![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 25 | ← | Archive 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 | Archive 33 | Archive 34 | Archive 35 |
Can you explain why the piece of Cardone's real estate holdings were removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.59.126.144 ( talk) 20:24, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
References
I just filed another SPI for a suspected Kbabej sock, but something went haywire with the filing. Elements of the report page are missing, it's not registering as asking for a CU and as far as I can see, it's not listed on the SPI report page, either. Report filing is here [1]. Help, please? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:12, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
I can't really follow what was going on in the discussion you hatted, but maybe I need to eat a bit more--breakfast was a bit Spartan. Just 32 days until football starts, Bbb--I know you're thrilled. I propose that TParis and Volunteer Marek be invited too, but let's not put TParis in charge of beer acquisition (I'm sure he's all Miller Lite). Oh, and no Ohio State fans, who are morally corrupt and don't brush their teeth, besides even more unmentionable offenses: Tide rolls and Alarob agree, no doubt, as would AuburnPilot (I hope). Bbb, who do you think is going to take the SEC? I value your opinion. Drmies ( talk) 15:02, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Smileverse. Thanks.
Vanjagenije
(talk)
21:25, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Well, this is the reason why I'm sure about my last SPI report. See this recent racist commentary. diif1. One of those suspected accounts. That edit is similar to those comments on talk page. I think it's better to re-open Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Iranmehr27 case. -- Zyma ( talk) 10:21, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello! So what is this sockpuppet thing, I just received a random wikipedia noticement. About some HarveyCarter? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jomlini ( talk • contribs) 23:02, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Crazy. So Harvey Carter is not a usual "insult" for a sockpuppet, it is a real person?! Have you guys seriously been tracking a single person for over 6 years in a huge investigations, amazing. After a Calidum called me Harvey in one of our conversations I tried to look it up in urban dictionary etc. But didn't find anything, so I thought it was somekind of insult.. Jomlini ( talk) 23:43, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I've been engaged in another edit war with Special:Contributions/199.116.175.123, whom I believe is a sockpuppet of Special:Contributions/199.116.175.94 (the same person I got into trouble with last time.) So first I'd like to turn myself in and get that block. (Since you got to do it the last time, I thought it'd be easier just to come back to you.)
Second, do you have any suggestions how I might deal with that other editor in the future? I've tried (perhaps belately) trying to use the talk page (like Talk:Type_054A_frigate), but my concerns are just ignored by the other editor. Claims that Chinese sources are automatically superior, the abundant use of non-English sources (which makes it difficult to assess sources that might begin to meet reliability criteria), his seeming less-than-stellar comprehension of English, and the constant IP jumping (I think there are a number of IPs around there that are being used right now), makes it difficult to impossible to engage. I am at a loss.
Thanks for your attention. - RovingPersonalityConstruct ( talk, contribs) 23:35, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Note IP "magically appearing" after BLP is unprotected. Collect ( talk) 13:20, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi B, I'm trying to help out with the SPI backlog but I could use some advice since I'm still getting my admin chops. Re: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/TEAMSAMADI, I've indeffed Thewatchfulobserver as a proven sock. I've blocked TEAMSAMADI for 2 weeks. I'm a little worried that this might be a bad call and that I should indef him instead, so I'm curious to get your feedback. I'm also not sure what I should do with the other accounts Panteliscy and Iria iona since the CU didn't link them to the others (or to each other really). I could indef the both as SPAs since they both appear here to promote the article's subject. They both added the same content here and here. Sorry if this is n00b stuff, but I'm a n00b and I want to err on the side of caution. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 18:14, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi Bbb23, I'm Wjkxy. Do you remind me? It's strange to talk to you after my block, but I have a doubt about a small airline in philippines. I was reading the page of an airport and I discovered this airline, but I noticed there wasn't a page about it. I found your message here. Why did you deleted that page? I don't think it is unnecessary but you surely know wikipedia better than me. Can you explain me the reason of your deletion? Thank you very much Wjkxy ( talk) 11:45, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Wjkxy ( talk) 16:21, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
We have had a fairly lengthy discussion on the talk page about this, demonstrating (I believe) that there is no wording for the infobox result which all editors like (including "leave it blank").
I have recently made a suggestion which all but one responding editors regard as tolerable. As far as I know this is the least loathed suggestion so far. (The remaining editor, ZinedineZidane98, has just accused me of being a liar after I went in search of additional sources and found an answer they didn't like).
I don't think it is unreasonable to put this suggestion in as the best known compromise, but I'm willing to bet that if I do, that same editor will revert it.
What happens then? I'd be grateful if you would review the talk page and say if you think I would be acting reasonably in making this edit. Pinkbeast ( talk) 18:33, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Obviously, please feel free to say "no", but if you have time and interest, and if you haven't done so already, could you read the thread Help on AN/I, specifically the last section Another side of the street. If I'm totally off base, I'll pull back entirely, but the whole thing doesn't sit right with me, the psychology just doesn't make much sense. I've had no previous connection with the editors involved. Thanks for your consideration. BMK ( talk) 05:10, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello. He's at it again, check the original version of The CMO Survey, point #2 under "Samples". An article created by Burjeremonz. Thomas.W talk 19:40, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Okay, everything is done. There's an irony about Latino Ricardo. The account came up in a previous check I ran as what I call a throwaway, meaning an account with no edits. I block such accounts if I'm confident that the account belongs to a particular master. I was in this case, but I had a bunch, and some of them were problematic, and I forgot to block Latino Ricardo. He obviously began editing after my first check. Now if you could give me a break until at least tomorrow my time, that would be welcome. Also, please try to prioritize your suspected accounts. For example, Martin Cold Mans was an obvious vandal. Even after he was blocked, I had to revoke talk page access and then delete some of his offensive edits. Blocking such an account is more urgent, whereas blocking Latino Ricardo based on his edits thus far, which were merely annoying, was not.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 22:44, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Reported user is edit warring on diffrent articles of province Khyber pakhtunkhwa and want to place a map showing pashto even in distrcits where other languages are spoken. Please see his contributions [2]. He is also inviting other pashtun nationalist users Number one User: Tigerkhan007 [3] and writing openly against Punjabi and Hindkos. He said also invite friends to fight punjabiz. Number 2 User: Usman khan being instructed in Pashto to use diffrent IPs mobile phones even girl friends mobile internet to thrash Punjabiz [4] and sharing of face book account to disscuss stratergy privatly [5]. Number 3 User Adjutor101 On his talk page he is using offensive wording like Tusi / tuso for Punjabi / Hindko people see [6] Number 4 on User Jasimkhanum10 he advises "baghair login la editing kawa" which means do editing with out log in. bcoz Jasimkhanum was Topic ban for three months, Intrestingly he followed instructions and got ban for socking for one week. see [7] [8] Dirty Abuses in pashto against Hindko / Punjabiz. You can consult pashtun speaker for translations and read his Pashto contributions all over. I have just given few examples. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.47.246.29 ( talk) 16:09, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
I noticed that you blocked User:Dr Shidaa as "checkuserblock-account". Not a clue what that exactly means but I guess a sockpuppet of someone. Interestin enough, a new account User:Kulaboi is now continuing where Dr Shidaa was stopped. This is quacking with the noise level of a rock concert... The Banner talk 12:27, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Technophant ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Technophant has requested an unblock under the standard offer. As one of about 60 editors who has contributed to User talk:Technophant you may have an interest in this request. Sent by user:PBS via -- MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 16:48, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
![]() |
CU Extraordinare Barnstar |
Thank you for helping to keep Wikipedia free of sockpuppets and other undesirables. Your effort is much appreciated! - Mr X 14:37, 19 August 2015 (UTC) |
A few days ago you permanently blocked Jecoman as the result of a sock investigation I initiated. Mind doing the same for Jecomanisback ? Fry1989 eh? 20:11, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Please can you look into this edit. Which appears to be the confessions of a sock of a user you inf blocked.
I picked this up from a conversation at WT:RM#Policy query -- PBS ( talk) 15:13, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Dear Bbb23,
Its very important for us that you post back the "Final Comments" on the page you just edited and moved to our separate Sockpuppet request.
They are crucial to the discussion for the deletion of this page.
We thought that the "Deletion page" was created to "Communicate" our points, then why move the information?
Please at least post back our Final Comments. Pageantscambuster ( talk) 22:03, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Did you see the page "Bureaucratic Fuck" on Encyclopedia Dramatica? I haven't seen that website in a long time, but you must have blocked someone who took it personally and had an immature hissy fit. Searching "Bbb23" actually gets several results. You were apparently added by someone going by "Lavrentiy Beria (Jr)" back in March- any idea who that is? DARTHBOTTO talk• cont 05:48, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
User:DarthBotto, you rock the house. As for Encyclopedia Dramatica Users who try to get back at people, I thought they're page for me was cute. I have promoted it in fact. Unfortunately, it doesn't look like my help in promoting it is giving the page anymore hits. No one has even edited it or said anything bad about me past its origination from the first user. :( If you're going to troll somebody, at least stay consistent and don't fall off your horse. Hopefully, they're reading this and get on it over there! AmericanDad86 ( talk) 22:25, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Err.. with regards to this edit [9]. I like you and have a great deal of respect for you. We had the feud going once upon a time when I first arrived on the seen and we didn't get each other, but I thought that we had long buried that hatchet and developed an admiration for each other. I am unsure why you feel as if I don't like you. I don't feel I have done anything in the recent pass to suggest this? You are a very respectable admin as far as I am concerned, Bbb23. It is just my honest opinion that User:Drmies is not. AmericanDad86 ( talk) 22:05, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello. Our friend is back: Special:Contributions/82.214.103.10. Note this earlier edit [10] where he admits to being Asdidis. Now back to the exact same stuff [11]. I am directly involved in a content dispute on the page, could you handle this please? Chillum 16:25, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Since you are not editing right now I will just post at ANI: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Block_evasion. Thanks. Chillum 18:39, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello. Could you take another look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Tzufun? The previous CU revealed a lot of other fresh accounts. Cheers and thanks for your help with all the other SPIs recently! SmartSE ( talk) 09:55, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
So related to the little drama on my talk page (thanks btw), editor goes into Mustafa Kemal Atatürk to post some badly-sourced POV and starts inserting Armenia-related material into say Andre Agassi and whatnot, does that mean they should be warned about the DS around Armenia? I ask because they haven't actually and directly edited any Armenia articles. § FreeRangeFrog croak 21:45, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for addressing the Nomoonman sockpuppet investigation. Now that he is linked to GammaCepheus001, and I have had a chance to review GammaCepheus001's edit history, I have a suspicion that the sock master for this whole group is actually User:Jonas Poole. Besides a shared interest in cetaceans, both GammaCepheus001 and User:Jonas Poole have a particular interest in History of Whaling and Timeline of European exploration. [12] GammaCepheus001 has also edited the article on the actual Jonas Poole. And Nomoonman's penchant for insulting editors he disagrees with is reminiscent of Jonas' interactions with other editors. And Jonas too has a large stable of confirmed sockpuppets Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Jonas Poole. So you may want to check into whether both these sock groups are linked. Rlendog ( talk) 21:53, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Would you take a look at the pages created by User:MusicAngels and his/her activity in creating large pages unilaterally and then blocking others from editing, deleting conversation on talk pages, and mostly being an ass? 128.90.39.137 ( talk) 01:07, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
This is this. And yes, the answer to your question in the block rationale is "both".-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 19:37, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Acronym contains many links to commercial resources (e.g., dictionaries, servers with heavy advertising), but MAX - My Acronym eXtractor has just been deleted. It is on topic and is identified as a sponsored edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spaddock ( talk • contribs) 23:01, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
I just want to say "good job" to everyone involved in the "donut sock" investigation: From my first report to your block of the master plus eight socks appears to have taken just two hours. Regarding the two questionable accounts, I have watches on them and will monitor for inappropriate activity, but I don't expect to see any. Etamni | ✉ | ✓ 05:47, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes, it was totally accidental. Damned touch screens, anyway. Thanks for fixing it. My apologies for any inconvenience or confusion, MarnetteD. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:06, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello Bbb23, I have added another note about an additional sock account at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Salamuddin.Shaikh89, but am not quite sure if that was the correct way to do it in a "closed" case page. It would be great, if you could have a look (or fix my mess, if needed ...). Many thanks. GermanJoe ( talk) 07:43, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Please re-verify your revert here. My edit included the nationality and not just flag but you removed the nationality completely. — CutestPenguin Hangout 14:31, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
{{
infobox person}}
("Do not link if a commonly known nationality. Do not use a flag template.").--
Bbb23 (
talk)
14:37, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for the quick response on FF2 socks Bbb23. It looks like a new one has just been created here JackBRootJss ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Does adding a new SPI report when the most recent one has not been archived cause any problems? Thanks for your time. MarnetteD| Talk 18:47, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
![]() |
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar |
Thanks for the work you do with respect to socks. It is appreciated. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 23:50, 30 August 2015 (UTC) |
He has previous SPI, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/게이큐읭.
Just FYI. — regards, Revi 12:25, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
*@revi.me
? I'm sending it again anyway. — regards,
Revi
16:15, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
92.40.102.170 [13] - I am sure Evlekis simply forgot to log-in!. Velella Velella Talk 23:12, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi Bbb23 - I saw you recently handled this sock investigation and had a question. The accounts in questions are actually socks of User:Jonas Poole, the original master account (as far as I'm aware) - is there a method to merge the investigation reports? Thanks. Parsecboy ( talk) 16:39, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello! Can you please update the info on Cumberbatch's page regarding Hamlet. It's still in future tense and it should be in his lead section. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by HamletBarbican ( talk • contribs) 03:05, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
![]() |
You do a good job. Sometimes I'm a prick, BLP is important. Keep up the good work. Dave Dial ( talk) 05:38, 2 September 2015 (UTC) |
Facepalm — I got distracted with blocking a couple of the IPs on the page due to being webhosts, then, after investigating, I full-protected and went to close it but found you only chose to issue a warning. This was totally my bad; I double checked for an admin action on the page history itself, but didn't think to refresh AN3. :P If you think it doesn't need a full-protect, I have no problem with reverting it. I just thought it made sense as I already had to deal with a report on it a few days ago (and had only protected it 3 days). Other than that, I found the same conclusions as you, though it took a lot of time. :P --
slakr\
talk /
07:22, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Would you see this page please? [14] -- Altostratus ( talk) 08:42, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
I edited pages with pure intentions. Sorry that you found them to be vandalism. FallopianDude ( talk) 15:21, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Greetings, I have evidence that this page is CURRENTLY being hacked. It has already been falsely edited causing defamation although it was immediately resolved. I have a screenshot as proof. There is a user on this page that is relentlessly attempting to delete this page along with other users that have all deleted their pages immediately after their comment. How and who can I speak to about this as there are hackers actively trying to destroy pages on Wikipedia. Please advise. saritabaldonado 03:11, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
No, I don't know those individuals, I'm a fan of Sarah Fasha's and she has a YouTube channel where she made a video about how she was threatened and was told that there was going to be an attempt to delete her page. I also gathered many links to prove her notability and why she should keep her page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Saritabaldonado ( talk • contribs) 02:58, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
{{
Edit semi-protected}}
on the article Talk page. I'd stay clear of the attacks, though.--
Bbb23 (
talk)
04:14, 4 September 2015 (UTC)Thank you I will do it there but can you please elaborate on "staying clear of attacks"?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saritabaldonado ( talk • contribs) 04:27, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi, can I kindly request more advice on this article /info/en/?search=Mary_Laurent Can I request your admin office to consider a review and recreation of this article. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Halle178 ( talk • contribs) 23:16, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
In
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TeaLover1996 you blocked and tagged
User:Sociable Computer as a sockpuppet of the indeffed
User:TeaLover1996
Since then,
User:AH999 has removed the fresh start tag from his page, in
this edit
However, in
this edit
User:AH999 admitted he was editing as
User:Zafiraman, which went through a name change to
User:TeaLover1996 at 23:31, 11 February 2015 - so he is now reactivating an old account.
User:ComputerTechGuy and
User:Alex hudson99 have already been shown to be socks of
User:AH999
I also have suspicions about
User:RedRanger1996 who is also a Middleborough supporter and has only exchanged 2 posts with
User:TeaLover1996
How do I re-open a non-archived SPI, to consolidate these reports/problems? - or is this sufficient for you to add the ducks to the existing case? - Arjayay ( talk) 20:03, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, I started running a check here just as you marked it as in progress. I'll head for lunch and let you do all of the work ;) -- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 19:05, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Would it be okay if I used a couple of yours? Takk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Izmik ( talk • contribs) 15:03, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello! I filed a sockpuppet investigation yesterday and am wondering if I have to notify them on their talk pages? I didn't see anything saying I did but, it does have a "defend yourself" section and am now wondering... how would they know to do that if they haven't been notified? Thanks in advance! Cebr1979 ( talk) 00:31, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello Bbb23,
Someone left a message on my talk page regarding an article you deleted. Here it is:
How do I get back my deleted article? I'm really struggling with how this site works its very confusing & I don't know who deleted it in the 1st place. Any help would be appreciated. The page title was "Hecate's Wheel" & it was deleted March 2015 VickiJazPrncess (talk) 03:14, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Cheers, -- cera don 03:28, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi Bbb, it's 99--don't even think about lumping me in among 'vandalism edits' [15]. I'll send you emails of bad paintings. 2601:188:0:ABE6:B169:DAFB:E15A:DBC4 ( talk) 23:08, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I am not sure if you saw my comments here. Since you stated that there was no non-stale puppet for Andres, I suggested that a recent sock ( LoveFerguson) might have been misclassified as NoCal100. There hasn't been a formal SPI for this account: it was blocked on a WP:DUCK basis (see my discussion with the blocker here). NoCal and Andres have been confused before, see this for an example. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 14:24, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
![]() |
The Reviewer's Barnstar | |
For tireless work as a pending changes reviewer. LavaBaron ( talk) 17:15, 7 September 2015 (UTC) |
Hello
Before I even had a chance to respond to this nomination the page was deleted by you. There are hundreds of profiles on this site for porn stars and Nikki Sinn is just as notable and important as they are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fighterfontana34 ( talk • contribs) 02:17, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
User:130.25.240.84 has resumed editing after their block expired. Since it's already been established that the account is a suspected sockpuppet, a re-block would be necessary without going to WP:SPI. Electric Burst( Electron firings)( Zaps) 22:27, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello Bbb23. I'd like to thank you personally for removing Parrhesiast's e-mail access. I've just received an insulting e-mail that he sent me before you did that; it was sent with the apparent objective of harvesting information about me (my mail filter added a warning that the e-mail "contains content that's typically used to steal personal information"). FreeKnowledgeCreator ( talk) 03:21, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Is there a tool to look up word usage or phrases by editors within their contributions? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:45, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pradeep Kumar Page4me. Thanks.
Gparyani (
talk)
01:21, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Thoughts? — ATinySliver/ ATalkPage 🖖 06:04, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
Did you get the chance to look over the email I sent to you a couple of days ago?-- 5 albert square ( talk) 21:40, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Please revdel your SPI of Iran nuclear weapons 2. It is an explicit invasion of privacy by an account that explicitly stated from the start that it was created for privacy. Thank you. Iran nuclear weapons 3 ( talk) 05:57, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
I'm very confused by this. Not related to the master or to SBUX but using an account name that is a variation on the confirmed socks used previously? Is this a case of a copycat or a case of a master getting smarter on how to sock under the radar? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:57, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello. Would you please take a look at Chewers Meat ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? My Evlekis detector started flashing when this "new" editor started reverting me on articles that I had edited a few hours earlier, as several other Evlekis socks have done lately. Their very first edit replaced the official 2011 Indian census data I had added, the most official data there is for demographics in India (as every real Indian well knows), on Uttar Pradesh with older data, with the bogus reason "unsourced, unfounded", and after doing that and some gnoming on the same article they then continued to Demographics of Uttar Pradesh to do the same thing there. Continuing to revert me with similar bogus reasons even after I told them not to replace newer data with older data. The comments on their own talk page and on my talk page are also in typical Evlekis style. As for possibly being good faith edits, or at least edits by someone other than Evlekis, the two articles I was reverted on, like all other articles about Indian states, districts and cities, often see Indian editors trying to add fake data for religions, with Muslims inflating the number of Muslims at the expense of Hindus, and Hindus inflating the number of Hindus at the expense of everyone else, but since all Indians know that the official census data trump every other source they only change the numbers, leaving the reference alone, unlike this "new editor" who has repeatedly replaced the census reference with older and/or less reliable sources. In addition to that the only ones who would object to the new census data are Hindu activists, since the new data show that the number of Muslims in Uttar Pradesh increase faster than the number of Hindus, resulting in a higher percentage of Muslims and lower prcentage of Hindus in the 2011 data compared to the 2001 data. But a devout Hindu would never choose a user name like Chewers Meat, since devout Hindus are vegetarians for religious reasons, just like a devout Muslim never would choose a user name that includes the word "pork". And when you combine all of that the chance/risk of this being a new Evlekis sock is, IMHO, well over 50%... Thomas.W talk 06:26, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
...I stepped on your toes. Sorry!-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 20:38, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello. Would you mind removing talk page access for the Evlekis socks you blocked today? He has started to get all worked up tonight, like every Friday... Thomas.W talk 21:07, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
This guy is now here. EauZenCashHaveIt ( I'm All Ears) 06:24, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick action! In the course of revdel'g all of his edits (apparently he takes pride in his "creativity", and hates revdels), I found several more:
Would you mind CUing those as well? Thanks, NawlinWiki ( talk) 18:54, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi Bbb, I've received admonitions for attempting to curb a user who appears determined to self-promote, most recently by using a sandbox page to copypaste an unrelated good quality article, inserting their own name and photo therein [16]. This strikes me as a persistent disruption. I've already emailed Drmies for his feedback; anything you can contribute would be appreciated. I hope you're enjoying a serene weekend. Aside from this, of course. Very best, JNW ( talk) 14:55, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
Sorry to bother you, but I wanted to take a bit of your time to address a recent concern I had with User:RMS52's conduct on en-wiki. Recently, I came across User_talk:RMS52#Your_conduct and decided you may be the best person to discuss the issue with, as you were one of the most recent people addressing a similar issue on his talk page. Personally, I have received two users on #wikipedia-en-help (IRC) pinging/messaging/linking me to User:RMS52's clerking. It seems to me that despite multiple warnings/mentions of concern on the user's talk page, the user has not changed their conduct to address recent concerns. For example, after you had left a message on the user's talk page, the user commented here. Although DRN is a place for volunteers to contribute their respective thoughts, as User:RMS52 may rightfully do so as well, what concerns me is that the user seems to have anxious drive to clerk on a variety of administrative pages without a detailed and meaningful insight into the issue at hand. Not to criticize, User:RMS52's grammar seems to reflect this claim. Also, after receiving certain permissions on WP:RFPERM pages, the user seems to be anxious to make comments or notes about other users consistently, which seems to be a way of condescending upon other users in the Wikipedia community. Although not all administrators may address the issue, as they may be more polite or not notice the issue, this trend has me concerned. Quite frankly, I would like some insight and a second opinion from you. I request that you either ping me or leave me a talkback on my user page when and if you reply to this message. -- JustBerry ( talk) 18:39, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi BB23, I'm asking you about this since you've very recently posted at AN3. Would you be willing to look at this open case, which is part of an ongoing previous case? [17]
Not sure why you deleted the South Shore Curling Club page ( /info/en/?search=South_Shore_Curling_Club) — can you please explain? There are pages for other curling clubs on Wikipedia — what makes those different? Ewire4130 ( talk) 19:17, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
Recently, through anti-vandal work, I have come across a handful of "IP hopping" or "multi IP vandalism" cases. I've also come across a few users, who seem to improperly clerking on RFPERM and SPI pages. However, these encounters have got me thinking about my role on Wikipedia and a recent barnstar I received from an admin, thanking me for keeping noticeboards organized, that is, in situations that I was either involved in or incidents, such as those on WP:DRN. I would like you to note is that my goal in mentioning the barnstar is not to boast about an acknowledgement, but rather use that as 'food for thought' towards offering myself for another role on Wikipedia. Without further ado, I'd like to offer myself as an SPI clerk trainee. The reason why I chose to contact you is because I have been involved in a number of discussions with you recently. Before making your decision, I kindly ask that you note the following:
Rather than making the decision finite, I would be more than happy to have a discussion on your talk page prior to making any final commits or decisions. If you are too busy or do not feel like training a clerk, please do not feel offended to tell me so. I would be more than willing to either consider the role at another time or ask another CheckUser - whatever you suggest or works for you. Of course, if you do not think I would be a fit clerk candidate, by all means, please don't hesitate to mention that as well. Thanks
--
JustBerry (
talk)
00:10, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
![]() |
I opened up another suspected sock-puppet, this time with the same level of image uploading as previous socks. livelikemusic my talk page! 02:36, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
I appear to have spelled "Pritikin" as "Scarsdale" on an ANI report... ...how do I best fix this? Anmccaff ( talk) 04:13, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
The request for formal mediation concerning Andy Whitfield, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.
For the Mediation Committee,
TransporterMan (
TALK)
13:16, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
(Delivered by
MediationBot,
on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)
I saw your name in conjunction with Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Brianalaflair. I wanted to let you know that a new user, Mckeezykmusic ( talk · contribs) has re-created the article Mc keezy k(Musician). What is the right action to take? Thanks. ubiquity ( talk) 15:12, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. ubiquity ( talk) 15:18, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
![]() |
The Checkuser's Barnstar | |
Thanks for all your help with the SPIs I've raised recently! 5 albert square ( talk) 16:00, 15 September 2015 (UTC) |
This is a message from the Wikimedia Foundation. Translations are available.
As you may know, the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees approved a new "Access to nonpublic information policy" on 25 April 2014 after a community consultation. The former policy has remained in place until the new policy could be implemented. That implementation work is now being done, and we are beginning the transition to the new policy.
An important part of that transition is helping volunteers like you sign the required confidentiality agreement. All Wikimedia volunteers with access to nonpublic information are required to sign this new agreement, and we have prepared some documentation to help you do so.
The Wikimedia Foundation is requiring that anyone with access to nonpublic information sign the new confidentiality agreement by 15 December 2015 (OTRS users have until 22 December 2015) to retain their access. You are receiving this email because you have access to nonpublic information and are required to sign the confidentiality agreement under the new policy.
Signing the confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information is conducted and tracked using Legalpad on Phabricator. The general confidentiality agreement is now ready, and the OTRS agreement will be ready after 22 September 2015. We have prepared a guide on Meta-Wiki to help you create your Phabricator account and sign the new agreement: Confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information/How to sign
If you have any questions or experience any problems while signing the new agreement, please
visit this talk page or email me (gvarnumwikimedia.org). Again, please sign this confidentiality agreement by 15 December 2015 (OTRS users have until 22 December 2015) to retain your access to nonpublic information. If you do not wish to retain this access, please let me know and we will forward your request to the appropriate individuals.
Thank you,
Gregory Varnum (
User:GVarnum-WMF), Wikimedia Foundation
Posted by the MediaWiki message delivery 23:33, 15 September 2015 (UTC) • Translate • Get help
![]() |
Thanks for dealing with the SPI. Apologies if I complicated or over-dramatized anything by submitting to ANI, if I come across similar issues I'll be sure to keep it to SPI. Thanks again! RA0808 talk contribs 05:03, 16 September 2015 (UTC) |
Another new one [19]. W C M email 18:32, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
I realized you recently declined this SPI case. However, I have additional accounts that may be linked to this account this time. I just wanted to inform you that I have opened another SPI case on the same page to avoid any confusion, as I realize the case may be ready for archiving already. -- JustBerry ( talk) 02:35, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello. It's Friday evening on this side of the pond and Evlekis is drunk and bored as usual, pasting my talk page full of abuse to liven himself up. So would you mind doing a CU-check on Bucksham Superior ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? It might lead us to a few more socks... Thomas.W talk 19:07, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
![]() |
The Checkuser's Barnstar | |
Despite our recent discussions, it would be beyond thinking to understand what SPI would be without you. Thank you for your tireless efforts to maintain a low SPI back log and proactively answer to user concerns. Your hard work is thoroughly appreciated by myself and plenty others on the wiki, and I want you to know that. Not to mention, thanks for being honest and guiding me accordingly. -- JustBerry ( talk) 23:55, 18 September 2015 (UTC) |
Shouldnt the block duration just be extended? Why the immediate indefinite block? [20] Misdemenor ( talk) 02:10, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello Bbb23,
I appreciate your review of the recent creation of the Doc.G.Sound Entertainment article here on wikipedia. I understand why you would consider deletion for the article, although it is nowhere near finished and contains very minimal information. Our team thought it best to create the page to reserve its name, and return at a later date to complete the article. We are confident that once completed, the article will meet all of wikipedias criteria. I kindly ask you to reverse your submission for a speedy deletion of the article, and allow us the time to complete it. Your time and consideration is much appreciated.
Thank You. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Armando Guarnera ( talk • contribs) 04:14, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Bbb23,
I went ahead and followed your helpful advice, thank you.
Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Riathamus000#Clerk.2C_CheckUser.2C_and.2For_patrolling_admin_comments.
I identified the oldest account.
I added evidence in the form of individual DIFF LINKs for each of the named accounts.
Please see DIFF.
Hopefully this is now satisfactory.
And, truly, thanks for asking me to be more specific, I think thanks to you now this is a much stronger case -- so thank you for that !!!
— Cirt ( talk) 05:05, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
To clarify, the user appears to be either switching IPs and making new accounts or simply making new accounts from their current IP. Can an IP block or minor regional block of some sort be given? Especially from this discussion, it seems like the problem is on-going. -- JustBerry ( talk) 16:18, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Yes, sorry about that, I'd forgotten A7 wasn't for schools - or perhaps it just didn't feel like a school as it's a nursery school. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blessing Academy, Darjeeling, India. Pam D 16:41, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
This comes as a surprise to me because it has been used before and visibly applies to that article. In that case, what should happen? The article simply appears to have no improvement and she has no listed work. SwisterTwister talk 17:24, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Hey Bbb, what's wrong with a soft block? Did you want no block, or did you want a harder block? Either way, it's typically what I do if I don't look at the actual edits (to see if they're promotional, if it's more than just one thing, etc.) but I know the name is wrong. Toodles, Drmies ( talk) 01:09, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello sir,
I wanted to talk to you as to why you undid my changes to the Galerie Gmurzynska page? I believe it is essential to have a list of artists that the gallery has exhibited. In fact, most galleries have such a list as it informs the reader on the represented artists and history of said gallery. If the issue are sources, I deem it fair to add a disclaimer stating that citations are needed on top.
I hope you will understand my point of view, I'm looking forward to your response. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RioHazgul ( talk • contribs) 12:52, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi there, Thanks for your editing on this page which I think is well-judged. If you look over this article's history, you will see that it has been littered with attempts by employees to fill it with commercial and promotional material, even secreting this as "references" sometimes. In addition, it has continually attempted to suppress aspects of its history which it would like to keep hidden (see "controversies"). As I think you have already noticed, RioHazgul and Lord lynley are obvious instances of WP:SOCK (again, not the first time) and they ought to be banned, if they have not already removed themselves. (I suspect it may well be one and the same person). I appreciated your vigilance on this page. Grammophone ( talk) 15:14, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Yes, no problem. All wording under "controversies" is based on the sources cited and is already radically edited in the interests of "neutrality". Regarding the German sources, again, the well-documented VAT scandal has been reduced to just a couple of lines; however, those facts can be easily checked. If you copy and paste the German texts into Google translate it will give you a clear enough text, and all the sources agree on the facts cited. I am happy to monitor the whitewashing, abuse of references etc. From your side, I am sure you can see the importance of monitoring for WP:SOCK. This page was begun by employees of the gallery who thought it would make a good free advert, and almost everyone who has edited since has fallen more or less into this category as far as I can see. Grammophone ( talk) 16:26, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
(Whole question's in the title)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Anmccaff ( talk • contribs)
Unblock request at User talk:Hanchos, where the editor admits wrongdoing, and expresses the intention to do better. Unblock to give a second chance? The editor who uses the pseudonym " JamesBWatson" ( talk) 15:49, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
User:GorillaWarfare said I could: [21]. Ping me upon reply. -- JustBerry ( talk) 13:14, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
How far back in time do you want the SPI? I can present a good case leading all the way back to a sock master that was indeffed in 2006, and then used multiple CU-confirmed throw-away accounts to push the same Finnish/Kven POV as the throw-away accounts that were CU-blocked yesterday, based on the same and similar sources as they used, on the same articles that they edited. If you want me to I can email you the details before filing an SPI-report. Thomas.W talk 19:46, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
You may also want to look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Finnedi/Archive. Yngvadottir ( talk) 00:01, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
... so could someone please block and do a CU-check? Thomas.W talk 18:05, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi, Bbb23,
Regarding
this edit, I've noticed that on a number of SPI pages, what appears is the username and related links but For archived investigations, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Palvoncha abbai/Archive link, for example, did not appear. I purged the page but that didn't help.
I'm not sure why adding a break or extra space causes a link to the archive to appear but this has happened to me on about a half dozen SPI case pages where the link archive doesn't appear. I make the small edit and the link to the archive appears when the page reloads. But I acknowledge that this isn't my area to work in and I'll leave well enough alone.
Liz
Read!
Talk!
00:00, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
?action=purge&forcelinkupdate=true
after the URL). ☺ ·
Salvidrim! ·
✉
00:03, 25 September 2015 (UTC)Unless I am misinterpreting, I believe from the wording it is only applicable for articles made after the master was banned, i.e., for Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TejaswaChaudhary, July 9, 2015. (2015-07-9) (unless anyone in the group was banned before that) In this case, that includes everyone from the group, so it makes no practical difference, but perhaps it should be stated more exactly DGG ( talk ) 23:01, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
this? You probably already know the length of time that I would implement. :)
—
Berean Hunter
(talk)
21:10, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Okay, I am going to think about it first. Bbb23 has given me food for thought. HighInBC (was Chillum) 23:40, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello Bbb23
Thanks for your response concerning this issue:
I understand your statement about "No Violation".
But truly User:Grammophone has been making lots of disruptive edits and reverts on Galerie Gmurzynska. He has been warned and blocked twice. Yet, he keeps coming back to make all sorts of disruptive edits. He keeps sabotaging the page and focusing on negative content. His account is solely focused on editing the said page.
Please, how do we stop him from causing more harm. Where else can he be reported? How can he be blocked or banned indefinitely having been warned/blocked twice in the past. Xandyxyz ( talk)
Thanks "Bbb23" for quick response. I am an insider in the company. I'm well aware about COI issue in wikipedia and hence, I don't have to edit the article by myself. Wikipedia allows everyone to edit articles. User:Grammophone and many others have been editing Galerie Gmurzynska. This is a multi-billion dollar firm. We monitor the wiki page from time to time. We take a look at the edits. We only want the page to be neutral and properly sourced as it used to be. The problem we have is " User:Grammophone". All his edits and reverts focus only on sabotaging our company. I don't actually know why. Perhaps he's an ex-employee who's aggrieved or a competitor. I don't just know. Right now, another user "Ditto51" has reverted the recent edits made by " User:Grammophone". But before you know it, he comes back to undo the reverts. He has been warned and blocked last year October 2014. But he keeps coming back to sabotage the page. Every other editor that has edited the page have always done so in good faith. Check the User contributions of " User:Grammophone", you'll see that 95% of his edits are focused on the Galerie Gmurzynska. Let me know if you need any other info. Xandyxyz ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:32, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
I'm sorry if this page is proving frustrating User:Bbb23. I would like to clarify the editing history so that you can act accordingly. "Making sure the customers are happy" about sums it up. The multiple accounts editing Galerie Gmurzynska past and present can be explained by the fact that they have been/are being set up by gallery employees in order to whitewash uncomfortable stories in its history, including recent; that is, the only times when Gmurzynska has drawn press attention beyond the commercial art world seems to be when it has been involved in scandals such as the recent VAT evasion case and the huge smuggling operation of Russian treasures from the Khardzhiev archive, about which much more could be said. To my mind, the widespread international mainstream press attention these incidents have attracted are precisely the reason why this article passes WP:GNG. That may be unfortunate for the gallery itself, but without them this article is always liable to read like an advertisement, which is what the page was set up to be. The account above misrepresents the 2014 edit warring episode. It is true that there were multiple edits and undo edits back and forth and some bans as a result. Where I was transparent about this, gallery employees used multiple accounts including WP:SOCK where User:Andemw3 was a sock puppet for User:Art&Design3000. (I have strong suspicions that WP:SOCK has occurred again recently with User:RioHazgul and User:Lord lynley.) In the end, the article achieved a settled form, with a limited and diluted summary of the gallery's various scandals offered under "controversies". It was left alone for several months before the recent attempt to give it an entirely commercial and flattering look again. My version of the article offers nothing more than short summaries and quotations of the sources given. If the gallery thinks that those sources have made unfounded allegations then it should address the relevant publications and seek a retraction. (I presume it would have done so at the time of publication if it felt justified in so doing.) Until then, they remain the only aspects of Gmurszynska's history likely to interest general readers and as such they should stay. As for the deletions I have made, the gallery makes various claims about its commercial exhibitions and sales catalogues which are simply not true or grossly exaggerated and require proper citations if they are to be included. I would like to see some action taken against the continual insertion of improperly referenced material and references that link to what are basically advertisements. Grammophone ( talk) 23:26, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
I am an art historian and art lover with a particular interest in Russian art of the early- twentieth century. This gallery smuggled and dispersed an archive of major historical importance which can never be replaced and is now permanently lost to researchers. I think that anyone who deals with Gmurzynska has a right to know about this and other highly dubious activities in which it has been involved. If you read this article, which only scratches the surface, or the piece in New Left Review, you may understand why I feel this way: cite Grammophone ( talk) 00:03, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
The article notes that, “In his final book, APJ Abul Kalam, explains that he considers Pramukh Swami as his guru”. User Swamiblue wrote on the talk page: “do not believe it is appropriate as pramukh swami was accused of rape and sexual assualt last year and it might bring negative attention to Dr. Kalam.” ( diff here) The user had been warned earlier that such insertions on a talk page constitute BLP Violations and user had even been blocked for a similar issue in another article: ( diff here) and here is the block log for the violation link here. When I or another editor had removed the offending material on Dr. Kalam’s page with an explanation that this is a BLP violation, Swamiblue is persistent to add it back stating “Not BLP violation. Discussing valid point”, despite having been blocked for a BLP violation previously: diff here
And more recently User, seemingly emboldened by any lack of consequence for his persistent violation, added the following edit on Pramukh Swami’s talk page: “Has anyone gotten news regarding this mans passing? I know any day now but some people have been posting on messenger services that this guy has croaked this weekend and someone else has taken over but so far that is not true unfortunately.” ( diff here) Wishing for the death of one of the leaders of the Swaminarayan group shows not just a simple bias but a form of hatred. Not only is this a BLP violation, but the comment that “he is unfortunately not dead” should get user banned from editing any Swaminarayan related articles because of a conflict of interest that emerges even more clearly when we see that user appears to have a single purpose account ( WP:SPA) with more than 95% of his 600+ edits related to the promotion of a particular point of view on articles related to Swaminarayan. That is, all of user’s disruptive edits are targeted towards Swaminarayan Hinduism, suggesting a conflict of interest. Based on his previous disruptive activity on Swaminarayan-related pages, such uncivil comments as wishing for someone’s death, the fact that user’s edits betray a single purpose account, user cannot be trusted to be neutral on topics related to Swaminarayan. Thus, I feel there is grounds that User:Swamiblue be banned from editing such topics due to their long-term abuse on such topics.
A more comprehensive report was posted here: see this link.
Kapil.xerox ( talk) 15:11, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello. My guts tell me that Special:Contributions/Suomisvenks is Evlekis. The style and behaviour doesn't match anyone who has been active on the article I was reverted on, but it does match Evlekis. The username is also misspelt... Thomas.W talk 17:42, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your ANI close. However, there appears to be a lack of clarity with their application of the alternate account policy here. Per your CU experience and your recent involvement in the user's ANI, I thought I would have you take a look. You may also want to dig into their contributions while noting that they have been blocked for edit warring in the past. To be honest, although my digging suggests against this (block creation log prior to creation of RMS52 and SPI investigation on RMS52 did not reveal this account as a master/sock), it seems a lot like RMS52's case earlier this month. -- JustBerry ( talk) 01:07, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
IF WHAT I DID IN ADDING TO THE ACCURACY AND DETAIL OF SAID ARTICLE ON US CONGRESS HISTORY which according to my little notation here says you reverted as to being "wordy" - is pretty stupid and arrogant and I wonder what sort of academic training you have had in history and political science plus half-century in absorbing such material as I??!! Seems pretty short-siighted,ignorant and blind especially rather ARROGANT to cut down someone else's work especially by your very crass comment shows how inadequate a self-appointed "administrator"-YOU ARE!! One of major criticisms of Wiki is after over coming its initial untrustworthiness and inaccuracy with wild crazy article submittals & edits/revisions -now we have bland mundane often inaccurate information because of jerks like you who are mentally challenged by any long detailed sentences/paragraphs!! Are you a junior high school student so you like simple dumbed down information!! Plan to do something as others have mentioned about small cadre of self-appointed judges dictators and word messiahs! Did you even HAVE THE CAPACITY to see the accuracy or truth of what I expounded on in early Congressional history in the late 18th or early 19th centuries??! - BAH, hah - probably NO!! = D.E.T (Baltimore, Maryland - Saturday evening, 9/26/15 -- 12 midnight. == personal e-mail address box at: duanetressler@outlook.com) Duane E. Tressler ( talk) 05:00, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello User:Bbb23, you have been mentioned in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Complaint_against_administrator_conduct and if you desire, enter a statement, and any other material you choose to submit to the Arbitration Committee's attention. You may find useful information by reviewing the following links as well:
Thank you for the attention you have given this matter. Olowe2011 Talk 12:55, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello Bbb23, I could use the help from someone experienced with more complex socking situations please. See this page curation log. Especially recent entries like United Consulting Group, created 7:09 with (with several possibly fake offline sources), "reviewed" at 7:11, 2 minutes later. RoofingHub (with several possibly fake offline sources) finished at 7:13, "reviewed" immediately at 7:13 (RoofingHub edits were reviewed 3 times from the same account in the past, hardly a coincidence). The Man Van (with several possibly fake offline sources) created 8:06, "reviewed" immediately at 8:06. The reviewing account has started in April 2015 with the typical pseudo edits, since then contributions show a strange obsession with trivial CSDs and 1 borderline-notable article James Allen (company). The article page was created as redirect, and later filled up with content (another typical sock tactic of course). In short: There is a 10 percent chance for a good faith editor, but this stinks like a helper account. I have already added 2 related Orangemoody socks to Orangemoody SPI, but wanted to get another more experienced opinion before adding the "reviewer" account to the case page. It would be great, if you could look into this weird pattern more closely. Thanks for any advice. GermanJoe ( talk) 12:27, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
I am the editor who created Sheila Cameron (artist), which was nominated for deletion and then for speedy deletion by Olowe2011, who then also brought the issue to the administrators' noticeboard after reverting another user's closing of the speedy nomination. Thank you for closing the discussion there (though I was in the process of drafting a comment when you did, now lost). I had initially conflated closing the discussion with closing the speedy nomination, and misidentified the user who had done both, so I wanted to thank the correct person. This was my first time interacting with the administrators' noticeboard, and I didn't see the box in which your closing comments were located at first.
The change to speedy deletion nomination was noted as being solely because "the subject of the article in fact requested for the article to be made." I have explained to Olowe2011 at the AfD discussion page that there is no inherent problem with a user requesting that an article about themselves (or their company or organization) be created, it being preferred to the creation of articles by users with a COI, and that Wikipedia:Requested articles exists in part to accommodate such requests. I have doubts as to whether Olowe2011 will accept this coming from me, however — and it's possible I'm the one who has misunderstood Wikipedia policy regarding such situations — so I would appreciate it if you would comment regarding the issue of requested article creation at the AfD page, being more likely to be regarded as an authority on the matter than I am. Thank you in advance, whether your comment favors my position or not. — GrammarFascist contribs talk 04:25, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Hey there User:Bbb23
On the Connor Franta page, you removed "Philathropist" from his lead section. By definition, a philanthropist actively donates or contributes in some way to a cause(s), which he does. He has started, for the second year, a campaign towards raising awareness and money towards a respected charity, the Thirst Project. Therefore I believe that he should receive recognition in some way towards this. I respect that it is not a well defined term and that Philanthropy can apply to varying degrees, but I just thought I'd mention it.
I have left the page the way it is pending your answer.
Many thanks
JC ( talk) 17:58, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
I noticed that you blocked Zeremony, but I have some questions regarding the sockmaster. As far as I can determine, you CU'd Zeremony against LoveFerguson (and some other accounts listed here under "Group 1") but did not perform a CU against AndresHerutJaim/NoCal/Wlglunight93. Andres has no non-stale sock, but NoCal has All Rows4 and Silver surprise, and Wlglunight93's last socks were Averysoda and ISavedPvtRyan.
Right now, they seem to be standalone socks, unrelated to others in this area? If my understanding is correct, this is not totally right. My suspicion is that LoveFerguson/Zeremony etc. actually socks of Wlglunight93. It would be helpful if this could be checked and connected up, because all of these socks are prolific, and it is good to know their latest incarnations for CU or other purposes. If you want, I can open a new SPI with evidence but the Zeremony one already contains a lot of diffs connecting LoveFerguson and Wlglunight93. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 12:55, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Sorry If I come off as a bit cross but why would you delete a page that talks about my religion? I created the page out of a want and a need to have it be heard, I am deeply offended that you think my religion is a hoax, that you think its not fit to be on this website. I'm sorry if you couldn't see that as a religion, it is just as valid as any other, and I apologize for our religions retention of information about itself, I just felt as though a small page could do no harm. I felt as though it was something we deserved as a group. DatJason324 ( talk) 22:49, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi Bbb23, I am contacting you about deleting the following page I created: /info/en/?search=Project_Numbat
This was the first page on Wikipedia I created. I can accept it wasn't perfect but I do contest it being deleted. The page described the importance of this not-for-profit group in helping to save the numbat from extinction. I would like to know why an important contributor to the future of Australian wildlife, that is acknowledged as a key stakeholder by a federal state departement such as the Australian Department of Parks and Wildlife, and by a globally recognised research institute such as Perth Zoo, does not deserve to have its own Wikipedia page? Thanks for getting back to me.
Eveline Ememasco ( talk) 06:19, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee has declined the Request for Arbitration Committee judgement arbitration case request, which you were listed as a party to. For the Arbitration Committee, L235 ( t / c / ping in reply) 13:00, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello there. I created a page on a BBC Presenter who is a high profile radio personality in the North West of England. Can you explain why it has been deleted for being a form of advertising please? This is definitely not the case and it is purely an information page concerning that person. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by MediaChris69 ( talk • contribs) 02:38, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Not something I do very often - it has to be pretty obvious for me to dust off those tools. Thx for the support. — Ched : ? 05:16, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Dear Bbb23,
On September 29th I added a paragraph entitled "Narcissism and Homosexuality" on the "Homosexuality" page. Later that day you delelted that section on the grounds that I do not own the the rights to the refence I gave. What kind of permission should I attach in order to prove that the author gave me his permission to use his article.
Barak — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barakpick ( talk • contribs) 05:21, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your help in the 3RR/edit warring noticeboard concerning the article above. [22]
Would it be possible to have a notification or statement from you, either on the talk page or noticeboard, positing clearly that Hal2k1 is in breach of WP:NOR? Though ostensibly in good faith, Hal2k1 continues to claim that he intends to modify the article in accordance with his original research. He has already been informed clearly of his breach of wikipedia policy by other users ([ [23]] and [ [24]]), but input from an administrator would help settle this dispute once and for all.
Thank you in advance. Cartesian5712 ( talk) 15:58, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
I feel like I've ransacked his talk page so decided to just move over here (plus those little fencing men things getting in the way all the time are really annoying) . I'll still leave it till I'm back from my weekend but, do thank you for your help with this (and *lol* at your 'never heard of common sense' comment). I have done a lot of thinking recently (and have also seen first-hand recently) and see how discussing rather than being a hot-headed, arrogant, sarcastic, reverting jerk can actually help move things along faster. We haven't had the greatest run-ins in the past, you and I (because of me, not you), but, I'm trying (though don't expect the sarcasm to just disappear, that's my style and always has been/will be). :-) Bye for now. Cebr1979 ( talk) 02:09, 1 October 2015 (UTC) Cebr1979 ( talk) 02:09, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Would you mind checking User:ThisGuyIsGreat and User:Wikipedia Is The Coolest Thing Ever? Thanks, NawlinWiki ( talk) 02:04, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello B. Since both you and Ponyo receive more than enough nonsense on your talk pages I can understand your reverting this. But, even though the IPs edits were nonsense, I thought it was worth Ponyo's being able to check the claim that this was a sock of someone. That is why I took the time to put the edits together. Ponyo and I have worked together before on tracking down socks. You and I have as well way back to this editor long ago. I reverted on P's page before posting here so if that is my mistake plz revert again. I know that bulls are color blind so the red cape is just for show. I wish the red dot didn't have the effect that the cape doesn't. Thanks for your time. MarnetteD| Talk 03:37, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi Bbb23, Thank you for your action in investigating this sockpuppetry account. I'm bit curious as you have blocked some of the accounts such as this User:Devhalo and User:ElrondPestano, I have just checked at the edits of both account and it appears they don't have direct edits to Vmoney inc or Vmoney, or any direct involvement in suspecting the sock behaviour. Is it normal for a checkuser to block multiple accounts without evidence of edits? But there might be a serious concern since there could be more than one person using the same IP Address as I'm unable to predetermine the evidence of the mentioned accounts to accuse them of abusing multiple accounts. Any comments are appreciated in regards to this topic. ♔ MONARCH Talk to me 03:58, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Gringoladomenega / PhilStar01 is evading block and edit warring in Léo (footballer, born 1990). SLBedit ( talk) 14:19, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure that threatening to block a throwaway zombie account if they continue their mischief at SPI [25] is likely to have much effect. A glance at the user's contribution history is suggestive.
We know that WoW and other game accounts are bought and sold on various trading boards. I expect that Wikipedia credentials can be bought in the same neighborhood. MarkBernstein ( talk) 14:57, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
I noticed you deleted my Seeds of Learning page. I am wondering why you think it is not a credible article? Is there something else I can add when I recreate this page? How can I add to it to make it less likely to get deleted? Thanks, Isabel — Preceding unsigned comment added by Isabelweinerth ( talk • contribs) 23:21, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi. So why would an anon IP editor edit this page at all? I don't understand. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 11:59, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
I requested SP. Don't know if it'll be granted - I read that it's rarely done for user talk pages. Jeh ( talk) 12:06, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 25 | ← | Archive 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 | Archive 33 | Archive 34 | Archive 35 |
Can you explain why the piece of Cardone's real estate holdings were removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.59.126.144 ( talk) 20:24, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
References
I just filed another SPI for a suspected Kbabej sock, but something went haywire with the filing. Elements of the report page are missing, it's not registering as asking for a CU and as far as I can see, it's not listed on the SPI report page, either. Report filing is here [1]. Help, please? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:12, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
I can't really follow what was going on in the discussion you hatted, but maybe I need to eat a bit more--breakfast was a bit Spartan. Just 32 days until football starts, Bbb--I know you're thrilled. I propose that TParis and Volunteer Marek be invited too, but let's not put TParis in charge of beer acquisition (I'm sure he's all Miller Lite). Oh, and no Ohio State fans, who are morally corrupt and don't brush their teeth, besides even more unmentionable offenses: Tide rolls and Alarob agree, no doubt, as would AuburnPilot (I hope). Bbb, who do you think is going to take the SEC? I value your opinion. Drmies ( talk) 15:02, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Smileverse. Thanks.
Vanjagenije
(talk)
21:25, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Well, this is the reason why I'm sure about my last SPI report. See this recent racist commentary. diif1. One of those suspected accounts. That edit is similar to those comments on talk page. I think it's better to re-open Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Iranmehr27 case. -- Zyma ( talk) 10:21, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello! So what is this sockpuppet thing, I just received a random wikipedia noticement. About some HarveyCarter? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jomlini ( talk • contribs) 23:02, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Crazy. So Harvey Carter is not a usual "insult" for a sockpuppet, it is a real person?! Have you guys seriously been tracking a single person for over 6 years in a huge investigations, amazing. After a Calidum called me Harvey in one of our conversations I tried to look it up in urban dictionary etc. But didn't find anything, so I thought it was somekind of insult.. Jomlini ( talk) 23:43, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I've been engaged in another edit war with Special:Contributions/199.116.175.123, whom I believe is a sockpuppet of Special:Contributions/199.116.175.94 (the same person I got into trouble with last time.) So first I'd like to turn myself in and get that block. (Since you got to do it the last time, I thought it'd be easier just to come back to you.)
Second, do you have any suggestions how I might deal with that other editor in the future? I've tried (perhaps belately) trying to use the talk page (like Talk:Type_054A_frigate), but my concerns are just ignored by the other editor. Claims that Chinese sources are automatically superior, the abundant use of non-English sources (which makes it difficult to assess sources that might begin to meet reliability criteria), his seeming less-than-stellar comprehension of English, and the constant IP jumping (I think there are a number of IPs around there that are being used right now), makes it difficult to impossible to engage. I am at a loss.
Thanks for your attention. - RovingPersonalityConstruct ( talk, contribs) 23:35, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Note IP "magically appearing" after BLP is unprotected. Collect ( talk) 13:20, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi B, I'm trying to help out with the SPI backlog but I could use some advice since I'm still getting my admin chops. Re: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/TEAMSAMADI, I've indeffed Thewatchfulobserver as a proven sock. I've blocked TEAMSAMADI for 2 weeks. I'm a little worried that this might be a bad call and that I should indef him instead, so I'm curious to get your feedback. I'm also not sure what I should do with the other accounts Panteliscy and Iria iona since the CU didn't link them to the others (or to each other really). I could indef the both as SPAs since they both appear here to promote the article's subject. They both added the same content here and here. Sorry if this is n00b stuff, but I'm a n00b and I want to err on the side of caution. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 18:14, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi Bbb23, I'm Wjkxy. Do you remind me? It's strange to talk to you after my block, but I have a doubt about a small airline in philippines. I was reading the page of an airport and I discovered this airline, but I noticed there wasn't a page about it. I found your message here. Why did you deleted that page? I don't think it is unnecessary but you surely know wikipedia better than me. Can you explain me the reason of your deletion? Thank you very much Wjkxy ( talk) 11:45, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Wjkxy ( talk) 16:21, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
We have had a fairly lengthy discussion on the talk page about this, demonstrating (I believe) that there is no wording for the infobox result which all editors like (including "leave it blank").
I have recently made a suggestion which all but one responding editors regard as tolerable. As far as I know this is the least loathed suggestion so far. (The remaining editor, ZinedineZidane98, has just accused me of being a liar after I went in search of additional sources and found an answer they didn't like).
I don't think it is unreasonable to put this suggestion in as the best known compromise, but I'm willing to bet that if I do, that same editor will revert it.
What happens then? I'd be grateful if you would review the talk page and say if you think I would be acting reasonably in making this edit. Pinkbeast ( talk) 18:33, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Obviously, please feel free to say "no", but if you have time and interest, and if you haven't done so already, could you read the thread Help on AN/I, specifically the last section Another side of the street. If I'm totally off base, I'll pull back entirely, but the whole thing doesn't sit right with me, the psychology just doesn't make much sense. I've had no previous connection with the editors involved. Thanks for your consideration. BMK ( talk) 05:10, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello. He's at it again, check the original version of The CMO Survey, point #2 under "Samples". An article created by Burjeremonz. Thomas.W talk 19:40, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Okay, everything is done. There's an irony about Latino Ricardo. The account came up in a previous check I ran as what I call a throwaway, meaning an account with no edits. I block such accounts if I'm confident that the account belongs to a particular master. I was in this case, but I had a bunch, and some of them were problematic, and I forgot to block Latino Ricardo. He obviously began editing after my first check. Now if you could give me a break until at least tomorrow my time, that would be welcome. Also, please try to prioritize your suspected accounts. For example, Martin Cold Mans was an obvious vandal. Even after he was blocked, I had to revoke talk page access and then delete some of his offensive edits. Blocking such an account is more urgent, whereas blocking Latino Ricardo based on his edits thus far, which were merely annoying, was not.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 22:44, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Reported user is edit warring on diffrent articles of province Khyber pakhtunkhwa and want to place a map showing pashto even in distrcits where other languages are spoken. Please see his contributions [2]. He is also inviting other pashtun nationalist users Number one User: Tigerkhan007 [3] and writing openly against Punjabi and Hindkos. He said also invite friends to fight punjabiz. Number 2 User: Usman khan being instructed in Pashto to use diffrent IPs mobile phones even girl friends mobile internet to thrash Punjabiz [4] and sharing of face book account to disscuss stratergy privatly [5]. Number 3 User Adjutor101 On his talk page he is using offensive wording like Tusi / tuso for Punjabi / Hindko people see [6] Number 4 on User Jasimkhanum10 he advises "baghair login la editing kawa" which means do editing with out log in. bcoz Jasimkhanum was Topic ban for three months, Intrestingly he followed instructions and got ban for socking for one week. see [7] [8] Dirty Abuses in pashto against Hindko / Punjabiz. You can consult pashtun speaker for translations and read his Pashto contributions all over. I have just given few examples. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.47.246.29 ( talk) 16:09, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
I noticed that you blocked User:Dr Shidaa as "checkuserblock-account". Not a clue what that exactly means but I guess a sockpuppet of someone. Interestin enough, a new account User:Kulaboi is now continuing where Dr Shidaa was stopped. This is quacking with the noise level of a rock concert... The Banner talk 12:27, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Technophant ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Technophant has requested an unblock under the standard offer. As one of about 60 editors who has contributed to User talk:Technophant you may have an interest in this request. Sent by user:PBS via -- MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 16:48, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
![]() |
CU Extraordinare Barnstar |
Thank you for helping to keep Wikipedia free of sockpuppets and other undesirables. Your effort is much appreciated! - Mr X 14:37, 19 August 2015 (UTC) |
A few days ago you permanently blocked Jecoman as the result of a sock investigation I initiated. Mind doing the same for Jecomanisback ? Fry1989 eh? 20:11, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Please can you look into this edit. Which appears to be the confessions of a sock of a user you inf blocked.
I picked this up from a conversation at WT:RM#Policy query -- PBS ( talk) 15:13, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Dear Bbb23,
Its very important for us that you post back the "Final Comments" on the page you just edited and moved to our separate Sockpuppet request.
They are crucial to the discussion for the deletion of this page.
We thought that the "Deletion page" was created to "Communicate" our points, then why move the information?
Please at least post back our Final Comments. Pageantscambuster ( talk) 22:03, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Did you see the page "Bureaucratic Fuck" on Encyclopedia Dramatica? I haven't seen that website in a long time, but you must have blocked someone who took it personally and had an immature hissy fit. Searching "Bbb23" actually gets several results. You were apparently added by someone going by "Lavrentiy Beria (Jr)" back in March- any idea who that is? DARTHBOTTO talk• cont 05:48, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
User:DarthBotto, you rock the house. As for Encyclopedia Dramatica Users who try to get back at people, I thought they're page for me was cute. I have promoted it in fact. Unfortunately, it doesn't look like my help in promoting it is giving the page anymore hits. No one has even edited it or said anything bad about me past its origination from the first user. :( If you're going to troll somebody, at least stay consistent and don't fall off your horse. Hopefully, they're reading this and get on it over there! AmericanDad86 ( talk) 22:25, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Err.. with regards to this edit [9]. I like you and have a great deal of respect for you. We had the feud going once upon a time when I first arrived on the seen and we didn't get each other, but I thought that we had long buried that hatchet and developed an admiration for each other. I am unsure why you feel as if I don't like you. I don't feel I have done anything in the recent pass to suggest this? You are a very respectable admin as far as I am concerned, Bbb23. It is just my honest opinion that User:Drmies is not. AmericanDad86 ( talk) 22:05, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello. Our friend is back: Special:Contributions/82.214.103.10. Note this earlier edit [10] where he admits to being Asdidis. Now back to the exact same stuff [11]. I am directly involved in a content dispute on the page, could you handle this please? Chillum 16:25, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Since you are not editing right now I will just post at ANI: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Block_evasion. Thanks. Chillum 18:39, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello. Could you take another look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Tzufun? The previous CU revealed a lot of other fresh accounts. Cheers and thanks for your help with all the other SPIs recently! SmartSE ( talk) 09:55, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
So related to the little drama on my talk page (thanks btw), editor goes into Mustafa Kemal Atatürk to post some badly-sourced POV and starts inserting Armenia-related material into say Andre Agassi and whatnot, does that mean they should be warned about the DS around Armenia? I ask because they haven't actually and directly edited any Armenia articles. § FreeRangeFrog croak 21:45, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for addressing the Nomoonman sockpuppet investigation. Now that he is linked to GammaCepheus001, and I have had a chance to review GammaCepheus001's edit history, I have a suspicion that the sock master for this whole group is actually User:Jonas Poole. Besides a shared interest in cetaceans, both GammaCepheus001 and User:Jonas Poole have a particular interest in History of Whaling and Timeline of European exploration. [12] GammaCepheus001 has also edited the article on the actual Jonas Poole. And Nomoonman's penchant for insulting editors he disagrees with is reminiscent of Jonas' interactions with other editors. And Jonas too has a large stable of confirmed sockpuppets Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Jonas Poole. So you may want to check into whether both these sock groups are linked. Rlendog ( talk) 21:53, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Would you take a look at the pages created by User:MusicAngels and his/her activity in creating large pages unilaterally and then blocking others from editing, deleting conversation on talk pages, and mostly being an ass? 128.90.39.137 ( talk) 01:07, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
This is this. And yes, the answer to your question in the block rationale is "both".-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 19:37, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Acronym contains many links to commercial resources (e.g., dictionaries, servers with heavy advertising), but MAX - My Acronym eXtractor has just been deleted. It is on topic and is identified as a sponsored edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spaddock ( talk • contribs) 23:01, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
I just want to say "good job" to everyone involved in the "donut sock" investigation: From my first report to your block of the master plus eight socks appears to have taken just two hours. Regarding the two questionable accounts, I have watches on them and will monitor for inappropriate activity, but I don't expect to see any. Etamni | ✉ | ✓ 05:47, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes, it was totally accidental. Damned touch screens, anyway. Thanks for fixing it. My apologies for any inconvenience or confusion, MarnetteD. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:06, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello Bbb23, I have added another note about an additional sock account at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Salamuddin.Shaikh89, but am not quite sure if that was the correct way to do it in a "closed" case page. It would be great, if you could have a look (or fix my mess, if needed ...). Many thanks. GermanJoe ( talk) 07:43, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Please re-verify your revert here. My edit included the nationality and not just flag but you removed the nationality completely. — CutestPenguin Hangout 14:31, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
{{
infobox person}}
("Do not link if a commonly known nationality. Do not use a flag template.").--
Bbb23 (
talk)
14:37, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for the quick response on FF2 socks Bbb23. It looks like a new one has just been created here JackBRootJss ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Does adding a new SPI report when the most recent one has not been archived cause any problems? Thanks for your time. MarnetteD| Talk 18:47, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
![]() |
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar |
Thanks for the work you do with respect to socks. It is appreciated. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 23:50, 30 August 2015 (UTC) |
He has previous SPI, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/게이큐읭.
Just FYI. — regards, Revi 12:25, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
*@revi.me
? I'm sending it again anyway. — regards,
Revi
16:15, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
92.40.102.170 [13] - I am sure Evlekis simply forgot to log-in!. Velella Velella Talk 23:12, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi Bbb23 - I saw you recently handled this sock investigation and had a question. The accounts in questions are actually socks of User:Jonas Poole, the original master account (as far as I'm aware) - is there a method to merge the investigation reports? Thanks. Parsecboy ( talk) 16:39, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello! Can you please update the info on Cumberbatch's page regarding Hamlet. It's still in future tense and it should be in his lead section. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by HamletBarbican ( talk • contribs) 03:05, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
![]() |
You do a good job. Sometimes I'm a prick, BLP is important. Keep up the good work. Dave Dial ( talk) 05:38, 2 September 2015 (UTC) |
Facepalm — I got distracted with blocking a couple of the IPs on the page due to being webhosts, then, after investigating, I full-protected and went to close it but found you only chose to issue a warning. This was totally my bad; I double checked for an admin action on the page history itself, but didn't think to refresh AN3. :P If you think it doesn't need a full-protect, I have no problem with reverting it. I just thought it made sense as I already had to deal with a report on it a few days ago (and had only protected it 3 days). Other than that, I found the same conclusions as you, though it took a lot of time. :P --
slakr\
talk /
07:22, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Would you see this page please? [14] -- Altostratus ( talk) 08:42, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
I edited pages with pure intentions. Sorry that you found them to be vandalism. FallopianDude ( talk) 15:21, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Greetings, I have evidence that this page is CURRENTLY being hacked. It has already been falsely edited causing defamation although it was immediately resolved. I have a screenshot as proof. There is a user on this page that is relentlessly attempting to delete this page along with other users that have all deleted their pages immediately after their comment. How and who can I speak to about this as there are hackers actively trying to destroy pages on Wikipedia. Please advise. saritabaldonado 03:11, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
No, I don't know those individuals, I'm a fan of Sarah Fasha's and she has a YouTube channel where she made a video about how she was threatened and was told that there was going to be an attempt to delete her page. I also gathered many links to prove her notability and why she should keep her page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Saritabaldonado ( talk • contribs) 02:58, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
{{
Edit semi-protected}}
on the article Talk page. I'd stay clear of the attacks, though.--
Bbb23 (
talk)
04:14, 4 September 2015 (UTC)Thank you I will do it there but can you please elaborate on "staying clear of attacks"?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saritabaldonado ( talk • contribs) 04:27, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi, can I kindly request more advice on this article /info/en/?search=Mary_Laurent Can I request your admin office to consider a review and recreation of this article. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Halle178 ( talk • contribs) 23:16, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
In
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TeaLover1996 you blocked and tagged
User:Sociable Computer as a sockpuppet of the indeffed
User:TeaLover1996
Since then,
User:AH999 has removed the fresh start tag from his page, in
this edit
However, in
this edit
User:AH999 admitted he was editing as
User:Zafiraman, which went through a name change to
User:TeaLover1996 at 23:31, 11 February 2015 - so he is now reactivating an old account.
User:ComputerTechGuy and
User:Alex hudson99 have already been shown to be socks of
User:AH999
I also have suspicions about
User:RedRanger1996 who is also a Middleborough supporter and has only exchanged 2 posts with
User:TeaLover1996
How do I re-open a non-archived SPI, to consolidate these reports/problems? - or is this sufficient for you to add the ducks to the existing case? - Arjayay ( talk) 20:03, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, I started running a check here just as you marked it as in progress. I'll head for lunch and let you do all of the work ;) -- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 19:05, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Would it be okay if I used a couple of yours? Takk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Izmik ( talk • contribs) 15:03, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello! I filed a sockpuppet investigation yesterday and am wondering if I have to notify them on their talk pages? I didn't see anything saying I did but, it does have a "defend yourself" section and am now wondering... how would they know to do that if they haven't been notified? Thanks in advance! Cebr1979 ( talk) 00:31, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello Bbb23,
Someone left a message on my talk page regarding an article you deleted. Here it is:
How do I get back my deleted article? I'm really struggling with how this site works its very confusing & I don't know who deleted it in the 1st place. Any help would be appreciated. The page title was "Hecate's Wheel" & it was deleted March 2015 VickiJazPrncess (talk) 03:14, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Cheers, -- cera don 03:28, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi Bbb, it's 99--don't even think about lumping me in among 'vandalism edits' [15]. I'll send you emails of bad paintings. 2601:188:0:ABE6:B169:DAFB:E15A:DBC4 ( talk) 23:08, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I am not sure if you saw my comments here. Since you stated that there was no non-stale puppet for Andres, I suggested that a recent sock ( LoveFerguson) might have been misclassified as NoCal100. There hasn't been a formal SPI for this account: it was blocked on a WP:DUCK basis (see my discussion with the blocker here). NoCal and Andres have been confused before, see this for an example. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 14:24, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
![]() |
The Reviewer's Barnstar | |
For tireless work as a pending changes reviewer. LavaBaron ( talk) 17:15, 7 September 2015 (UTC) |
Hello
Before I even had a chance to respond to this nomination the page was deleted by you. There are hundreds of profiles on this site for porn stars and Nikki Sinn is just as notable and important as they are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fighterfontana34 ( talk • contribs) 02:17, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
User:130.25.240.84 has resumed editing after their block expired. Since it's already been established that the account is a suspected sockpuppet, a re-block would be necessary without going to WP:SPI. Electric Burst( Electron firings)( Zaps) 22:27, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello Bbb23. I'd like to thank you personally for removing Parrhesiast's e-mail access. I've just received an insulting e-mail that he sent me before you did that; it was sent with the apparent objective of harvesting information about me (my mail filter added a warning that the e-mail "contains content that's typically used to steal personal information"). FreeKnowledgeCreator ( talk) 03:21, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Is there a tool to look up word usage or phrases by editors within their contributions? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:45, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pradeep Kumar Page4me. Thanks.
Gparyani (
talk)
01:21, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Thoughts? — ATinySliver/ ATalkPage 🖖 06:04, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
Did you get the chance to look over the email I sent to you a couple of days ago?-- 5 albert square ( talk) 21:40, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Please revdel your SPI of Iran nuclear weapons 2. It is an explicit invasion of privacy by an account that explicitly stated from the start that it was created for privacy. Thank you. Iran nuclear weapons 3 ( talk) 05:57, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
I'm very confused by this. Not related to the master or to SBUX but using an account name that is a variation on the confirmed socks used previously? Is this a case of a copycat or a case of a master getting smarter on how to sock under the radar? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:57, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello. Would you please take a look at Chewers Meat ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? My Evlekis detector started flashing when this "new" editor started reverting me on articles that I had edited a few hours earlier, as several other Evlekis socks have done lately. Their very first edit replaced the official 2011 Indian census data I had added, the most official data there is for demographics in India (as every real Indian well knows), on Uttar Pradesh with older data, with the bogus reason "unsourced, unfounded", and after doing that and some gnoming on the same article they then continued to Demographics of Uttar Pradesh to do the same thing there. Continuing to revert me with similar bogus reasons even after I told them not to replace newer data with older data. The comments on their own talk page and on my talk page are also in typical Evlekis style. As for possibly being good faith edits, or at least edits by someone other than Evlekis, the two articles I was reverted on, like all other articles about Indian states, districts and cities, often see Indian editors trying to add fake data for religions, with Muslims inflating the number of Muslims at the expense of Hindus, and Hindus inflating the number of Hindus at the expense of everyone else, but since all Indians know that the official census data trump every other source they only change the numbers, leaving the reference alone, unlike this "new editor" who has repeatedly replaced the census reference with older and/or less reliable sources. In addition to that the only ones who would object to the new census data are Hindu activists, since the new data show that the number of Muslims in Uttar Pradesh increase faster than the number of Hindus, resulting in a higher percentage of Muslims and lower prcentage of Hindus in the 2011 data compared to the 2001 data. But a devout Hindu would never choose a user name like Chewers Meat, since devout Hindus are vegetarians for religious reasons, just like a devout Muslim never would choose a user name that includes the word "pork". And when you combine all of that the chance/risk of this being a new Evlekis sock is, IMHO, well over 50%... Thomas.W talk 06:26, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
...I stepped on your toes. Sorry!-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 20:38, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello. Would you mind removing talk page access for the Evlekis socks you blocked today? He has started to get all worked up tonight, like every Friday... Thomas.W talk 21:07, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
This guy is now here. EauZenCashHaveIt ( I'm All Ears) 06:24, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick action! In the course of revdel'g all of his edits (apparently he takes pride in his "creativity", and hates revdels), I found several more:
Would you mind CUing those as well? Thanks, NawlinWiki ( talk) 18:54, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi Bbb, I've received admonitions for attempting to curb a user who appears determined to self-promote, most recently by using a sandbox page to copypaste an unrelated good quality article, inserting their own name and photo therein [16]. This strikes me as a persistent disruption. I've already emailed Drmies for his feedback; anything you can contribute would be appreciated. I hope you're enjoying a serene weekend. Aside from this, of course. Very best, JNW ( talk) 14:55, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
Sorry to bother you, but I wanted to take a bit of your time to address a recent concern I had with User:RMS52's conduct on en-wiki. Recently, I came across User_talk:RMS52#Your_conduct and decided you may be the best person to discuss the issue with, as you were one of the most recent people addressing a similar issue on his talk page. Personally, I have received two users on #wikipedia-en-help (IRC) pinging/messaging/linking me to User:RMS52's clerking. It seems to me that despite multiple warnings/mentions of concern on the user's talk page, the user has not changed their conduct to address recent concerns. For example, after you had left a message on the user's talk page, the user commented here. Although DRN is a place for volunteers to contribute their respective thoughts, as User:RMS52 may rightfully do so as well, what concerns me is that the user seems to have anxious drive to clerk on a variety of administrative pages without a detailed and meaningful insight into the issue at hand. Not to criticize, User:RMS52's grammar seems to reflect this claim. Also, after receiving certain permissions on WP:RFPERM pages, the user seems to be anxious to make comments or notes about other users consistently, which seems to be a way of condescending upon other users in the Wikipedia community. Although not all administrators may address the issue, as they may be more polite or not notice the issue, this trend has me concerned. Quite frankly, I would like some insight and a second opinion from you. I request that you either ping me or leave me a talkback on my user page when and if you reply to this message. -- JustBerry ( talk) 18:39, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi BB23, I'm asking you about this since you've very recently posted at AN3. Would you be willing to look at this open case, which is part of an ongoing previous case? [17]
Not sure why you deleted the South Shore Curling Club page ( /info/en/?search=South_Shore_Curling_Club) — can you please explain? There are pages for other curling clubs on Wikipedia — what makes those different? Ewire4130 ( talk) 19:17, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
Recently, through anti-vandal work, I have come across a handful of "IP hopping" or "multi IP vandalism" cases. I've also come across a few users, who seem to improperly clerking on RFPERM and SPI pages. However, these encounters have got me thinking about my role on Wikipedia and a recent barnstar I received from an admin, thanking me for keeping noticeboards organized, that is, in situations that I was either involved in or incidents, such as those on WP:DRN. I would like you to note is that my goal in mentioning the barnstar is not to boast about an acknowledgement, but rather use that as 'food for thought' towards offering myself for another role on Wikipedia. Without further ado, I'd like to offer myself as an SPI clerk trainee. The reason why I chose to contact you is because I have been involved in a number of discussions with you recently. Before making your decision, I kindly ask that you note the following:
Rather than making the decision finite, I would be more than happy to have a discussion on your talk page prior to making any final commits or decisions. If you are too busy or do not feel like training a clerk, please do not feel offended to tell me so. I would be more than willing to either consider the role at another time or ask another CheckUser - whatever you suggest or works for you. Of course, if you do not think I would be a fit clerk candidate, by all means, please don't hesitate to mention that as well. Thanks
--
JustBerry (
talk)
00:10, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
![]() |
I opened up another suspected sock-puppet, this time with the same level of image uploading as previous socks. livelikemusic my talk page! 02:36, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
I appear to have spelled "Pritikin" as "Scarsdale" on an ANI report... ...how do I best fix this? Anmccaff ( talk) 04:13, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
The request for formal mediation concerning Andy Whitfield, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.
For the Mediation Committee,
TransporterMan (
TALK)
13:16, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
(Delivered by
MediationBot,
on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)
I saw your name in conjunction with Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Brianalaflair. I wanted to let you know that a new user, Mckeezykmusic ( talk · contribs) has re-created the article Mc keezy k(Musician). What is the right action to take? Thanks. ubiquity ( talk) 15:12, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. ubiquity ( talk) 15:18, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
![]() |
The Checkuser's Barnstar | |
Thanks for all your help with the SPIs I've raised recently! 5 albert square ( talk) 16:00, 15 September 2015 (UTC) |
This is a message from the Wikimedia Foundation. Translations are available.
As you may know, the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees approved a new "Access to nonpublic information policy" on 25 April 2014 after a community consultation. The former policy has remained in place until the new policy could be implemented. That implementation work is now being done, and we are beginning the transition to the new policy.
An important part of that transition is helping volunteers like you sign the required confidentiality agreement. All Wikimedia volunteers with access to nonpublic information are required to sign this new agreement, and we have prepared some documentation to help you do so.
The Wikimedia Foundation is requiring that anyone with access to nonpublic information sign the new confidentiality agreement by 15 December 2015 (OTRS users have until 22 December 2015) to retain their access. You are receiving this email because you have access to nonpublic information and are required to sign the confidentiality agreement under the new policy.
Signing the confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information is conducted and tracked using Legalpad on Phabricator. The general confidentiality agreement is now ready, and the OTRS agreement will be ready after 22 September 2015. We have prepared a guide on Meta-Wiki to help you create your Phabricator account and sign the new agreement: Confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information/How to sign
If you have any questions or experience any problems while signing the new agreement, please
visit this talk page or email me (gvarnumwikimedia.org). Again, please sign this confidentiality agreement by 15 December 2015 (OTRS users have until 22 December 2015) to retain your access to nonpublic information. If you do not wish to retain this access, please let me know and we will forward your request to the appropriate individuals.
Thank you,
Gregory Varnum (
User:GVarnum-WMF), Wikimedia Foundation
Posted by the MediaWiki message delivery 23:33, 15 September 2015 (UTC) • Translate • Get help
![]() |
Thanks for dealing with the SPI. Apologies if I complicated or over-dramatized anything by submitting to ANI, if I come across similar issues I'll be sure to keep it to SPI. Thanks again! RA0808 talk contribs 05:03, 16 September 2015 (UTC) |
Another new one [19]. W C M email 18:32, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
I realized you recently declined this SPI case. However, I have additional accounts that may be linked to this account this time. I just wanted to inform you that I have opened another SPI case on the same page to avoid any confusion, as I realize the case may be ready for archiving already. -- JustBerry ( talk) 02:35, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello. It's Friday evening on this side of the pond and Evlekis is drunk and bored as usual, pasting my talk page full of abuse to liven himself up. So would you mind doing a CU-check on Bucksham Superior ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? It might lead us to a few more socks... Thomas.W talk 19:07, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
![]() |
The Checkuser's Barnstar | |
Despite our recent discussions, it would be beyond thinking to understand what SPI would be without you. Thank you for your tireless efforts to maintain a low SPI back log and proactively answer to user concerns. Your hard work is thoroughly appreciated by myself and plenty others on the wiki, and I want you to know that. Not to mention, thanks for being honest and guiding me accordingly. -- JustBerry ( talk) 23:55, 18 September 2015 (UTC) |
Shouldnt the block duration just be extended? Why the immediate indefinite block? [20] Misdemenor ( talk) 02:10, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello Bbb23,
I appreciate your review of the recent creation of the Doc.G.Sound Entertainment article here on wikipedia. I understand why you would consider deletion for the article, although it is nowhere near finished and contains very minimal information. Our team thought it best to create the page to reserve its name, and return at a later date to complete the article. We are confident that once completed, the article will meet all of wikipedias criteria. I kindly ask you to reverse your submission for a speedy deletion of the article, and allow us the time to complete it. Your time and consideration is much appreciated.
Thank You. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Armando Guarnera ( talk • contribs) 04:14, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Bbb23,
I went ahead and followed your helpful advice, thank you.
Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Riathamus000#Clerk.2C_CheckUser.2C_and.2For_patrolling_admin_comments.
I identified the oldest account.
I added evidence in the form of individual DIFF LINKs for each of the named accounts.
Please see DIFF.
Hopefully this is now satisfactory.
And, truly, thanks for asking me to be more specific, I think thanks to you now this is a much stronger case -- so thank you for that !!!
— Cirt ( talk) 05:05, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
To clarify, the user appears to be either switching IPs and making new accounts or simply making new accounts from their current IP. Can an IP block or minor regional block of some sort be given? Especially from this discussion, it seems like the problem is on-going. -- JustBerry ( talk) 16:18, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Yes, sorry about that, I'd forgotten A7 wasn't for schools - or perhaps it just didn't feel like a school as it's a nursery school. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blessing Academy, Darjeeling, India. Pam D 16:41, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
This comes as a surprise to me because it has been used before and visibly applies to that article. In that case, what should happen? The article simply appears to have no improvement and she has no listed work. SwisterTwister talk 17:24, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Hey Bbb, what's wrong with a soft block? Did you want no block, or did you want a harder block? Either way, it's typically what I do if I don't look at the actual edits (to see if they're promotional, if it's more than just one thing, etc.) but I know the name is wrong. Toodles, Drmies ( talk) 01:09, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello sir,
I wanted to talk to you as to why you undid my changes to the Galerie Gmurzynska page? I believe it is essential to have a list of artists that the gallery has exhibited. In fact, most galleries have such a list as it informs the reader on the represented artists and history of said gallery. If the issue are sources, I deem it fair to add a disclaimer stating that citations are needed on top.
I hope you will understand my point of view, I'm looking forward to your response. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RioHazgul ( talk • contribs) 12:52, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi there, Thanks for your editing on this page which I think is well-judged. If you look over this article's history, you will see that it has been littered with attempts by employees to fill it with commercial and promotional material, even secreting this as "references" sometimes. In addition, it has continually attempted to suppress aspects of its history which it would like to keep hidden (see "controversies"). As I think you have already noticed, RioHazgul and Lord lynley are obvious instances of WP:SOCK (again, not the first time) and they ought to be banned, if they have not already removed themselves. (I suspect it may well be one and the same person). I appreciated your vigilance on this page. Grammophone ( talk) 15:14, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Yes, no problem. All wording under "controversies" is based on the sources cited and is already radically edited in the interests of "neutrality". Regarding the German sources, again, the well-documented VAT scandal has been reduced to just a couple of lines; however, those facts can be easily checked. If you copy and paste the German texts into Google translate it will give you a clear enough text, and all the sources agree on the facts cited. I am happy to monitor the whitewashing, abuse of references etc. From your side, I am sure you can see the importance of monitoring for WP:SOCK. This page was begun by employees of the gallery who thought it would make a good free advert, and almost everyone who has edited since has fallen more or less into this category as far as I can see. Grammophone ( talk) 16:26, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
(Whole question's in the title)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Anmccaff ( talk • contribs)
Unblock request at User talk:Hanchos, where the editor admits wrongdoing, and expresses the intention to do better. Unblock to give a second chance? The editor who uses the pseudonym " JamesBWatson" ( talk) 15:49, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
User:GorillaWarfare said I could: [21]. Ping me upon reply. -- JustBerry ( talk) 13:14, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
How far back in time do you want the SPI? I can present a good case leading all the way back to a sock master that was indeffed in 2006, and then used multiple CU-confirmed throw-away accounts to push the same Finnish/Kven POV as the throw-away accounts that were CU-blocked yesterday, based on the same and similar sources as they used, on the same articles that they edited. If you want me to I can email you the details before filing an SPI-report. Thomas.W talk 19:46, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
You may also want to look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Finnedi/Archive. Yngvadottir ( talk) 00:01, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
... so could someone please block and do a CU-check? Thomas.W talk 18:05, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi, Bbb23,
Regarding
this edit, I've noticed that on a number of SPI pages, what appears is the username and related links but For archived investigations, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Palvoncha abbai/Archive link, for example, did not appear. I purged the page but that didn't help.
I'm not sure why adding a break or extra space causes a link to the archive to appear but this has happened to me on about a half dozen SPI case pages where the link archive doesn't appear. I make the small edit and the link to the archive appears when the page reloads. But I acknowledge that this isn't my area to work in and I'll leave well enough alone.
Liz
Read!
Talk!
00:00, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
?action=purge&forcelinkupdate=true
after the URL). ☺ ·
Salvidrim! ·
✉
00:03, 25 September 2015 (UTC)Unless I am misinterpreting, I believe from the wording it is only applicable for articles made after the master was banned, i.e., for Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TejaswaChaudhary, July 9, 2015. (2015-07-9) (unless anyone in the group was banned before that) In this case, that includes everyone from the group, so it makes no practical difference, but perhaps it should be stated more exactly DGG ( talk ) 23:01, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
this? You probably already know the length of time that I would implement. :)
—
Berean Hunter
(talk)
21:10, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Okay, I am going to think about it first. Bbb23 has given me food for thought. HighInBC (was Chillum) 23:40, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello Bbb23
Thanks for your response concerning this issue:
I understand your statement about "No Violation".
But truly User:Grammophone has been making lots of disruptive edits and reverts on Galerie Gmurzynska. He has been warned and blocked twice. Yet, he keeps coming back to make all sorts of disruptive edits. He keeps sabotaging the page and focusing on negative content. His account is solely focused on editing the said page.
Please, how do we stop him from causing more harm. Where else can he be reported? How can he be blocked or banned indefinitely having been warned/blocked twice in the past. Xandyxyz ( talk)
Thanks "Bbb23" for quick response. I am an insider in the company. I'm well aware about COI issue in wikipedia and hence, I don't have to edit the article by myself. Wikipedia allows everyone to edit articles. User:Grammophone and many others have been editing Galerie Gmurzynska. This is a multi-billion dollar firm. We monitor the wiki page from time to time. We take a look at the edits. We only want the page to be neutral and properly sourced as it used to be. The problem we have is " User:Grammophone". All his edits and reverts focus only on sabotaging our company. I don't actually know why. Perhaps he's an ex-employee who's aggrieved or a competitor. I don't just know. Right now, another user "Ditto51" has reverted the recent edits made by " User:Grammophone". But before you know it, he comes back to undo the reverts. He has been warned and blocked last year October 2014. But he keeps coming back to sabotage the page. Every other editor that has edited the page have always done so in good faith. Check the User contributions of " User:Grammophone", you'll see that 95% of his edits are focused on the Galerie Gmurzynska. Let me know if you need any other info. Xandyxyz ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:32, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
I'm sorry if this page is proving frustrating User:Bbb23. I would like to clarify the editing history so that you can act accordingly. "Making sure the customers are happy" about sums it up. The multiple accounts editing Galerie Gmurzynska past and present can be explained by the fact that they have been/are being set up by gallery employees in order to whitewash uncomfortable stories in its history, including recent; that is, the only times when Gmurzynska has drawn press attention beyond the commercial art world seems to be when it has been involved in scandals such as the recent VAT evasion case and the huge smuggling operation of Russian treasures from the Khardzhiev archive, about which much more could be said. To my mind, the widespread international mainstream press attention these incidents have attracted are precisely the reason why this article passes WP:GNG. That may be unfortunate for the gallery itself, but without them this article is always liable to read like an advertisement, which is what the page was set up to be. The account above misrepresents the 2014 edit warring episode. It is true that there were multiple edits and undo edits back and forth and some bans as a result. Where I was transparent about this, gallery employees used multiple accounts including WP:SOCK where User:Andemw3 was a sock puppet for User:Art&Design3000. (I have strong suspicions that WP:SOCK has occurred again recently with User:RioHazgul and User:Lord lynley.) In the end, the article achieved a settled form, with a limited and diluted summary of the gallery's various scandals offered under "controversies". It was left alone for several months before the recent attempt to give it an entirely commercial and flattering look again. My version of the article offers nothing more than short summaries and quotations of the sources given. If the gallery thinks that those sources have made unfounded allegations then it should address the relevant publications and seek a retraction. (I presume it would have done so at the time of publication if it felt justified in so doing.) Until then, they remain the only aspects of Gmurszynska's history likely to interest general readers and as such they should stay. As for the deletions I have made, the gallery makes various claims about its commercial exhibitions and sales catalogues which are simply not true or grossly exaggerated and require proper citations if they are to be included. I would like to see some action taken against the continual insertion of improperly referenced material and references that link to what are basically advertisements. Grammophone ( talk) 23:26, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
I am an art historian and art lover with a particular interest in Russian art of the early- twentieth century. This gallery smuggled and dispersed an archive of major historical importance which can never be replaced and is now permanently lost to researchers. I think that anyone who deals with Gmurzynska has a right to know about this and other highly dubious activities in which it has been involved. If you read this article, which only scratches the surface, or the piece in New Left Review, you may understand why I feel this way: cite Grammophone ( talk) 00:03, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
The article notes that, “In his final book, APJ Abul Kalam, explains that he considers Pramukh Swami as his guru”. User Swamiblue wrote on the talk page: “do not believe it is appropriate as pramukh swami was accused of rape and sexual assualt last year and it might bring negative attention to Dr. Kalam.” ( diff here) The user had been warned earlier that such insertions on a talk page constitute BLP Violations and user had even been blocked for a similar issue in another article: ( diff here) and here is the block log for the violation link here. When I or another editor had removed the offending material on Dr. Kalam’s page with an explanation that this is a BLP violation, Swamiblue is persistent to add it back stating “Not BLP violation. Discussing valid point”, despite having been blocked for a BLP violation previously: diff here
And more recently User, seemingly emboldened by any lack of consequence for his persistent violation, added the following edit on Pramukh Swami’s talk page: “Has anyone gotten news regarding this mans passing? I know any day now but some people have been posting on messenger services that this guy has croaked this weekend and someone else has taken over but so far that is not true unfortunately.” ( diff here) Wishing for the death of one of the leaders of the Swaminarayan group shows not just a simple bias but a form of hatred. Not only is this a BLP violation, but the comment that “he is unfortunately not dead” should get user banned from editing any Swaminarayan related articles because of a conflict of interest that emerges even more clearly when we see that user appears to have a single purpose account ( WP:SPA) with more than 95% of his 600+ edits related to the promotion of a particular point of view on articles related to Swaminarayan. That is, all of user’s disruptive edits are targeted towards Swaminarayan Hinduism, suggesting a conflict of interest. Based on his previous disruptive activity on Swaminarayan-related pages, such uncivil comments as wishing for someone’s death, the fact that user’s edits betray a single purpose account, user cannot be trusted to be neutral on topics related to Swaminarayan. Thus, I feel there is grounds that User:Swamiblue be banned from editing such topics due to their long-term abuse on such topics.
A more comprehensive report was posted here: see this link.
Kapil.xerox ( talk) 15:11, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello. My guts tell me that Special:Contributions/Suomisvenks is Evlekis. The style and behaviour doesn't match anyone who has been active on the article I was reverted on, but it does match Evlekis. The username is also misspelt... Thomas.W talk 17:42, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your ANI close. However, there appears to be a lack of clarity with their application of the alternate account policy here. Per your CU experience and your recent involvement in the user's ANI, I thought I would have you take a look. You may also want to dig into their contributions while noting that they have been blocked for edit warring in the past. To be honest, although my digging suggests against this (block creation log prior to creation of RMS52 and SPI investigation on RMS52 did not reveal this account as a master/sock), it seems a lot like RMS52's case earlier this month. -- JustBerry ( talk) 01:07, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
IF WHAT I DID IN ADDING TO THE ACCURACY AND DETAIL OF SAID ARTICLE ON US CONGRESS HISTORY which according to my little notation here says you reverted as to being "wordy" - is pretty stupid and arrogant and I wonder what sort of academic training you have had in history and political science plus half-century in absorbing such material as I??!! Seems pretty short-siighted,ignorant and blind especially rather ARROGANT to cut down someone else's work especially by your very crass comment shows how inadequate a self-appointed "administrator"-YOU ARE!! One of major criticisms of Wiki is after over coming its initial untrustworthiness and inaccuracy with wild crazy article submittals & edits/revisions -now we have bland mundane often inaccurate information because of jerks like you who are mentally challenged by any long detailed sentences/paragraphs!! Are you a junior high school student so you like simple dumbed down information!! Plan to do something as others have mentioned about small cadre of self-appointed judges dictators and word messiahs! Did you even HAVE THE CAPACITY to see the accuracy or truth of what I expounded on in early Congressional history in the late 18th or early 19th centuries??! - BAH, hah - probably NO!! = D.E.T (Baltimore, Maryland - Saturday evening, 9/26/15 -- 12 midnight. == personal e-mail address box at: duanetressler@outlook.com) Duane E. Tressler ( talk) 05:00, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello User:Bbb23, you have been mentioned in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Complaint_against_administrator_conduct and if you desire, enter a statement, and any other material you choose to submit to the Arbitration Committee's attention. You may find useful information by reviewing the following links as well:
Thank you for the attention you have given this matter. Olowe2011 Talk 12:55, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello Bbb23, I could use the help from someone experienced with more complex socking situations please. See this page curation log. Especially recent entries like United Consulting Group, created 7:09 with (with several possibly fake offline sources), "reviewed" at 7:11, 2 minutes later. RoofingHub (with several possibly fake offline sources) finished at 7:13, "reviewed" immediately at 7:13 (RoofingHub edits were reviewed 3 times from the same account in the past, hardly a coincidence). The Man Van (with several possibly fake offline sources) created 8:06, "reviewed" immediately at 8:06. The reviewing account has started in April 2015 with the typical pseudo edits, since then contributions show a strange obsession with trivial CSDs and 1 borderline-notable article James Allen (company). The article page was created as redirect, and later filled up with content (another typical sock tactic of course). In short: There is a 10 percent chance for a good faith editor, but this stinks like a helper account. I have already added 2 related Orangemoody socks to Orangemoody SPI, but wanted to get another more experienced opinion before adding the "reviewer" account to the case page. It would be great, if you could look into this weird pattern more closely. Thanks for any advice. GermanJoe ( talk) 12:27, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
I am the editor who created Sheila Cameron (artist), which was nominated for deletion and then for speedy deletion by Olowe2011, who then also brought the issue to the administrators' noticeboard after reverting another user's closing of the speedy nomination. Thank you for closing the discussion there (though I was in the process of drafting a comment when you did, now lost). I had initially conflated closing the discussion with closing the speedy nomination, and misidentified the user who had done both, so I wanted to thank the correct person. This was my first time interacting with the administrators' noticeboard, and I didn't see the box in which your closing comments were located at first.
The change to speedy deletion nomination was noted as being solely because "the subject of the article in fact requested for the article to be made." I have explained to Olowe2011 at the AfD discussion page that there is no inherent problem with a user requesting that an article about themselves (or their company or organization) be created, it being preferred to the creation of articles by users with a COI, and that Wikipedia:Requested articles exists in part to accommodate such requests. I have doubts as to whether Olowe2011 will accept this coming from me, however — and it's possible I'm the one who has misunderstood Wikipedia policy regarding such situations — so I would appreciate it if you would comment regarding the issue of requested article creation at the AfD page, being more likely to be regarded as an authority on the matter than I am. Thank you in advance, whether your comment favors my position or not. — GrammarFascist contribs talk 04:25, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Hey there User:Bbb23
On the Connor Franta page, you removed "Philathropist" from his lead section. By definition, a philanthropist actively donates or contributes in some way to a cause(s), which he does. He has started, for the second year, a campaign towards raising awareness and money towards a respected charity, the Thirst Project. Therefore I believe that he should receive recognition in some way towards this. I respect that it is not a well defined term and that Philanthropy can apply to varying degrees, but I just thought I'd mention it.
I have left the page the way it is pending your answer.
Many thanks
JC ( talk) 17:58, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
I noticed that you blocked Zeremony, but I have some questions regarding the sockmaster. As far as I can determine, you CU'd Zeremony against LoveFerguson (and some other accounts listed here under "Group 1") but did not perform a CU against AndresHerutJaim/NoCal/Wlglunight93. Andres has no non-stale sock, but NoCal has All Rows4 and Silver surprise, and Wlglunight93's last socks were Averysoda and ISavedPvtRyan.
Right now, they seem to be standalone socks, unrelated to others in this area? If my understanding is correct, this is not totally right. My suspicion is that LoveFerguson/Zeremony etc. actually socks of Wlglunight93. It would be helpful if this could be checked and connected up, because all of these socks are prolific, and it is good to know their latest incarnations for CU or other purposes. If you want, I can open a new SPI with evidence but the Zeremony one already contains a lot of diffs connecting LoveFerguson and Wlglunight93. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 12:55, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Sorry If I come off as a bit cross but why would you delete a page that talks about my religion? I created the page out of a want and a need to have it be heard, I am deeply offended that you think my religion is a hoax, that you think its not fit to be on this website. I'm sorry if you couldn't see that as a religion, it is just as valid as any other, and I apologize for our religions retention of information about itself, I just felt as though a small page could do no harm. I felt as though it was something we deserved as a group. DatJason324 ( talk) 22:49, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi Bbb23, I am contacting you about deleting the following page I created: /info/en/?search=Project_Numbat
This was the first page on Wikipedia I created. I can accept it wasn't perfect but I do contest it being deleted. The page described the importance of this not-for-profit group in helping to save the numbat from extinction. I would like to know why an important contributor to the future of Australian wildlife, that is acknowledged as a key stakeholder by a federal state departement such as the Australian Department of Parks and Wildlife, and by a globally recognised research institute such as Perth Zoo, does not deserve to have its own Wikipedia page? Thanks for getting back to me.
Eveline Ememasco ( talk) 06:19, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee has declined the Request for Arbitration Committee judgement arbitration case request, which you were listed as a party to. For the Arbitration Committee, L235 ( t / c / ping in reply) 13:00, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello there. I created a page on a BBC Presenter who is a high profile radio personality in the North West of England. Can you explain why it has been deleted for being a form of advertising please? This is definitely not the case and it is purely an information page concerning that person. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by MediaChris69 ( talk • contribs) 02:38, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Not something I do very often - it has to be pretty obvious for me to dust off those tools. Thx for the support. — Ched : ? 05:16, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Dear Bbb23,
On September 29th I added a paragraph entitled "Narcissism and Homosexuality" on the "Homosexuality" page. Later that day you delelted that section on the grounds that I do not own the the rights to the refence I gave. What kind of permission should I attach in order to prove that the author gave me his permission to use his article.
Barak — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barakpick ( talk • contribs) 05:21, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your help in the 3RR/edit warring noticeboard concerning the article above. [22]
Would it be possible to have a notification or statement from you, either on the talk page or noticeboard, positing clearly that Hal2k1 is in breach of WP:NOR? Though ostensibly in good faith, Hal2k1 continues to claim that he intends to modify the article in accordance with his original research. He has already been informed clearly of his breach of wikipedia policy by other users ([ [23]] and [ [24]]), but input from an administrator would help settle this dispute once and for all.
Thank you in advance. Cartesian5712 ( talk) 15:58, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
I feel like I've ransacked his talk page so decided to just move over here (plus those little fencing men things getting in the way all the time are really annoying) . I'll still leave it till I'm back from my weekend but, do thank you for your help with this (and *lol* at your 'never heard of common sense' comment). I have done a lot of thinking recently (and have also seen first-hand recently) and see how discussing rather than being a hot-headed, arrogant, sarcastic, reverting jerk can actually help move things along faster. We haven't had the greatest run-ins in the past, you and I (because of me, not you), but, I'm trying (though don't expect the sarcasm to just disappear, that's my style and always has been/will be). :-) Bye for now. Cebr1979 ( talk) 02:09, 1 October 2015 (UTC) Cebr1979 ( talk) 02:09, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Would you mind checking User:ThisGuyIsGreat and User:Wikipedia Is The Coolest Thing Ever? Thanks, NawlinWiki ( talk) 02:04, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello B. Since both you and Ponyo receive more than enough nonsense on your talk pages I can understand your reverting this. But, even though the IPs edits were nonsense, I thought it was worth Ponyo's being able to check the claim that this was a sock of someone. That is why I took the time to put the edits together. Ponyo and I have worked together before on tracking down socks. You and I have as well way back to this editor long ago. I reverted on P's page before posting here so if that is my mistake plz revert again. I know that bulls are color blind so the red cape is just for show. I wish the red dot didn't have the effect that the cape doesn't. Thanks for your time. MarnetteD| Talk 03:37, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi Bbb23, Thank you for your action in investigating this sockpuppetry account. I'm bit curious as you have blocked some of the accounts such as this User:Devhalo and User:ElrondPestano, I have just checked at the edits of both account and it appears they don't have direct edits to Vmoney inc or Vmoney, or any direct involvement in suspecting the sock behaviour. Is it normal for a checkuser to block multiple accounts without evidence of edits? But there might be a serious concern since there could be more than one person using the same IP Address as I'm unable to predetermine the evidence of the mentioned accounts to accuse them of abusing multiple accounts. Any comments are appreciated in regards to this topic. ♔ MONARCH Talk to me 03:58, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Gringoladomenega / PhilStar01 is evading block and edit warring in Léo (footballer, born 1990). SLBedit ( talk) 14:19, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure that threatening to block a throwaway zombie account if they continue their mischief at SPI [25] is likely to have much effect. A glance at the user's contribution history is suggestive.
We know that WoW and other game accounts are bought and sold on various trading boards. I expect that Wikipedia credentials can be bought in the same neighborhood. MarkBernstein ( talk) 14:57, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
I noticed you deleted my Seeds of Learning page. I am wondering why you think it is not a credible article? Is there something else I can add when I recreate this page? How can I add to it to make it less likely to get deleted? Thanks, Isabel — Preceding unsigned comment added by Isabelweinerth ( talk • contribs) 23:21, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi. So why would an anon IP editor edit this page at all? I don't understand. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 11:59, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
I requested SP. Don't know if it'll be granted - I read that it's rarely done for user talk pages. Jeh ( talk) 12:06, 3 October 2015 (UTC)