorul Talk 17:55, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Can you rephrase this bit?
Hey, Bbb23, I was looking over Sockpuppet investigations/Dicklyon/Archive and I found your final summary statement a bit confusing: I'm not saying that the IP is not Dicklyon, only that I don't think it's more likely than not. Now that looks like a triple or quadruple negative and even though I believe I understand what you mean (that you can't be sure that Dicklyon is or isn't the IP editor), I have a gut feeling that in the future, this SPI will be revisited. If you could just be more affirmative in what you're stating, I think it will help avoid having the involved editors challenging your decision. Well, it might lessen the chance that it will be challenged! Liz <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 20:08, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Should I add some more negatives to make it clearer? I'm going to leave it alone, not because (here I go again) I necessarily disagree with you, but (a) I don't like altering archives even though given my role I could do so here and (b) in the overall context I think it's clear enough what I found. Regards.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:17, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I understand. I don't think that it's not your call. I think. Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 20:23, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Axxion
Hi, you recently blocked User:Axxxion for edit and move warring on Zaporozhian Sich for 48 hours. *Immediately* after their block expired they resumed their move war:. They have not deigned to join the talk page discussion either. I don't want to revert them again but how do you deal with a user who only edit wars but doesn't discuss? Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:09, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I just took a look at their edit history and apparently they're also move-warring with editor User:Ezhiki (an admin) over on .Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:20, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't call my case edit-warring just yet. I did expect the editor to submit an RM after my previous revert if he disagreed with the provided reasoning, but I see I did not include that suggestion in my edit summary. If his next move is another revert instead of filing an RM, then I agree the two of us also have a problem. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); April 17, 2015 ; 13:28 (UTC)
 * I'll take my cues on this from . If they want to report a problem to me, I'll look at it. Obviously,, if you think it's justified, you can always go back to AN3. One thing I'm puzzled about are these edits to Axxxion's Talk page by an IP purporting to be Axxxion while Axxxion was blocked. I found the comments very odd. Normally, I'd revert comments like that, insisting that the user log in and make the comments, but I let it go this time.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:51, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I think that someone who makes such comments (edit summary) to a women participant of the project simply does not belong here. My very best wishes (talk) 17:43, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Absolutely unacceptable, as is the continued move warring. I've blocked them for a week, which is probably not long enough.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:37, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Concerning Canvassing Editor OnlineGamesExpert
Hi, I'd like to call to your attention that, whom you blocked on the 11th, has been trying to evade his block again using , where he spammed around twenty or so users' pages with the exact same spammy canvassing message on April 15th. Thank you for your time.--Mr Fink (talk) 21:42, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree that it's block evasion but they seem to have stopped, so I see little value in blocking them. If they or another account engages in similar behavior, please let me know. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:11, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Understood and will do.--Mr Fink (talk) 22:14, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Mexicans of European Descent Issue
I reverted the page back to before Aergas attempted to re-ignite the edit war with his April 13 edits. If you look at the talk page, he ignored the findings regarding genetics, which was event sent to another board regarding primary sources, and the conclusion of that board was to keep the genetics material from the pre-April 13 edits, this was established back in February.

Alon12 (talk) 01:10, 18 April 2015 (UTC)


 * You see Bbb23, this is a good example of how Alon12 has behaved through the whole issue regarding the article of Mexicans of European descent: Once he doesn't get it his way with his arguments and with the cases he opens on several noticeboards (he have opened more than 10) he resumes to reverting and edit warring, giving false justifications and arguments. Just to give you a recent example I'll mention the case he opened few days ago in the edit warring noticeboard, there, among many false accusations he claims that "The conclusion of the community a few months back after the original dispute was to maintain the article in the state before he (me) decided to unilaterally make such edits once again" however, when you check the block history of Alon12 and the edit history of the article in question  you find that the version that the community accepted as the "default version" was my version (and it's obvious, because that's how the article looked before Alon12 appeared and started the edit war, and I've been investing time on that article for nearly a year now), what Alon12 did when opening the report in the edit warring noticeboard was to blatantly lie to try to gain turn uninvolved editors against me.


 * Another example of Alon12 lying can be found here in your talk page, here he claims that "he (me) ignored the findings regarding genetics, which was event sent to another board regarding primary sources" when that's exactly what we are discussing right now in the newest section of the talk page (to be exact, the source was sent to the reliable sources' noticeboard, but what is on discussion is not wheter the source is reliable or not, but wheter if it is appropiate for the article or not). Currently in said talk page I keep asking him why in that particular article (Mexicans of European descent) he seems obsessed with using only secondary sources (and also rejecting all primary sources included in the article, because apparently Alon12 thinks that there is no room for both) while at the same time with no problem he added a primary source on another article related to genetics, this is a clear double standard from his part. And on top of all right now he is even rejecting all the secondary sources that I've brought for the article, he literally only wants his sources to be included, so in reality is not even a question of wheter to favor primary sources or not, he wants his sources only and nothing else. So there you have it Bbb23, right now Alon12 is lying to your face and in your own talk page.


 * To all these actions (blatantly lying to everybody, showing clear double standards, rejecting secondary sources because they weren't brought by him, wanting to remove all sources that aren't his), now add that two months ago in the talk page for the article on discord, Alon12 suddenly stopped replying, and I waited during these two months for his answer, which never came, so I got tired and decided to edit the article, and was until then that he appeared to revert it, and still refuses to address my questions in the talk page. All this suggests me that Alon12 has no disposition to discuss and acts on bad blood, I think the reason for which he acts like this is because he is a single purpose account (he fits all the criterias: 98% of his edits have been to the article of Mexicans of European descent or discussions in noticeboards related to it, and shows too much skill for an account that has performed around 20 article edits only) so he has nothing to lose acting this way. It's frustarating because he have dragged me to endless noticeboards and opened countless cases which once don't go the way he wants he forgets about them and just open up new cases, sometimes in the same day and looks like he only wants to end with the patience of everybody involved, anything is a gain for him, with this behavoir and mindset he already got himself and me blocked, even though the only thing I'm doing is defending the article of his one-sided disruptive edits. Aergas (talk) 04:31, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You really have to learn to be more concise. I'm not going to research the content dispute, but I do see some of what you're saying (single focus on the one article and targeting you). I suggest you take this to WP:ANI, but make sure you present evidence (diffs for each allegation) and do so in a clear, organized way without walls of text. Otherwise, no one will read it.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:43, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I tried to be the most concise I could but this has just become too big and I think that mentioning all these things is important, in short the guy makes one report behind eachother and on them says blatant lies to turn other editors against me, removes all the content I add regardless even if it meets the criterias he himself have put (as if he owned the article), has clear double standards, and refuses to discuss and only appears when I edit the article to revert, his disruptive intentions have become too clear at this point and given how long this has been going I don't think he will stop by himself. maybe if you could warn him or something to avoid opening yet another case. Aergas (talk) 04:54, 18 April 2015 (UTC)


 * This new issue really has nothing to do with me and the past disputes I may have had with Aergas. This was a consensus developed regarding the genetics section on the talk page, that aergas ignored, that actually involved other users, and in addition, this was specifically sent to another board for dispute resolution regarding primary sources and the board there specifically stated that the genetics content to be recommended for the page was the version that was originally presented in the page prior to Aergas' edit warring he re-started on April 13. The last section of the talk page was specifically created to warn against Aergas making mass-edits to the page, just as he did on April 13, when he initially attempted to do so, his edits were reversed by other users and he was warned not to do it again. Regardless, you will find discussions involving Aergas to descend into giant walls of text filled with emotional invective rather than a balanced rational discussion. This is a pattern found across all the discussions he has been involved in. His ambition reflects more of an attempt to 'get the last word in', rather than to partake in civil constructive dialogue. The page I corrected to, was actually edited by other users, not myself, So, it's not edit warring on my part, rather it's Aergas' one-sided war on this wiki page, for something he was warned not to do previously. Speaking of his credibility, the user Robert McClenon who previously mediated a dispute resolution between Aergas and I, even suggested that Aergas lacked WP:CIR. Now that I say this, watch as he most likely replies with another giant block of text filled with more emotional invective. For all his attacks of me being a 'single purpose account', it's funny how the overwhelming majority of edits aergas has posted on his been an attempt to prove the purported 'europeanness' of mexicans and his obsession with this issue. Alon12 (talk) 05:00, 18 April 2015 (UTC)


 * If you want the T.L.D.R version, basically these edits prior to April 13, were not made by me, they were made by the community in a consensus developed in January-February. During that time, Aergas was welcomed to discuss this issue regarding genetics on the talk page as well as the primary sources board, on the latter there was a unanimous verdict that the genetics content to be placed in the article would be the pre-April 13 version. Aergas has simply ignored this effort, even after being warned previously not to revert it by other users. Alon12 (talk) 05:00, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

please block this ip
Hi, User talk:113.197.9.242 has crossed limits. It is vandalizing articles without stopping. Its talk page has many vandalism warnings. Please teach it a good lesson. Supdiop (talk) 03:36, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Blocked for two weeks. Next time you can take a user like that to WP:AIV. It's the appropriate forum and it's quicker.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:33, 18 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Ok, sorry I can't think of anywhere else to complain, so I complained to you. You are the only administrator I know of. Thank you Supdiop (talk) 05:01, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Heh, there are a bunch of us out there just waiting to pounce. --Bbb23 (talk) 05:07, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Unhelpful warnings
While it may have been well intentioned by you to issue edit war warnings to both myself and User:Mabelina you are obviously unaware of the fact that Mabelina has already been told by an administrator to stop adding links to Burke's Peerage homepage in articles and that he would consider any further doing so by her as vandalism and a cause for blocking (which he did in fact do if you go through her recent talk page history). I also consider her constant repetition of this problem to not only be disruptive and unconstructive but also a form of vandalism. Discussion simply does not work with Mabelina. Try it yourself and see how far you get. It will be nowhere at all as it does not matter in the slightest to her how many editors object to her editing or direct her to policies etc which clearly state why her editing is out of order. What we are dealing with here are longstanding and entrenched WP:CIR problems. Repeated violations of clear MOS policies are not simply "content disputes". So if if you really want to help with things then there are far more useful ways to do so than issuing edit war warnings. Anglicanus (talk) 13:32, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I guess I'm somewhat familiar with the issues surrounding Mabelina. She is obviously a problematic editor, but I'm unaware of any justification for you to continue reverting her because you think that such repeated conduct rises to the level of vandalism. If you want something more done, you'll have to take the issue or issues to the appropriate noticeboard. Finally, as far as I know, there is no such thing as an MOS "policy". By its very nature, all the MOS-related rules are guidelines. Please enlighten me if I'm wrong on that score. And even if there were such a policy, it's not included in the exemptions to edit-warring. My warning to you stands.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:10, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * And my advice to you also stands. Whether they are MOS "policies" or "guidelines" is not the real issue here. So please deal with the actual problem instead of only adding to it by issuing "warnings" to someone who actually is trying to do something about it. Anglicanus (talk) 14:22, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * My suggestion that you try discussing things with Mabelina also still stands. You should then start properly appreciating just what other editors have been dealing with over and over and over again ad infinitum. Anglicanus (talk) 14:29, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

California Dreams ongoing Edit War/vandalism
An IP User Special:Contributions/68.108.39.12 continues to revert edits to the California Dreams page. They use citations to unreliable sources (Tv.com, IMDB) to support their continued reverts. Since many sites (TVRage, TV.com, etc etc) use IMDB information to populate their databases, correcting user content at IMDB will be insufficient, as there is an endless supply of sites with regurgitated data to use for citations.

You have previously warned this user over this very behavior, User_talk:68.108.39.12

At this point, I think it goes beyond edit warring as I believe this user is actually engaged in vandalism, as I find it difficult to believe that these are good faith edits.

Would it be possible to block this user and semi-protect this article again? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hanzov69 (talk • contribs) 23:17, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The warning I left for the IP was back in November of 2014. I can't enforce a warning months later. There haven't been enough edits by the IP to justify a block or enough disruptive editing to justify semi-protection. Sorry.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:27, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, thanks. Hanzo (talk) 23:37, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Christelyn Karazin
Why did you delete this page with no discussion, claiming it was 'advertising' ? The subject is a published and widely read author :- http://www.amazon.com/Swirling-Relate-Mixing-Culture-Creed/dp/1451625855/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1429449967&sr=8-1&keywords=Christelyn and I have no relation to her. She is American and I am British. I am planning to re-create the page and hope you have no objections as she is clearly notable. <span style="font-family:Arial,serif;border:1px solid Black;"> Smokey TheCat  13:57, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Your earler version of the article, which I deleted, was dreadful. The current version, which has already been tagged by another user, is marginally better. You don't have to have an affiliation with the subject for a G11 to apply. The article is written like a personal essay adopting and promoting the apparent positions of the subject.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:26, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

IP blocked
Bbb23, it was brought to my attention about who was undergoing nationalistic vandalism - of whom you later blocked today. It would see that a similar address has also undergone the same kind of edits across the same genre of articles. Not sure if they are the same person using a dynamic address; but thought it only fair to raise this to your attention.  Wes Mouse &#124; T@lk  17:16, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Same person, same disruptive edits, block evasion. I've blocked the new IP for one week. Thanks very much for the heads up as I don't watchlist the pages edited by this person.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:57, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You're very welcome. It does get me wondering what must go through some people's minds to want to be so disruptive, when they are not gaining anything from it, apart from giving their warped egos a bit of a boost.  Wes Mouse &#124; T@lk  18:21, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Need a favor
I noticed this edit, which appears to have been made in retaliation to this statement, "American commanding officer Paul Freeman said that the Turks had a "look at the situation," "and they had no stomach for it, and they were running in all directions."

Does, this source support the statement, "American commanding officer Paul Freeman, who was later accused of fleeing from Kunu-ri with his US 23rd Infantry Regiment and exposed the rear of US 2nd Infantry Division to Chinese attacks.. "? Using both pages 271 & 438?

Your assessment of this would be much appreciated. Thank you. --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:23, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Seriously, why am I in a better position to analyze the content than you are? In addition to the source (they look like partial pages to me), there is the entire context of the material surrounding that one statment you quoted, and I have no doubt you know more about that than I do - wouldn't be hard as I know squat.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:34, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I just wanted a 2nd opinion, since it appears to me that page 438 states Freeman was given permission to leave his position, compared to the word "fleeing" and the page being referenced is 271. Just a check on my objectivity, I guess. Sorry to have bothered you. --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:41, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * No bother. You might have been lucky and found me less grumpy; I practice being accommodating occasionally to throw people off balance.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:49, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Bradley sock
Can you either block whatever IP range this person is using or semi-protect the talk page? I asked at WP:RFPP a while ago but there's a queue. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 23:56, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 01:04, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

IP User
Just wanted to let you know that that IP user who you blocked and then had to block again under a different IP address is at it again. The IP is User:123.140.222.69. Thank you for blocking them since I am a Baltic person (not Estonian but Latvian) and I find their edits especially offensive. <font color="#AB2B2B">{ [ ( jjj  <font color="#000000">1238 ) ] }  10:16, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

I believe the help of a checkuser is required
Hi again, I see that you are a checkuser so this might be of your interest, explaing it briefly, some months ago I opened a sockpuppet investigation for the users Alon12 and Jytdog, the reasons are that both users pursue exactly the same changes, sound the same when discussing, use reflists within talk pages, have the same writing style and are active at the same hours (a detailed explanation and diffs can be seen here ), I considered that enough evidence to conduct an investigation but apparently wasn't convincing enough back then.

Now, what happened today is that I was gathering diffs to open an ANI case regarding the behavoir of Alon12 as you suggested me, but I found something that rang a bell. Before the start of the edit war in late December, there was an IP that was pursuing exactly the same changes that Alon12 pursues, here are the IP's edits and Alon12's edits  for comparison. In fact, it was after the edits of said IP were reverted that the account Alon12 was created and given all the obvious similarities in these edits is a no brainer that the IP was Alon12 before creating his account (and he didn't even try to make it look otherwise). If we use a IP tracking website we find that the IP is located in a public library within New Jersey just some blocks away from New York City, why is this important? It's important because if we look for "Jytdog" in google there is a profile in the "Tripadvisor" website that states that Jytdog lives in New York City. So, not only Alon12 and Jytdog have the same editing style, the same discussing style, want the same changes, use reflists in talkpages and are active at the same hours, now we know that the two editors also live in the same zone. I believe all this justifies a checkuser investigation, and a geolocation using an IP tracing website might be necessary, to determine wheter both users are using the same IP, or if the suspect in question switches IPs when switching accounts. Thanks for your time. Aergas (talk) 23:33, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I have no comment on the quality of the evidence you've presented above, but if you think there's more evidence to justify reopening Sockpuppet investigations/Jytdog, then do so. I'm not going to analyze it here.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:24, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I believe the similarities are too clear to leave any room for doubt, but if you consider that a new investigation has to be opened or the old re-opened I guess I'll have to do it. Is there a particular procedure I have to follow to re-open it or I just write down the new evidence? Do I need the asistance of a clerk or an administrator? Or do you consider that is better if I open an all new investigation, but this time focused primarily in Alon12? Aergas (talk) 20:52, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * If you're still claiming that Jytdog is the master, you should reopen it. If you now think differently, then who is the master?--Bbb23 (talk) 21:28, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * By definition Jytdog would be the master, because it's the older account, the problem is that because he has more than 20,000 edits on his edit history he apparently made a reputation of his own around wikipedia, which led other editors to doubt my claims more than they would have if the accused account was a not so well stablished editor, although if you check the edits of Jytdog you find that much like Alon12, Jytdog is always engaged in conflicts with other editors either in talk pages or in noticeboards aswell as incurring in revert wars, with no mention of his writing style, which is very similar to Alon12's. Because all this I think that a case focused in Alon12 would run with better luck, because being honest, it's extremely obvious that he is a single purpose account (he have made less than 20 article edits, spread on only 3 articles, with only two edits not being done in the Mexicans of European descent article and around 100 edits on different talkpages and noticeboards) and a sockpuppet of a very experienced editor: How can it be possible that an account that was created in late December knew everything about Wikipedia and it's noticeboards from day 1? He was not even 5 edits in when he opened his first case on a noticeboard. Aergas (talk) 23:11, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You can't open an SPI without a master. You can't just "focus" on an editor unless there are reasons independent of socking to block the account. So, you either reopen the same SPI with Jytdog as the master, along with compelling new evidence connecting Alon12 to Jytdog, or you let it go. I'd go with the latter. BTW, it's not uncommon for a person to edit with an IP address and then create an account, and there's nothing inherently wrong with it, either. Indeed, some would say it's welcome.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:17, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I never suggested that to edit with an IP first an then create an account was a form of sockpuppetry, the IP is important because allows us to know the location of the editor, that added to the fact that on his tripadvisor profile Jytdog states to live in New York City reveals that both, Alon12 and Jytdog live in the same zone. Aergas (talk) 23:55, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Last time I checked, there were a fair number of people who live in New York. I'm done with this discussion. It strikes me that you're on a crusade here, which is never the way to persuade others of your point of view.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:26, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Neal King
sent you a response on "tertel" talk page - pls advise if it didn't reach you and I'm still figuring out how to navigate WIKI - thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tertel (talk • contribs) 18:44, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Bettifm
Hey.

I just happened to notice this user when I clicked on the special pages (I was just browsing) and I note the reason for the block seems to be based on removing an AFD notice, for a page that is universally agreed should never have been nominated for deletion. I think that this person probably didn't do it on purpose so I wonder if you could consider giving them another chance. Maybe give them a 1 week block instead. Mister Sneeze A Lot (talk) 05:28, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

I refer to this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/When_We_Go_To_War. I wonder if perhaps you jumped the gun on this one. Mister Sneeze A Lot (talk) 05:29, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Furthermore, the other user you banned "for being a sock puppet" had admitted to such on their own user page, which therefore makes it NOT a violation of WP:SOCK. See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Tamaora&oldid=655168116.

I wonder if you could perhaps revert the bans of both accounts. They had already admitted to being a "sister editor". Perhaps you can confirm whether that means that they use the same computer or IP network or are simply the same person. There doesn't seem to be anything abusive about it at all. Maybe you just jumped the gun a bit? Mister Sneeze A Lot (talk) 14:00, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * anyone else find it odd that this user started editing at 01:26, 20 April 2015 three minutes after Bettifm (01:23, 20 April 2015) was blocked? Just saying... (WP:SLEEPER?). EoRdE6 (Come Talk to Me!) 15:31, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The quacking is abundantly clear to me as well. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 17:09, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * For the sake of formality, Sockpuppet investigations/Bettifm. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 19:23, 20 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I explained why I looked at that. While I haven't contributed a lot, I do look a lot, and when I saw someone blocked while an AFD was in place, it reminded me of the situation relating to User:The Almightey Drill, which led to me being wikistalked and having to retire my old account.  Of course it was 3 minutes later, because the block logs showed his name there.  What?  Am I the only person that goes around looking at incorrect blocks that hurt Wikipedia?  I was just trying to help Wikipedia to make it a better place.  Anyway, you've confirmed what my old, retired, account is, and you should be able to see why I did this.  Now, if you please, I'd like you to consider my claims on merit.  Thank you. Mister Sneeze A Lot (talk) 00:33, 21 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I'd like you to undo your deletion of my question of User:Tamaora on the talk page. And I'd like you to honestly reconsider the merits of what you did.  There was no abuse of sock puppetry here. Mister Sneeze A Lot (talk) 14:24, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I will do neither. I will be blunt. Your understanding of sock puppetry policy and your understanding of the events that led to this block are seriously flawed, and I'm not going to spend my time explaining all that to you. Two administrators/checkusers have made independent determinations, and the matter is closed. As I said in my revert, it's time for you to drop this and move on to something else. Continued persistence may be perceived as disruptive and lead to sanctions.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:14, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

CU templates
Hiya,

A quick query. Should non-CU editors be placing CU templates on user's pages? That's exactly what's happened here and now I'm suspicious because they're not even an admin!--5 albert square (talk) 21:39, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * An easy question for a change. The answer is no. This isn't the only userpage that this particular editor has tagged. DoRD reverted one, and I've just reverted the one you highlighted. I indirectly know the editor from their aggressive comments and actions at SPI, although I haven't studied the relatively new account's contributions in detail. It's nice to hear from you. Regards.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:02, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd like to apologize for this, I've seen many non-admin/clerk people do it, so I though it wouldn't be any different if I did, but if they're in the wrong and I accidentally followed, I will no longer do it. Zeke Essiestudy (talk) 22:13, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Zeke, no worries but please do not add an admin or CheckUser template unless you are either an administrator or a CheckUser :)--5 albert square (talk) 22:16, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh and nice to speak to you too!  I've been busy at SPI today so I'll probably bump in to you over there.  I swear socks are like buses, you wait an age on one and then three come at once!--5 albert square (talk) 22:22, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Ashley Clark
Good day, I am trying to discover more detail on why you have deemed a wikipedia entry on Ashley Clark to be an "Article about a band, singer, musician, or musical ensemble, which does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject)." He has been a member of a number of other music groups and on a major television show, all of which have referenced connections to his name in wikipedia: - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Clark_Family_Experience - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sons_of_Sylvia - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Next_Great_American_Band - His band won the contest.

He is just now releasing new music under his own name and I wanted to provide new information about him and that music. I would greatly appreciate your insight here. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.167.15.254 (talk) 22:18, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't respond to these questions unless they're asked by the account that created the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:21, 21 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Hello I created the page and I am also trying to discover more detail on why you have deemed a wikipedia entry on Ashley Clark to be an "Article about a band, singer, musician, or musical ensemble, which does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject)." He has been a member of a number of other music groups and on a major television show, all of which have referenced connections to his name in wikipedia:

- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Clark_Family_Experience - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sons_of_Sylvia - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Next_Great_American_Band - His band won the contest.

He is just now releasing new music under his own name and I wanted to provide new information about him and that music. I would greatly appreciate your insight here. Thank you. Emiwee20 (talk) 15:06, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * If you wish, I can WP:USERFY the article. Then you can work on it and submit it to WP:AFC for review. Let me know.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:04, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * @bbb23 that would be much appreciated! Thank you! Emiwee20 (talk) 22:09, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * All done. The page is now at User:Emiwee20/Ashley Clark.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:16, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Bremner / Zahau - what blp
Hello. Can you please tell me why you just undid my last revert? I honestly see no BLP violations toward Bremner. As you have the article currently, it's a blp violation towards the Shacknai's who have been charged/convicted with nothing. Can you please take a look at the last version of mine that you reverted?

Can you please tell me what specific wording / parts are BLP so I can delete/ edit those?

"Zahau, 32, was discovered dead six hours after she retrieved a voice mail that said the condition of her boyfriend's 6-year-old son had suddenly worsened and that he was unlikely to survive, investigators said." http://old.seattletimes.com/text/2016096147.html

12.180.133.18 (talk) 04:58, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

re: Anne Bremner 12.180.133.18 (talk) 05:02, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

The way it's written now is slanted towards her clients. Not neutral. "In 2011, Bremner began working with the bereaved family of Rebecca Zahau after the San Diego County Sheriff's Department closed its investigation into Zahau's death based on a suicide finding.[14] The family strongly believed that Zahau had not committed suicide, and Bremner stated that it "doesn't pass the smell test" and that "This would be the first case in the history of the world that a woman killed herself like this ... It's ridiculous on the face of it.".[15] She appeared on television and gave media interviews relating to the case. Some of her statements were criticized by Zahau's boyfriend and Medicis Pharmaceutical CEO Jonah Shacknai, whose attorney said that Bremner had implied that Shacknai used his wealth and profile to improperly influence the police investigation.[16]" vs. '''my version: "In 2011, Bremner was hired by family of Rebecca Zahau Nalepa, a woman who committed suicide after being present during an incident where her boyfriend's young son died.[15] Bremner, representing Zahau's family, sued the deceased boy's parents, Jonah and Dina Shacknai, claiming that Zahau had actually been murdered, contrary to the conclusion of the police investigation which ruled Zahau's death a suicide with no foul play.[16] Bremner went on many television shows and made statements such as, "this doesn't pass the smell test" and claimed that "This would be the first case in the history of the world that a woman killed herself like this ... It's ridiculous on the face of it."[17] In response to Bremner's public statements, the parents of the deceased boy said they may sue Bremner for defamation.[18]"''' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.180.133.18 (talk) 05:03, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Also, you deleted the sourced Ann Rule and sourced Susan Powell's family as clients. How is that possibly defamation? I just wrote that she represented them and the outcomes of their cases (both prominent). 12.180.133.18 (talk) 05:05, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Another good source: "Woman killed herself after learning that boy would die" http://articles.latimes.com/2011/sep/03/local/la-me-coronado-death-20110903 12.180.133.18 (talk) 05:07, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you really think it's okay to add this: "Bremner appears on gossip television as a legal analyst, pontificating about prominent cases." At least you took out the word "outlandish", which was in one of your previous edits. If you want to restore your edit but change that one sentence to be neutral, that would at least remove the obvious, BLP-violating edit. I'm not sure I agree with the rest of what you added, but that's not the same as calling anything a BLP violation. I will not report you for edit-warring, but I can't promise that you won't be blocked anyway. If you want to be safe, I'd wait until you're well out of the 24-hour window before restoring.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:08, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

I honestly do think that "Bremner appears on gossip television as a legal analyst, pontificating about prominent cases" is a legit sentence but have no problem with that sentence instead saying "Bremner appears on television as a legal analyst, explaining prominent cases to the general public." (what your version says). She really does appear on gossip television, such as Nancy Grace (you can google nancy grace + anne bremner) and Dr. Phil. I don't know if you've seen her on TV but she made appearances to talk about Casey Anthony (whom she doesn't represent) which was a gossipy media frenzy. (P.S. I don't know if my genuine opinion posted on your talk page is a violation but you can delete it if it is)

If you think that that sentence ("gossip television") is the only BLP violation, I don't know why you wouldn't just change that one sentence instead of all of my edits.

I do see that "outrageous" is not neutral and I deleted it when I was reading the whole thing over again to see what you could be thinking is terrible.

Thank you for your response and advice. 12.180.133.18 (talk) 05:19, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Kingchamar
Sorry to bother you about this again but is there anything that can be done regarding ? I have just had to revert them again at the Chamar article. I've left a note on their talk page. - Sitush (talk) 19:14, 22 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you. - Sitush (talk) 15:52, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Well well
Well well, I think you owe me an apologize, no?

- LouisAragon (talk) 15:22, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * No.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:12, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

I suggested it because I thought you would perhaps acknowledge your failure as a moderator there by yourself as well. But yeah as we can see once again unfortunately not all humans have a sufficient amount of self-criticism. Maybe you'll develop it once however. It'll do even you a lot of good in life.

Cheers, all the best, and good luck. LouisAragon (talk) 21:35, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Have I Got Enough Evidence for CU?
Hey Bbb23,

Another query I'm afraid but this one not so simple as the last one :)

and I have been having some fun over the last few months with a couple of socks, User:Callumgrainger200 and User:Eastenderseditor2015, they have their individual SPI cases:

Callum

Eastenderseditor2015

We're now however wondering if this is one person behind all of this. They're making similar sorts of edits to soap opera articles such as:

Callum adding relatives to Mick Carter

Eastenderseditor2015 adding relatives to Mick Carter

Callum changing Maxine Minniver's name

Eastenderseditor2015 changing Maxine Minniver's name

One of Callum's socks was blocked in February and then 10 days later this Eastenderseditor account showed up. I blocked them for sockpuppetry and then yesterday User:CGrainger150 showed up quacking like someone handed the duck a megaphone! Is it worthwhile me taking this to SPI to see if the two are connected? The reason I ask is because CheckUser did check Eastenderseditor2015 and they haven't mentioned finding Callum's accounts. However, at that point Callum's first 4 socks were blocked and number 5 hadn't been created. Would CheckUser have shown up accounts already blocked?

Sorry it's so long!--5 albert square (talk) 22:05, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Your last question is easy. A CU will show blocked accounts. So, the remaining issue involves the 5th sock, CGrainger150, which was created on April 21 at 21:20, as well as the CU itself. posted her findings on April 21 at 23:05. However, she blocked the accounts much earlier, well before 21:20, so I think it's safe to assume she'd completed the CU before the account was created. Nonetheless, she apparently didn't find the earlier blocked accounts in her CU. Just because they didn't pop up, though, doesn't necessarily mean they're not related. The best person to ask about all this is Ponyo, which is why I pinged her. She can either comment here, or she can e-mail you privately. Your problem is not only do you like soap operas on TV but you apparently live one on Wikipedia, Desperate Soap Opera Socks. --Bbb23 (talk) 21:34, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Having taken a look at the CU data for the "Callumgrainger200" group, I'm confident that they are the same person as the "Eastenderseditor" sock group. The cases can be merged, however I've never merged a case before and wouldn't know where to start. If only there was a helpful ex-clerk about who could assist... -- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 21:52, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Another example of sexism on Wikipedia, two female administrators ordering around a defenseless male administrator. Merged. BTW,, I could always teach you how to merge cases.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:30, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Suuuuure. I'll check my schedule and get back to you.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 22:46, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah you posted that just as I raised this ! Callum's been at it again tonight, good grief!  I actually don't watch that many soaps, only EastEnders, but it would seem that is the soap for socks to target --5 albert square (talk) 21:49, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I just blocked and  as well. I'll poke around a bit more.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots  21:54, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you !--5 albert square (talk) 22:04, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * If you really wanted to thank me you'd convince ITV to shoo Tracy Barlow off the street permanently and bring back Danny Baldwin and Becky Granger (McDonald). But your written thank you is also appreciated.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 22:12, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

user Winkelvi is being disruptive again and stirring up drama
Hello Bbb23,

User Winkelvi has become disruptive again during the RFC here: I started the RFC in good faith because the user winkelvi and I had a content dispute over a passage from the article of Simon Collins.

I explained my reasoning on the subject article's talk page, but winkeli was reticent to comment on the content of the passage and then has continued to argue, cause drama, and drag an administrator Drmies in to look at the situation here:

Drmies asked winkelvi to present evidence that I had "followed him/her to certain articles. Winkelvi then listed a group of articles there, most of which where the "Kbabej" created articles that I have been continuing to work on editing, cleaning-up, and adding info to. Of course you had instruvted winkelvi that they were not to edit any article that kbabej had created or ever edited. It looks like the list is long, but it was not any kind of following but instead, after winkelvi was banned from working on the Kbabej articles I did continue to edit and work with the articles.

Winkelvi is trying to create a false impression by using the situation where he was blocked for working on kbabej articles, and I then have been working on the articles as me FOLLOWING him. Please assess this situation and take whatever actions that you may deem appropriate. Thank you for your time. Cheers! WordSeventeen (talk) 04:39, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It's too late for me to look at this tonight. is free, as always, to do whatever he wants and will no doubt back up any action he takes with colorfully incisive language.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:11, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Drmies hasn't had that much time to look at all of this yet, since he sacrificed Wikipedia for the Nightly Show and Inside Amy Schumer, which was great. I think Winkelvi's listing of the That Bass Tour AfD is irrelevant since WordSeventeen apparently has an interest in Meghan Trainor, but the only one I actually looked at, Walter O'Brien, was first edited by Winkelvi in November 2014, and first by WordSeventeen on 8 April 2015, right after a series by Winkelvi. I'm kind of reluctant to peruse the rest of the list since I really don't want to find evidence that Winkelvi is right, about this pattern; I'd rather not feel obligated to peruse any future article histories, which is why I left a warning/advisory note. I'm not familiar with Kbabej but I don't think they have anything to do with the O'Brien article, unless there's some sock edit. Drmies (talk) 14:30, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why Kbabej articles are significant in this situation or what that editor has to do with W17 following me around Wikipedia. Unless W17 is another sock in the overflowing drawer of Kbabej, the fact that Kbabej was involved with articles on that list is not at all germane to the topic or my complaint/frustration. -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">WV ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓  17:33, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Content of Deleted page
I require the content for Delhi Public School Vadodara that was deleted by you recently for recreating the page. If possible kindly also state the precautions while restoring a page. Thunderlagoon (talk) 16:02, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Bbb, what's the p-word? Drmies (talk) 16:59, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The content of that page is promotional and poorly written, and not verified by reliable sources: the only possibly reliable thing is this, which sings the praises of someone who may have attended the school. I don't see any reason to restore that content anywhere, esp. not since it was created by a sock puppet,, a sock of . If anything, this invites CU be run. Drmies (talk) 17:12, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You're such a smarty,, and you're so right.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:54, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

, the user is already on a CU request list, as part of Sockpuppet investigations/Bdemenil, which was basically caused by a sockpuppet mess at Articles for deletion/Lois de Menil. I used the above as evidence for adding them. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:34, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You know what it is, Joseph, they let just anyone clerk and run CU. When I was young, we did things differently. It's a sad and beautiful world--and that's a line from Bbb's favorite movie. Drmies (talk) 23:03, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * A word of caution, Joseph, don't believe everything Drmies says. He spends a chunk of his time with oblique references that no one understands but him. It's his way of reducing his Wikipedia stress. When Drmies was young, the web didn't exist, let alone Wikipedia. He also doesn't know what my favorite movie is. I'm not sure I do.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:53, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Brice Stratford
surprising. i became really active here just a few years ago, and in that time i have never seen such an ugly abuse of WP by (apparently) a single user, with fake refs and all. you may have seen much worse... but i really don't understand the decision. and after i took a lot of time to show the problem with difs. (that was probably 2 hours of work). can you please say more about why you don't think the clear meat/socking should be acknowledged, accounts blocked, etc? (it is a real question - i don't want to ever waste that much time again, if there is no point.) thanks. Jytdog (talk) 16:36, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I made some comments in my decline, but the accounts make the same comments as before, admitting they are using the same computers. The article has been deleted. The accounts have stopped editing. You want them blocked for supposed meat puppetry even though there's nothing for them to do here anymore? Reaper Eternal made a similar point, although with less elaboration, a day before you reopened the SPI. I'm sorry you spent so much time, but you have to admit that part of it is your own stubbornness. God knows I'm not averse to blocking accounts when there's a basis for doing so, but blocking these accounts makes no sense.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:43, 25 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Bbb23, it's clear to those of us who have researched the matter and have been following it all along that BriceStratford is blatantly lying (WP:BROTHER is a convenient excuse, isn't it?) -- in the same way that he has fabricated numerous citations -- and that these are obvious socks. I think the thing that needs to happen is all 30 to 40 of the accounts need to be listed all together in one place (instead of five here, ten there, ten there, ten somewhere else). The pattern of editing is very clear, down to the identical citation style, the use of fake refs, the articles/subjects they create and/or contribute to (all of them COI to Stratford), the style of writing, the editing in very distinct shifts, the edit summaries, the non-overlap, non-edit-conflict and non-interference of each other and each other's edits. They never copyedit or correct each other; it's obviously a single voice acting completely in sync and in lockstep. I don't think the fact that it is time-consuming (or the fact that he [i.e., all of the socks] has calmed down now that he's been outed) is a reason to ignore the most blatant and outrageous case of bamboozlery seen on Wikipedia for a long time. Perhaps a WP:LTA page could be established for various trackers to contribute to. Softlavender (talk) 17:11, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for replying. 3 things.
 * these accounts were editing as recently as this month.
 * I had nothing to do with the original filing, and to be frank when I came across this at COIN i have found softlavender's efforts to be too handwavy, which is why i went through the work of looking carefully and gathering diffs (and why i guess the 1st case was closed without action).  nothing stubborn in my effort, that i see.
 * the sock/meat farm has worked on maybe 10 articles (not sure without it in front of me) not just 1.  i have a lot of work left to do, to undo the hoax/promotion that this set of accounts have pushed into WP and it would be useful to have all those accounts shut down in parallel with that, so WP really says "no" to this, and makes them think twice about just starting right back up.
 * articles with fake content based on fake sources about brice and his (supposed?) relatives and theater and awards etc is not going to kill anyone but what they have done is ... well really ugly, and really abusive of WP.   so i really don't get the dismissiveness.  sorry, i just don't get it.  will you not reconsider?  thanks. Jytdog (talk) 17:46, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * IIRC, none of the accounts has edited since April 8. Perhaps I'm mistaken on that point. Are there any that have edited very recently?--Bbb23 (talk) 17:54, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * nope. none of them have. the SPI case was filed on March 31. if your point is that the SPI filing scared them off, how is that reason to not follow through? Jytdog (talk) 18:01, 25 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Just FYI, there are at least 25 articles the farm has edited on conjointly. There are approximately 35 to 40 known members of the farm. Also, there's every possibility that if the Owle Schreame Awards are held this year (last year they were in September), the farm will start up again, if not before. Just because Straford is lying low now does not mean he wil not start up again when he thinks people may have forgotten. Softlavender (talk) 18:13, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * If the disruption resumes in the future, you're welcome to reopen the SPI. I have nothing more to say.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:42, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * thanks, i appreciate your time. Jytdog (talk) 19:59, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Block Notice
Thank you, I was under the mistaken impression that block notices shouldn't be removed but after checking its declined unblock requests. Ah well you live and learn. WCM email 21:33, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It's understandable. There was a time when many people, including yours truly, interpreted the policy to disallow removal of block notices. Because of that interpretation conflict, the policy was "clarified".--Bbb23 (talk) 21:43, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Follow-Up
I actually moved on shortly before the IP even filed that, but I hope it's okay to ask a question on one of the points you made when closing the report.

In regard to this bit in particular: "Amaury should not mess with Loriendrew's Talk page except in egregious circumstances (this wasn't one of those)." Per WP:DTTR, it says to not template the regulars, but who exactly is classified as a regular? I was under the impression that it was anyone who has been mostly active for a few years going by the word "regular," and that's why I removed the IP's warning from the other user's talk page, but I guess not.

Could you please clarify what qualifies as a valid removal of a warning on another user's profile in cases like this? Thanks! :) - Amaury (talk) 05:11, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not a big adherent of not templating the regulars. Sometimes they need it. But, as with many things, it depends. Here we have an IP who really was unjustly accused. I don't think it's fair to expect them to leave a personalized message. Besides, Loriendrew can remove the warning if they wish. BTW, while hunting down your report of the IP to AIV (the link the IP provided didn't work), I saw how many good reports you've made. Way to go.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:17, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you. It's appreciated.


 * Yeah, I've matured and learned a lot over the years, but mistakes still happen to the best of us and we even sometimes get involved in AIV. The important thing is that they're not part of a pattern, which they're not -- now, anyway -- but they were a long time ago for me, unfortunately, and I went through quite a few bumps to get to where I am now. But hey, that eventually helped me grow. - Amaury (talk) 05:24, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry
Apologies for not taking the better path and reporting, and instead continuing the edit war. That is totally my bad, and it won't happen again. PeterTheFourth (talk) 20:12, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Arcane150
Hi Bbb23, Can you talk a look at the talk page and edit history of User talk:Arcane150...I've recently reverted them for vandalism/disruptive edits to the False accusation of rape and Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight). I went to leave user a warning on their talk page and saw they have already received a final warning from another editor, and edit history shows they were previously warned by you via edit summary for their edits to Dallas Buyers Club. Thanks. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 20:01, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The user probably deserves to be blocked now, but let's wait to see if he continues. If he makes one more similar disruptive edit, either take him to WP:AIV or let me know, and if I'm on-wiki, I'll consider blocking him.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:53, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

BLPN Revert war
Honestly, as an administrator you're going to get into a revert war on the BLP noticeboard? Please take some time off and look at this again tomorrow. EmonyRanger (talk) 21:14, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * My action on BLPN is administrative. Therefore, you have no right to revert it. If you do so again, you risk being blocked. Your only justification for leaving it the way it was is to help the blocked user keep his "links" intact. His "need" to keep those links intact is far outweighed by having the discussion about the article be in one place at BLPN.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:22, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Khestwol
Hi, User talk:Khestwol is unnecessarily calling me "nationalistic user" ; aggressively and intentionally putting dubious/false information that cannot be verified. I need your help.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 07:41, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree that they should not have called you a "nationalistic user" in an edit summary, but as far as the content, I have nothing to say.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:27, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Bdemenil
You checkuser-blocked this editor a couple of days ago, and I came across his unblock request. I asked him a follow-up question on his talkpage, and he has responded. Could you please take a look at it and either respond there or, if more appropriate, off-wiki. Please note that I'm not taking any position on the unblock request at this point, just making sure the information is considered and responded to. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:06, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * We are preparing to leave for Europe tomorrow, and my time is limited. Take a look at this request. It appears to conflict with Bdemnil's comments. Also, Bdemnil's response about Khmer15 is inaccurate. Vwikiv doesn't even address Khmer15. Unfortunately, I can't provide you with details about Khmer15 offline because you're no longer a checkuser. I did however run my findings by another checkuser. Finally, Bdemnil's statement that the vwikiv account is new is also untrue. It was created in December 2013.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:43, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Not only am I no longer a checkuser, but I wouldn't have known much about how to interpret the results even when I was one. I do think it is desirable, however, for another CU to respond to the unblock request. Maybe you could post to Functionaries-l or Checkuser-l asking that a CU reply on the user's talkpage, given the policy against non-CUs reviewing checkuser-blocks? Enjoy your trip! Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:51, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

user talk:Mighty Morphin Army Ranger
Yes I do. Can Mighty Morphin Army Ranger set up an email address and ask a an administrator such as yourself to make the removal for him/her? Or is email access blocked as well? -- PBS (talk) 01:21, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * His e-mail access is not disabled, but I do not know whether he set up an e-mail address when he created the account or in the event he didn't whether he can do so later while blocked. Someone probably knows the answers to those questions, but not me.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:37, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * MMAR apparently told another editor to remove my comments from his talk page so he is finding a way to communicate with others. Maybe IRC. Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 01:48, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Not IRC, but rather an off-wiki forum that was discussing matters and a link to which someone had posted on a discussion page after MMAR's block. (I'm not going to link to it because it contains a non-controversial semi-outing, but a semi-outing nonetheless.) MMAR must have seen the link; he apparently joined the forum and made the request there; I guess the third editor saw the request. Softlavender (talk) 06:53, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure it is the same forum but I was given a link to a WO thread where MMAR indicated that he wanted some talk page comments removed. I was trying to offer some constructive advice but I guess he found it unhelpful. Shrug. Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 16:30, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Brief question
Why is EmonyRanger's former userpage not allowed to stick? He's been blocked for sock puppetry, but he'll be back within a month, so... Zeke Essiestudy (talk) 16:17, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * As another clarification, your revert to my edit says "you've been *told* not to do this". I am not tagging the sockmaster, I'm simply restoring content that I think doesn't have to be blanked just yet, unless the account gets blocked indefinitely. Zeke Essiestudy (talk) 16:21, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Your point is a distinction without a difference. Let me make it more clear to you. Do not interfere with socking matters, whether it's tags or effectively partially reverting a checkuser, doesn't matter what it is. If you think it's wrong, then go to the administrator, clerk, or checkuser who tagged the page in the first place. I don't want to tell you this again.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:28, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I see. Basically it means not to touch any sock(master) userpages. The first time I was told this seemed a little incomplete in that case (even if I don't touch the sock templates). Thank you for re-clarifying this. Zeke Essiestudy (talk) 16:32, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Documentation for Sockpuppet, etc. templates
Hi Bbb23. So I'm wondering how you think the best way to handle this issue is, then. The documentation definitely needs to be made clearer, IMO, so that unsuspecting "regular" editors don't accidentally use these templates when they probably shouldn't. Is there something that can be added to these suite of 'sockpuppet' templates' docs that would be satisfactory here?... --IJBall (talk) 19:42, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm guessing that part of the reason it's never been made clear is that it's complicated. I have very little time at the moment as I'm preparing for vacation. I suggest you raise it at WT:SPI.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:54, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * OK. Thanks! --IJBall (talk) 19:57, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Sock active at Andreas Kaplan
A February SPI ended with your comments "In the absence of more edits by the puppet, I'm not convinced that the account is a sock... I also note that the account hasn't been used since January, which makes it unlikely that the account is going to continue to edit the Kaplan article and articles related to Kaplan... consider this a decline without prejudice if the account resumes editing." Well, it looks like IPs really similar to those noted in the February report are still at it, as recently as today. What do you advise? — Brianhe (talk) 20:32, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Doing nothing. My comments actually related to the named account, not the IPs. That said, the IP you noted above is not on its face the same as any of the IPs listed at the SPI, but even assuming they're hopping around, it's only one edit, which can hardly be considered disruptive. Annoying maybe. If it gets significantly worse, you can ask another admin to take action, maybe semi-protect the page. It's unlikely I'll be on-wiki unless it happens soon.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:43, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Acknowledged; thanks for the reply. — Brianhe (talk) 21:34, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

"Lighthouse (software)" article deletion
I would like to ask you and explanation of why you deleted the page Lighthouse (software). There are actually 36 crowdfunding services listed in Wikipedia (Comparison of crowdfunding services), all of them with their respective individual pages.

Thank you, Rhcastilhos (talk) 02:36, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a alternative platform for a company's website.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:50, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Cyril Smith
Why are you removing his title? -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:00, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I thought that WP:HONORIFIC prohibited the use of "Sir" in the opening sentence and in the name at the top of the infobox. After rereading it, my memory is wrong. Sorry about that. Thanks for putting it back.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:09, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Hounding
I need your help regarding the recent conduct of Human3015. Human3015 was blocked recently for 3RR after engaging in an edit war with me at Indian subcontinent. Since then, he's followed me to multiple places, including the Rahuloof report at AN3, a matter which did not involve him, and where he resorted to personal accusations against me. As you are aware, you handed out warnings to everyone there. Recently, he's followed me (refer to page histories) to Xi Jinping's visit to Pakistan 2015, Gilgit-Baltistan, Persecution of Biharis in Bangladesh, Ajit Doval (where he engaged me), 2014 Peshawar school massacre, got involved at Talk:Kargil War (another article he's never edited and where he obviously got to by following me), and now Bihari community in Bangladesh (where he made his first edit two days after I edited that article) and where he's again confronting my edits and edit warring at the talk page. Could you please take some form of action over this tedious form of hounding? I have asked him multiple times, first at AN3, and now at his talk page to not follow me, but he instead accuses me of harrassment.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 09:31, 29 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Bbb23 is on vacation (see note at top of this page). Softlavender (talk) 09:34, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I am aware he's on vacation. I don't mind if other admins/involved users have a look., , : Your take on this?  Mar4d  ( talk ) 09:35, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * , I can see why you feel you are being hounded, but I don't think that is the case. Both of you are interested in India-Pakistan issues and it is natural for you two to run into each other. is a relatively new user. So, please give him a break and humour him. I think he is well-meaning overall. I have recommended to both of you to practice 0RR. Communication is the key to avoiding conflicts. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 09:44, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Editing in the same topic area is not an excuse for stalking an editor's contributions and confronting their edits. All these are articles which Human3015 has never edited, where's he followed me and where he's confronting my edits and opening up disputes. This is tedious behaviour known as WP:HOUNDING.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 10:08, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I understand. But, since Human3015 has denied that he is stalking you, you can't keep on making the accusation. If you don't believe it, you should take it to WP:ANI. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:20, 29 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I didn't knew that you own all those articles, but those were on my watchlist, and tell me what changes I made?? means tell me where I reverted you? -- Human 3015  09:44, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Stranded Pakistanis in Bangladesh
Hello Mr Admin, Once here on Edit warring notice board, you told us(me and ) to report on your talk page if anyone involves in unjustified edits and don't indulge in edit war. So I'm asking for your intervention here, is keep on moving page Stranded Pakistanis in Bangladesh to Bihari community in Bangladesh, while is not having any evidence for him. The most common term used for those people is "Stranded Pakistanis" and used by The New York Times(US), BBC(UK), The Guardian(UK), Dawn(Pakistan), Express Tribune(Pakistan), Daily Sun(Bangladesh). These are leading news papers of respective nations. You can see our discussion and sources Talk page, Biharis in Bangladesh. That page was moved by another user, no one has consensus with current name. Mar4d is not proving any source for his claim. -- Human 3015  09:41, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I think any contentitious page move should be done after discussion, and if necessary, through an RfC. I will try to get the page protected from moves. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:50, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * @Human3015, it is hard to take you seriously when you are bent upon hounding me to articles and confronting whatever edits I make, as well as meddling in situations that do not involve you. I edited that article and this is the fifth or sixth article where you followed me. You came later to revert me and are now edit warring over the title. How do you defend your hounding behaviour?  Mar4d  ( talk ) 10:02, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * dear friend, why you are not providing proofs that I disrupted your edits instead of charging me?? That page was moved by another user and not by me. And you don't have any proofs for your claim on that page so you are talking out of focus. -- Human 3015  10:09, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * @ As says above, if you believe you have a valid complaint against  then I suggest you file a report at either the administrators incident or edit warring noticeboard. Beware of the WP:BOOMERANG though.  Philg88 ♦talk 16:13, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

, thanks for your reply, other admin protected that page from moving, was moving page without having consensus, though discussion is still going on talk page, Most of editors are in favour of name Stranded Pakistanis in Bangladesh which is most widely and commonly used. -- Human 3015  16:26, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Checkuser Question
Note on CheckUser request. I thought that CU data could be used 'internally' to back up behavioral evidence to determine SOCKs in an SPI but the results of the CU would not be disclosed. Is that not the case? J bh Talk  21:11, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * See the vacation note up top? --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 21:17, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah... Thanks! The question was just to clear up a SPI request from a couple days ago with a couple IP SOCKS of a named account and edit summary question Bbb23, possibly rhetorically, asked . No big deal. J bh  Talk  21:25, 29 April 2015 (UTC)