![]() | This page 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. |
Hello - you recently finished a sockpuppet investigation Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/PositiveEM (thanks for that) where the user and his socks were blocked indefinitely. The user is back with a similar account User:Trinbago1868 ( contribs) - do I create a new checkuser each time he shows back up or is their a different process? -- R45 talk! 21:49, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
This is no sock puppet, How is it ?, Everytime I edit something or contribute to something you guys keep blocking me ?, How's that fair to me...... I edit and contribute to articles in a positive way as you can see at all times, So what is the problem, I'm I not supposed to be a contributor?, Is this not a free site to contribute positively ?, Tell me what or which because I honestly don't understand the reason for blocking my account everytime I contribute in a positive way on articles, I provide appropriate sources, pictures, articles, ect. What's the problem? I really want to know....... I'm I not obligated to having an equal share in the contributions to Wikipedia ?
-- Trinbago1868 ( talk) 21:55, 15 November 2015 (UTC)Trinbago1868
I noticed that you blocked 172.100.212.147 ( talk · contribs) following a checkuser. No argument there. I just wondered what issue that stemmed from. There's been a lot of promotional editing lately involving the many subsidiaries of NRDC Equity Partners, which include Hudson's Bay Company, Lord and Taylor, and Saks Fifth Avenue. That IP editor insists on my talk page User talk:Nagle that they're not paid by Saks, but they do seem to be narrowly focused on the marketing and expansion plans of the chain. Is this related to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive902#Lord and Taylor COI anon editor is back., or is there another issue involving that corporate family? Thanks. John Nagle ( talk) 20:25, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
![]() |
Thanks for the reminder re: user talk page policy. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 22:50, 15 November 2015 (UTC) |
The University of South Africa is a distance-learning centre. Specifically, it is impossible for a person to be in attendance. The given address for the organisation is University of South Africa
P O Box 392 Unisa 0003
How can I legitimately revise the Ergun Caner page to reflect this fact, and present information nearer to the truth?
My reference is the 'About' section to be found at - http://www.unisa.ac.za/Default.asp?Cmd=ViewContent&ContentID=3
It reads, "As Africa's leading open distance learning institution, we offer internationally accredited qualifications and have world-class resources that inspire learners to create meaningful futures on their own terms."
To suggest that somebody attended the university for any duration, in person, is to mislead all that come to reference the article.
Regards, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.90.174.151 ( talk) 00:22, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello. Altimgamr/JasonHaddad is active right now on a number of IPv6s in the same range ( 2607:FB90:270E:8F8D:0:49:FD39:6901 ( talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 2607:FB90:422:2BA8:0:3C:9CFD:8101 ( talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 2607:FB90:2C35:FDF7:0:25:543E:5B01 ( talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and one or two more, with only the first two currently being blocked) so could we have a range-block? He also posted on my talk page as The Flow In ( talk · contribs · count) (blocked by SpacemanSpiff), a user that might yield an IP or two and is interesting since they signed their post on my talk page as Altimgamr, which I see as a confirmation that I'm right about their identity. I have also seen another IP or two over the past two days, but can't find them right now. But he's apparently very active now, after having taking some time off... Thomas.W talk 15:58, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm a-trying. I have not quite achieved con-artist nirvana yet, though I got close on User_talk:MichaelQSchmidt. :-) As for dragging you into the nudges again, quite seriously, I don't at all think you are inhuman. But I do think that being an arb is an exceedingly trying job, which requires a lot of patience, yet at the same time the ability to not succumb to patter and pressures, of various sorts. That User:Diannaa is resisting my ever-so-artistic-patter, along with urging from a dozen other people, with grace and tact, strongly suggests she would be a great arb. That is a job that needs the ability to think what you think, and stick to it.
Diannaa has got it, and although you and her disagree about the nuances of the correct way to approach disruption, and the editors around disruption seems to statistically and habitually swirl, you have the same fundamental characteristic as she does: you think what you think, and you stick to it. Arbs are constantly getting pushed from various wiki-factions, trying to influence the remedies. Thus, to be a good arb, you have to have the goal of building an encyclopedia deeply ingrained, you have to know the wiki-policies both broadly and deeply, and you have to stick to what you think.
In conclusion, not only did I try to get you to run before, I *still* think you should run. :-) If you are worried about the timesink, and going poof, why don't you and Diannaa run on a joint ticket, two rock-solid wikipedians seeking a single arb-seat, and divvy up the responsibilities of the work betwixt yourselves, in any way you see fit? (Alternate days; alternate cases; flip a coin; draw straws; editcountitis during the past week; whatever.) Sure, it is a bit IAR, but that is allowed: if we want to have arbcom attract candidates worried about going poof, we need to come up with a way to make arb-ship less of a timesink. That means, in the short-term, off the wall things like two wikipedians running for arbship on a joint ticket; in the medium-term, it means spinning off some of the arbcom duties to other venues (personally I would rather see some kind of community-run reverse-RfA-process for desysop for instance -- purposely geared to be slow as molasses and take a minimum of a month -- with arbcom only handling desysop cases & motions where the evidence was oversighted or where emergency-haste was required).
In order to have ANY HOPE of getting some arbcom reforms, like the ones I want to see, we need good people to run, right now, in the next 12 hours. So I'm trying to feed Diannaa to the wolves, and already fed The Good Mister Faddle to the wolves. Admin-land will be the poorer, if she runs and wins. AfC-land will be the poorer, if *he* runs and wins. SPI-land will be the poorer, if *you* run and win. But I stick to what I think: you should run, please. Either standalone, or in some kind of multi-candidate-seeking-one-arb-seat arrangement. Best, 75.108.94.227 ( talk) 13:41, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
![]() |
The Admin's Barnstar |
How about this? You're one of the wheels that keeps SPI moving. Sometimes ignored (cause who looks at tires?) but if you go missing, we're in for a bumpy ride. NeilN talk to me 05:04, 19 November 2015 (UTC) |
Hi. Do I need to submit a SPI case for this guy every time he returns with a new account? Not only this case, but what should I do with obvious socks? Report them to WP:AIV? -- Zyma ( talk) 15:33, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Okay. Thanks. -- Zyma ( talk) 17:56, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
You recently closed this case here [4]. I would like to point out that the following edits by user:D4iNa4 [5], [6], [7], [8], and [9], in the article Slavery and religion clearly shows biased POV edits. It looks similar the changes done earlier by user:Bladesmulti, which is a confirmed sockpuppet of OccultZone, in the following edit [10]. Now, a new user, user:Capitals00 is making the same changes as , as seen here [11]. Xtremedood ( talk) 11:29, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
![]() |
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar |
For countering disruption through great SPI work. GAB Hello! 20:35, 20 November 2015 (UTC) |
Hi Bbb23, this newly-created account appears to be the latest Rolani sock [12], from the contribs and date of creation. Thanks, Athenean ( talk) 19:30, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello. I think Bonadea's blanking of her user pages has something to do with a paid editing scheme she's been looking at, as I wrote on ANI (and there's more about what I think
here, including a couple of diffs). I feel strongly about this both because I've had only positive encounters with her, and because I hate to see the paid bad guys win...
Thomas.W
talk
20:22, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
I was hoping you'd just archive it rather than nuke it. I apologise for trying to save anybody the effort of reinvestigating their relationship. Bazj ( talk) 23:01, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, I did not know I made that last section without logging in. I am recreating it, because it keeps throwing an error saying "this edit is not constructive", and all I was doing was adding a comment, or at least that is how I thought I should add a comment (::comment text).
I am new to Wikipedia, and I am trying to understand the 'Credible claim of significance' thing that caused the Labyrinth CCG page to get speedily deleted. I am trying to create a video game stub describing the game, similar to these:
/info/en/?search=Blackguards_2
/info/en/?search=Category:Video_game_stubs
but it keeps getting deleted. Are these stubs that I am designing it after also supposed to be deleted? What information do I need to include in order to prevent instant deletion? InvincibleWall ( talk) 14:19, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Please see this request at WP:ARCA. Thank you, RGloucester — ☎ 17:01, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
The White Ribbon Campaign article has had quite a bloc of info added to it sourced to A Voice For Men. I was wondering if this means the article now falls under the restrictions of said article probation and thought I'd ask an admin. Ongepotchket ( talk) 03:23, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Huccha Venkat. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Rajannamysore ( talk) 15:46, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi there Bbb. Directing this query to you as you just closed the latest in the ongoing series of BarbaraJohnson/CK Morgan sockpuppets. Do you think there is any chance CK Morgan and it's various permutations can be salted? True, every time it is deleted another version with different punctuation pops up, but still.... Coretheapple ( talk) 18:38, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
Krzyhorse22 (
talk)
20:12, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello. Nikita Rodin is an old "friend" of mine who almost always tags his own socks, even before they're blocked, and reports himself at SPI in order to rack up as many blocked and tagged socks as possible, no doubt to have something to brag to his equally juvenile friends about. Which is why I'm not adding this to the SPI. Special:Contributions/107.155.78.242 geolocates to Austin, TX, but is Rodin, judging by the contributions, including the self-tagging, so it's probably an open proxy. Special:Contributions/188.32.104.125 geolocates to Moscow (which is where he's now, after previously having been in Saint Petersburg, Russia) and is Rodin (as clearly evident by the contributions, including adding a sock tag to their own talk page), and Janger IN ( talk · contribs · count) is with all probability also Rodin (note the obsession with sock tags, adding or modifying sock tags on both their own user page and the user pages of two previous Rodin socks, Mya2ru and Mya2rud, #1, #2, #3). He seems fairly harmless, mostly engaging in tagging himself and editing the Wikipedia Sandbox, but his socks can't be totally ignored, because he occasionally goes on a high speed vandalism spree, moving other people's user pages around, blanking articles etc etc. Thomas.W talk 15:25, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
User:Annoy_Chakraborty has been adding time tables of trains to lot of pages. As per WP:NTT those are not required. I had this on his talk page. But same kind of edits again yesterday here.-- Vin09 ( talk) 05:52, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
His contributions - here.-- Vin09 ( talk) 05:56, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello,
I need your hel sir or madam,
I have been gone for a while, I started editing again last night. I made a vote on ani to oppose topic banning for to w17. I read over all the info and saw that W17 looks to have made a staremenr from his mobile phone. The dude clearly asked. In his. Statement that has a. punter proposal for a topic ban against editor savktuaryx. I tried to adjust the subtopics heading to let his asking for a topic ban for her on all the Allie c articles. The dude has the to put forth a to ban proposal as swell. Could you please look art he headings an d make this fair to all. Hopefully not but those there might say you are wrong too. I am washing my hands of this altogether thank you I hope you time to at least make the topic headings equitable Zpeopleheart ( talk) 21:01, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
[15] Edit warring to re-instate his previous sock's edits. Can anything be done with this guy? He just keeps creating new socks. Doesn't even bother creating a user page anymore. Athenean ( talk) 02:15, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Checkuser has shown that Excelse and Related0877 are confirmed sockpuppets, although Excelse has explicitly claimed that they are different users (see [16]). It is likely that Excelse has also used this IP in order to remove the same content and to avoid the 3RR. So he may be one of my former opponents who was banned by arbcom some years ago, and by reporting me for alleged probation violations he seems to be the person who is gaming the system here. For a relatively new user with less than 100 edits, he is all too well-versed with specific Wikipedia terminology such as WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT; WP:GAMING; WP:POINT; WP:RSN; WP:FORUM; WP:CHERRYPICK; WP:BLUDGEONING, etc. (see the many false claims made in this arbcom case, which has now been closed by the administrators), as would only have been expected from a user who in the past was deeply involved in similar edit wars and arbcom cases. To my mind, this user should be banned or placed on probation for sockpuppetry, edit warring, making false claims and gaming the system. His edits were clearly disruptive as he and his sockpuppets have only blindly removed content from Wikipedia articles - content that was part of the said articles for several years. Other users were of the same opinion. See, for instance, this revision history, which shows that, according to User:RA0808, the repeated removal of content from the Memphis Mafia article was unexplained. Furthermore, despite of this warning by administrator EdJohnson, Excelse has continued to remove content that is not in line with his personal opinion from article pages (see [17]), and it is to be feared that this will also happen in the future. See also his justification on User talk:Excelse. Onefortyone ( talk) 11:52, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Bbb23,
I believe the evidence posted on the SPI page should be more than enough, but in any case, me and Smsarmad can also add his IP range which he extensively used and abused since at least early 2012 up to including mid 2014. Including at least 10 or 20 of the IP's itself. Can either list them there on the SPI, or mail them to you. Its basically this that what DoRd and DeltaQuad meant. Please don't hesitate to let me know. Oh, and if you want even more evidence of Krzyhorse22 with previous socks and Lagoo sab, or perhaps with the IPs, let me know as well; got much more left behind hands, but I thought it'd be overkill otherwise as we already have plenty there. Bests - LouisAragon ( talk) 12:25, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Hmm bon appetit.
Drmies (
talk)
00:56, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Created the same day as the other socks and just restarted the edit-warring at Sukhoi 100: Valitro. Dr. K. 06:38, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Not quite sure to do about this, if anything. The editor in question has been editing and commenting in a particularly aggressive and combative manner at the Umpqua Community College Shooting article and at the article's [ talk page] as IP User:72.198.26.61. I've wondered for a few days if the IP was a block-evading sock, turns out he's just a sock. An undeclared one until today. Because of the way he's been so combative and aggressive, though, it does make me wonder if he was intentionally trying to avoid scrutiny by editing anonymously due to his recent 24-hour block for edit warring [18]. He's now claiming he didn't realize he was logged in when he admitted to editing from other accounts? [19] I'm confused and don't know if there's been a policy violation or not (it seems there has). That's why I'm bringing this here to you. Pinging MSGJ as the blocking admin. Thanks for taking the time, -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:04, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
I have received a talk page message from an IP editor claiming to be Babitaarora, whom you blocked as a result of your CheckUSer at a SPI which is at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Chander/Archive.
The claim of Babitaarora and Chander is that they are respectively brother and sister, who have used the same laptop computer, thus accounting for the CU evidence. Of course, I am fully aware of the "my little brother" excuse for sockpuppetry (and in this case it is indeed the brother who is supposed to be younger), but even so, that does not rule out the possibility that this time it may be true, so I have extensively examined the editing history to look for behavioural evidence. I do not doubt that all the other accounts you listed at the SPI were indeed sockpuppets of Chander, but Babitaarora looks rather different. There is indeed a considerable overlap of what articles have been edited, more so than would be typical for two siblings editing independently. Nevertheless, I also saw some very striking differences in ways of expressing themselves and using English, and some striking differences in use of edit summaries. For example, skimming down Chanders's contributions history, I was struck by the frequency of edits where the edit summary was just (uw), which he used when creating a new talk page to post a warning. In his last 250 edits, he used that edit summary 52 times, but Babitaarora has never used that edit summary, at least not in her last 1000 edits. In fact, when Babitaarora has created talk pages to post warnings, she has produced edit summaries of the form (←Created page with '==October 2015 == {{subst:uw-vandalism1|}} ~~~~'), which accounts for 17 of her last 250 edits, while Chander has never produced that type of edit summary. It is way beyond any reasonable possibility that such a degree of difference would be just chance coincidence from an editor using two accounts randomly, so either the accounts are not the same person or else it is someone putting in a remarkable effort to make it look like two editors, in a rather obscure way that he or she could not reasonably have expected would be checked. I have also seen more examples of types of edit summaries that tend to be more common for one or other of the accounts, but those are the most striking and extreme examples.
In this sort of situation, I like to check talk page posts to look for similarities or differences in ways of expressing themselves. Chander has a very poor grasp of English grammar: for example, after being blocked he wrote "Why you blocked my account without notifying me about this or asked me about the multiple accounts or paid editing issues before blocking? Why you calling me a paid editor when you know that I'm a whitelist user and has done 6K edits on thousands of articles?" Babitaarora, on the other hand, has a much higher competence in English, as a quick look at her talk page will show.
Another thing to look for is evidence of abuse of multiple accounts. I can find none. Even when the two accounts have edited the same page, I have not seen a single example of doing so in abusive ways, such as edit-warring in tandem, or supporting one another's opinions in discussions to give a spurious impression of independent support. In fact, if the two accounts were used by one person, then I can see no reason why the editor has bothered to do so.
It looks to me very much as though all the other accounts that you listed at the SPI were indeed sockpuppets of Chander, but that Babitaarora may well really be his sister, as she claims. Can you let me know what you think? The editor who uses the pseudonym " JamesBWatson" ( talk) 10:49, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
What is this? I know you're very busy but your actions indicate that you hate my guts. Give me a break. That guy admitted that he's creating sockpuppets and using proxies. If he emailed you and asked to remove my edits, it means he is what I suspected. Why are you biased toward me?-- Krzyhorse22 ( talk) 19:10, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi B, curious about this situation: User RAGHUallen, a user who'd been causing some promotional difficulty at Indian cinema articles, was blocked by Diannaa the other day for copyright violations. This guy Himesh Kuttiyal popped up after not editing in almost 2 months to request an autoblock be lifted. He was subsequently blocked be Elockid. The users have quite a bit of intersection, and frankly I've felt for a while that I'm dealing with a sock ring in Indian cinema. I'm curious about sleepers. Should I create an SPI? Thanks, Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 17:17, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi
Bbb23, I just reverted
86.147.209.31 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
filter log ·
WHOIS ·
RDNS ·
RBLs ·
http ·
block user ·
block log) on the help desk as they appear to be Vote X For.. who kept disrupting AN/I - could you have a look and block? --
samtar
whisper
16:31, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Given what's on this user's talk page, you should probably revoke their talk page access. Thanks, -- Rubbish computer ( HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 22:30, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
I was about to compile facts for an SPI, but I thought I'd try to check with you first. I believe that User:Sdjkl1 may be LTA banned sockmaster User:HarveyCarter. Their edits to Anthony Eden, Ramsay McDonald, Appeasement and [[German declaration of war against the United States {19431)]] look very much like the editing style of User:Gafbns, User:LanceCaldwell, and User:CharltonChiltern - all sockpuppets of HarveyCarter, and all (I believe) CU blocked by you. These editors add "facts" to the articles, some of which run counter to the normal consensus among historians, but all of which are totally unsourced. They are presented as positive declarative statements, some of which are interpretative, but none of which ever have a source. When one asks for sourcing, the "facts" are repeated ad nauseum on the talk page, often with exactly the same wording, but almost never with a source.
I wondered if you could take a look at least at the behavior and see what you think -- although in looking through the SPI archives, it seems that with HarveryCarter there is almost always more than one sock found when a CU is run. If you think my sketch of the problem here is insufficient, please let me know and I'll work up something more extensive for SPI. Thanks. BMK ( talk) 23:57, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
...is the SPI table failing to update again?-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 21:45, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
I did not see a sitewide notice pointing to a discussion to determine if there was consensus for your break. -- NeilN talk to me 16:28, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
The clarification request is archived at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion#Clarification request: Abortion (November 2015). For the Arbitration Committee, Mini apolis 20:11, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi! I don't quite understand the technicalities related to CU check being performed in SPIs. But I noticed that at the
Chander SPI you could fetch out a lot of accounts even though they were not reported as suspects. I think that's possible through whatever tools you guys use. I now have a doubt that while doing such a check, are only non-blocked or active accounts checked? Or are old accounts which are blocked or are not active since ages also get checked?
Why I come here is that the Chander case was a surprise to see many accounts with high number of edit counts. Incidentally, they happened to be editing same genre of articles, of Indian film and television which were favorite with
Noormohammed satya socks and also
Vibhas Kashyap socks.
The problem here is that this isn't a fanboy editing selective pages but ranges to so many pages and with so many accounts involved its difficult to base any case on behavioural evidence and many well-meaning established editors think that this is all paid editing of PR firms. Hence wanted to check my doubt. I understand you are away now, so maybe some of your tps can help answer. §§
Dharmadhyaksha§§ {
Talk /
Edits}
04:45, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
I altered the block conditions on a CU block you executed to remove talk page access by the user. Is that allowed? See 66.188.93.2 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Thanks Tide rolls 12:00, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
I'm sorry; I know you don't like admins without checkuser ability declining editors with a checkuser block, but this one annoyed me. -- Anthony Bradbury "talk" 17:58, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
MarnetteD|
Talk is wishing you
Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's
Solstice or
Christmas,
Diwali,
Hogmanay,
Hanukkah,
Lenaia,
Festivus or even the
Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!
Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{ subst: User:WereSpielChequers/Dec15b}} to your friends' talk pages.
Hi Bbb23. I am wondering if you could take a look at User:Kritksh because I think it might be User:Kritaksh who you blocked back in November for being a sockpuppet of Kartiktiwary. The username is practically identical (only the difference is an "a"), and the edit focusing seems to be Siya Ke Ram and other articles edited by the sockmaster and their socks. It could be just a coincidence of course, but it seems like a duck to me. Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 09:08, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
This is Krit Krishna from New Delhi. I can't understand what did you say.i will first read more about it then i will give you an appropriate answer. Kritksh ( talk) 03:32, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi.
You were the last admin who dealt with Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Radoezikova/Archive, so I thought I'd come to you with a question. This person made a huge number of fantasy Eurovision and Big Brother pages in their user space, all of which have been deleted for using Wikipedia as a web host. I noticed at Big Brother: The Boss, the user:Radoslav Tsanev account made a bunch of edits. He added hiss fantasy material and then did some edits, and finished by removing the material he added to leave the article looking like it hadn't been really changed. Doing it once can be put down to an accident, but the next day... He added back the fantasy material, along with one day's worth of fantasy game play. After some more of these edity, the material was removed again like before. I just quickly looked at another set of edits in article space from this account, and this shows that this behaviour is not in just one article.
This person is well-versed in editing Wikipedia, and doing multiple times in more than one article shows deliberate intent. I suspect that this person is trying to use the history function of Wikipedia articles to host his fantasy game material.
So at last my question: Is this something that needs to have revisions deleted to remove them? If so, I'm willing to go through the contributions from all the accounts and check them.
Thanks. -- Whpq ( talk) 18:29, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
I wonder if you would be willing to have a look at an unblock request at User talk:Rishika.dhanawade. You placed a CheckUser block on the account on 19 October, on the basis of sockpuppetry with User:Digvijay411. You reported your CU findings at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TekkenJinKazama/Archive, but you did not think that Rishika.dhanawade/Digvijay411 was the same person as TekkenJinKazama.
Rishika.dhanawade now admits to using Digvijay411 as a sockpuppet, but promises not to repeat any of the "mistakes and wrong editing habits". I am inclined to consider giving the editor another chance, and with that view I have invited the editor to give more explanation as to what "mistakes and wrong editing habits" he/she thinks he/she has made and will avoid. However, can you give an opinion on the unblock request? The editor who uses the pseudonym " JamesBWatson" ( talk) 13:21, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
A very happy Christmas and New Year to you! |
![]() |
|
|
Hi, Bbb23. Thank you very much for
this. After viewing the lengthy list of open cases at
WP:SPI, I was sure that case wouldn't be looked at for a month or more. Thanks for breaking speed records! Happy, stress-free holidays to you! Regards,
Xenophrenic (
talk) 01:10, 21 December 2015 (UTC) P.S.~ I pondered your "despite your labeling 23 a random number" quip, and wondered what I was missing. I did some Google searches and eventually recalled the
23 enigma, and the significance of that number. So you were correct; it's not such a "random" number after all. Satisfied that I had solved the mystery, I thought no more about it, and came here to leave a 'Thank you' note. It wasn't until after I clicked 'Save page' just now that I looked again at your username...
Facepalm
Xenophrenic (
talk)
01:11, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
This user is back [20]. New account [21] Misdemenor ( talk) 23:26, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Nice work. I've been alerted to a Buzzfeed article about what seems to be the same crew active this summer. Going to look through these people's contribs in case of any more hoax articles, but right now everything seems to have been already deleted. Blythwood ( talk) 01:26, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi Bbb23. Best of the Season to you. Unfortunately, the Holiday cheer is somehow disturbed by the work of socks who do not seem to have much regard for it. Case in point. Still, I would not have bothered you with these news, had the three-month CU limit not been so close in this SPI. If you have any spare time your intervention would be much appreciated. Take care. Dr. K. 02:01, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
How long (or short) is the period Check users can look back? The Banner talk 22:10, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
![]() |
Merry Christmas!! |
Hello, I wish you and your family a Merry Christmas and a very Happy New Year, Thanks for all your help on the 'pedia!
|
GAB
Hello! is wishing you a
Merry
Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes
WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a
Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!
Spread the cheer by adding {{ subst:Xmas6}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Best of luck in the new year,
GAB Hello! 22:05, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Looks like we may have a new BiKaz sock [22]. Doug Weller talk 07:08, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
I think Anti (album) might need protection because multiple IP addresses are abusing it, but I am not 100% sure. CLCStudent ( talk) 16:32, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
Hey Bbb23, since you seem to be around, could you have a look at the history of Naga, Cebu, and this section on the talk page. It seems pretty clear cut to me (note that Unbuttered Parsnip was recently blocked for 48 hours for 3RR, and looks to be doing it logged out to avoid a reblock). I have semiprotected the page, but would prefer to have a checkuser look into it. I would do it myself, but my CU bit is still in the mail I suppose. -- kelapstick( bainuu) 05:51, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
It is not my intention to edit war. However, User:XPrintGirl has repeatedly removed reliably sourced information I added to the Benedict Cumberbatch article, even after I requested that she desist. I have provided reliable sources to back up the edits I made, whereas XPrintGirl has so far only engaged in counterproductive revert warring. She has also now falsely accused me of making edits she made herself. [23] [24] - OneLittleDragon ( talk) 05:40, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi! Re Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Coat_of_Many_Colours/Archive#20_December_2015 and this ISP Delta Quad blocked another ISP [25] has popped up to continue the conversation and same reversions. Pretty clearly all the same editor. No doubt the "head of department" will be along shortly. Cheers, Johnbod ( talk) 11:10, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
Can I kindly ask why? -- Vituzzu ( talk) 14:29, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
Who are u?? The page. Admin ?? The person who owns this page or someone who thinks he owns my identity .. Bcos .. FYI .. I am Andria D'souza .. The Vj , Rj and actress Andria D'souza And If I see rubbish or wrong articles written about me I have the right to speak .. Or else .. I would claim a defamation case against you and Wikipedia for making my account without my knowledge or consent and for tampering or defaming me by writing n conveying wrong information to people reading about me
I have the right to speak about my image don't I?? Officialandria ( talk) 10:11, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
It might be worth removing talk page access to go with your CheckUser block. This edit added a claim that admins have ganged up to crucify him, a crucified Christ image, and what appears to be a a threat to continue socking. He also insists on blanking the sock block notice and unblock requests. Meters ( talk) 05:44, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
And thanks for all the good work you do here, Bbb. Best wishes from 99, 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 ( talk) 15:49, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
For [26]. Kept several people busy :-) And Happy Holidays to you. Poepkop ( talk) 15:58, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi Bbb23, I wondered if you had seen this [28] on the simple wikipedia, I cannot rollback on the simple wiki (no meta rights). Maybe I could just delete but I do not know what you'd want (and if you actually created that page yourself or if IP did so for this purpose). Poepkop ( talk) 15:07, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
A while ago, you indef blocked User:Peacebigline and User:Wikedpluri for using multiple accounts on Lee Man-hee and Shincheonji Church of Jesus the Temple of the Tabernacle of the Testimony - there is another account there now Special:Contributions/Robertseo, making the same edits. I was just going to file a sock puppet report, but I'm sure that even if they get blocked, they will come back with a string of new accounts, so I have a request. Could you put some form of protection on those articles, please? Even semi protected would help. Socks are less effective on articles that require confirmed accounts. Spacecowboy420 ( talk) 06:22, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
I normally have a huge admiration for the work you do but this kind of comment in answer to a perfectly reasonable technical question does not encourage me at all to report or block any future socks when when I come across them. I can understand now why so many people describe the SPI cabal as a Walled Garden. -- Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 10:15, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
I don't really touch sock investigations but thought you might want to see
Special:Contributions/88.194.149.117 in relation to
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Musicchief007/Archive.
czar
22:14, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
![]() |
Happy New Year! |
Best wishes for a wonderful 2016!---- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:42, 30 December 2015 (UTC) |
Bbb23,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable
New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Poepkop (
talk)
13:54, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
.
I appreciate you closing the EW report against me as 'no violation', as well as semi-protecting the page. Do you think it would be appropriate for me to undo my precautionary self revert at this point?
I also want to question your statements that such reverts of IPs, while exempt from 1RR, are still subject to 3RR. This seems to contradict a recent ArbCom ruling that followed the block and subsequent unblock of Huldra for making 10 (!!) such reverts on As'ad AbuKhalil - see the ANI report and follow-on Request for clarification where the drafting arbitrator of the 30/500 restriction stated "As for how to enforce the new GP, I think, as the drafter who voted against it, that This prohibition may be enforced by reverts, page protections, blocks, the use of Pending Changes, and appropriate edit filters. pretty much gives any use a unlimited authority to revert someone who is violating it", and another arbitrator stated "Huldra's actions "" (she reverted 10 times in rapid succession - see [29]) When Other Legends Are Forgotten ( talk) 00:34, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
Bbb23,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable
New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. –
Davey2010
Merry Xmas / Happy New Year
11:21, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
I recently undid an unconstructive edit of an opinion on List of Sweden international footballers. Do you think a warning is necessary in this case, and if so what level as the editor has received two warnings (in July and August 2015)? Thanks. Leeds United FC fan ( talk) 20:21, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
Due to the futility of mentioning this fact at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tirgil34, i'm posting the evidence here to get your direct attention. MagnificentMehmet inserts at Urheimat [30] the same content as an IP at Proto-Turkic language. [31] BronzeAgeYeniseian marks his edit at Karasuk culture [32] exactly like an IP at Bey. [33] Both of these IP's belonge to the range which was blocked as belonging to Tirgil34 in May 2015. [34] Egaplaicesp restores [35] Tirgil34 sock Weftsbuddy [36] at Haplogroup R1b, and Swathmafia creates the article Pazyryk rug [37] based on content added at Pazyryk burials by Tirgil34 sock Osgoem. [38] It's about time that the Egaplaicesp socks are tagged as belonging to Tirgil34 so that their edits can be removed as per WP:EVASION. On a sidenote, Happy New Year! Krakkos ( talk) 00:02, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
![]() (
Charles R. Knight, 1922)
|
Happy New Year 2016! Best regards, Sam Sailor Talk! 00:08, 2 January 2016 (UTC) Pass on! Send this greeting by adding
{{
subst:
User:Sam Sailor/Templates/HappyNewYear}} to user talk pages. |
![]() (Unknown artist,
Norway, 1916)
|
Re: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Alwayssmileguys/Archive, the sockmaster's original draft of Patrick Scott Patterson (now salted) has showed up at Patrick S Patterson by the new user Kaleshkalu1. Duck? czar 05:11, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
![]() |
I hope you all have a great year, despite all the recent SPI stuff (which is depressing). Tropicalkitty ( talk) 09:35, 3 January 2016 (UTC) |
New sock Special:Contributions/82.53.179.230 as a return to contributing. Can you block him/her? (also reverted edit as well). 115.164.216.90 ( talk) 15:08, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Sorry to bother you but I was wondering if you could have a look at two new editors who have popped up. Sadiazaki2015 started on Dec 29th and has made edits to both the article and AfD for Jibin which was created by Alwayssmileguys in addition to creating the article Gina_Messina_Dysert which has then been edited by user Femme111 as their only edits. I know it is a little thin but considering Alwayssmileguys' comment about coming back I thought it might be good to bring to your attention. Mrfrobinson ( talk) 11:45, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello Bbb23,
Hope your holidays and New Years went well.
So my editor interaction tool hasn't been working. It would be helpful for this recent SPI I filed: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/NovaSkola#06_January_2016. Does it work for you? Is it like this for everyone? Ciao! Étienne Dolet ( talk) 05:32, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
WP:Block evasion: A past user who you just block has come back with a new account User:Polopaladin03. Herman Jaka ( talk) 10:42, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
In the first paragraph of his talk page, Supreme Leader of Wikipedia admits to being the recently blocked Supreme Leader Kim Jong-un, and the blocking admin suspects that they're both aliases of Kingshowman; could you check these two accounts and look for sleepers and related IP activity? Thanks. Nyttend ( talk) 11:35, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello. I noticed your 3RR-warning, but there's also a report against them at WP:AIV for repeated political vandalism on Gilgit-Baltistan (repeatedly changing "India" to "Pakistan", moving Jammu and Kashmir to the other side of the border...), so would you mind taking a look at it? Thomas.W talk 19:02, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Do 82.132.227.172's edits meet the criteria to be hidden from public view? Some of their comments push the boundaries, in my opinion, such as the nazi comment and the other comment making fun of an administrator's perceived penis size. Amaury ( talk) 00:06, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for reverting the editor and revdel'ing their edits. If this keeps up, would you mind semi-protecting my talk page in the future? Snuggums ( talk / edits) 05:17, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Hey Bbb23. That guy with that mixed-up SPI case whom you blocked today, just created another sock and started editing. [41] 110% duck. Bests - LouisAragon ( talk) 08:17, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
@ Bbb23:, I think I got another one here. Reinstatement of the same bogus like earlier blocked socks, [46] as well as the username. - LouisAragon ( talk) 11:11, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
On the sockpuppet investigation page, you appear to have listed one puppet, JenMercadoHeras, twice. Either I have missed a subtle distinction here, or one of these should probably be removed. RolandR ( talk) 12:32, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
circumventing the formal channels, but as you appear to be working now, please have a look at Madaya, Syria article. As is clear from the edit history, the article ought to be blocked, either completely, or for anonymous and newly registered. Axxxion ( talk) 16:50, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
User:Jonjon893 is back with another account. Here's his latest: Special:Contributions/Jonathan_Sydel -- 50.29.199.144 ( talk) 18:47, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi Bbb23! Thought you might be interested in the note at User:AlF6Na3/sandbox, in case you haven't seen it already. Happy editing! GoingBatty ( talk) 00:10, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello
I wrote an article about the Syrian actor Wael Sharaf, and it's was deleted by Bbb23 and I don't know the real reason behind it, because I can find other articles about Syrian actors on wikipedia. Therefor I want and answer for my question and I hope we can bring the article back again, because he is one of the most popular actor in the Arab world. By the way, I'm in touch with the actor himself and I have all rights to share information about him.
Regards
Wisam Shakir. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wisamshakir ( talk • contribs) 23:25, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Whose sock was it? I had the account on my WP:Watchlist due to suspicion. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 02:20, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
I think I mainly had the account on my WP:Watchlist due to this matter. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 02:23, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
There's an person, user:NearEMPTiness, who has a sideline in making up words, adulatory COI auto-(and family)-biographies, and hyperspecialized usages, who has again put a neologism as the title of a new article, Trolleyboat.
As even a casual glance will show, this isn't a standard English word, and the few uses found are for something else entirely, a morphodite half-breed of a DUKW and a streetcar. Anmccaff ( talk) 18:06, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Hey B, what do you make of this guy? I saw that you reverted at least one of his edits a few days ago. It looks to me like he's going around flagging sock accounts as globally locked. I notice some gravedancing in his past. I suppose stuff like this could be helpful, but a very weird area of interest. Any thoughts? Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 07:39, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Hey, I'm bothering you again. I previously asked for a CU to link user WillShowU to WikiBriefed. I'm no longer convinced that they're the same person. However, based on some editing patterns, I now think that the master for WikiBriefed could be AniceMathew. (Both seem really chatty and condescending in edit summaries, both tend to issue edicts about references, their edit summary typography is similar [excessive and misuse of ellipses] and so forth.) The question is whether or not the most recently identified AniceMathew sock, RameshNambiath edited recently enough (August 2015) for there to still be enough data to make the link? I'm also going to look further into the Ambeinghari accounts to see if there's a link. WikiBriefed's behavior is peculiar enough that I feel like he's a sock of someone, it's just a matter of getting through the soup. Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 18:51, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
You don't like the citation? It's a quote from her, it's insufficient? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.7.5.208 ( talk) 16:40, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Take a look, she said it: https://www.facebook.com/mohammad.hamad.75/posts/1028656247193421?comment_id=1028672027191843&comment_tracking={%22tn%22%3A%22R9%22} — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.7.5.208 ( talk) 17:00, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Hey Bbb23,
Someone else randomly just closed this SPI even though absolutely no evaluation has been made yet by any moderator or any SPI staff. Is it going to be done anytime soon? I can guarantee for 110% that those accounts are linked together, if only someone would read through the extensive evidence provided. Therefore I would like to ask for it to be re-opened until someone at least can look at it for once. I was waiting all the time for SPI staff to evaluate it, and now it just got closed without any evaluation or any comment on the material or whatsoever. Bests - LouisAragon ( talk) 09:39, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
Speaking for myself, I rarely do full-scale behavioral evaluations since I've become a CheckUser, and the evidence in this particular SPI is long. It wouldn't suprise me if its length (as LouisAragorn says "effort") isn't playing a role in its being untouched (we are human after all). Also, it's not necessarily true that no one has evaluated it. Someone may have done a partial evaluation and not been able to make a determination they were comfortable with. That would happen in the background, and no one except the evaluator would know it.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 20:44, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi Bbb23, could you take a look at and provide your view at User_talk:Dfunk006? @ Kuru: says you've expressed other concerns so your input would be good as the blocking admin, especially since it's a checkuser block. only ( talk) 23:26, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello. How can I reopen a sockpuppet investigation? I want to reopen this. Thanks. -- Bleckter ( talk) 00:56, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
User:VegasCasinoKid has asked for a deletion review of Love & Devotion (Michael Bow song). Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. — Cryptic 04:24, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
The phone number 1 800 235 6302 appears to be connected with http://windowsithelp.com/ - would it be an idea to add them (and the UK number 0-800-086-9133 too) to the filters? The name Lalit Singh also comes up with them, but there might be more of that name that aren't involved. This is widely spammed. Peridon ( talk) 16:17, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
You reverted an edit by an IP editor. The change made by the IP editor was as follows:
The source cited says:
In my opinion the IP editor made a good edit.-- Toddy1 (talk) 19:50, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
Hey, can you userfy this for me in my userspace? I'd like to see if I can work it into something. Thanks! Montanabw (talk) 04:06, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi Bbb23, can you check the following account: Lostrigot ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) created Dec 31st [47], created just three days after the most recent Rolandi sock was blocked [48]. Edits similar articles, e.g. Panagiotis Kone [49] [50]. The new account's name, Lostrigot, sounds very similar to the Laestrygones, creatures from the Odyssey, a subject Rolandi had shown an interest in [51]. Thanks in advance. Athenean ( talk) 21:38, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi, just checking to see if this is true? Did you give permission or is it a new sock of Alexiulian25 ( talk · contribs)? Qed237 (talk) 19:51, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
I asked this at the general admin noticeboard but didn't get an answer: Is it allowed to make requests like the one I made of AmericanDad86? I want to do things within the etiquette but I can't get much information on what it is. Darkfrog24 ( talk) 21:51, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. -- JBL ( talk) 15:49, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi - this was the next in the queue, so I took it and thought I'd run it by you as the blocking admin. He seems to have given you a couple of gray hairs. ;-) I'm not impressed with the appeal, but I'm open to the standard offer if he agrees to not sock and to conform with copyright policy. Let me know your thoughts. Katie talk 22:28, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi Bbb23. I know you're a regular at WP:SPI, so I wonder if you could answer something for me. I regularly patrol/post at WP:UAA, and every so often I see a name with some variation of "Deez Nutz". It turns out that User:Deez Nutz was blocked as a sockpuppet of User:Dick Witham, but there is no investigations casepage for this individual.
Looking at Special:CentralAuth, I can find a slew of names with the "Deez N*" or "DeezN*" pattern that could be potential socks. Some have been blocked for username violations, others not. No one appears to have raised any concerns that these could be socks, so is it worth opening an investigation at this point? -- Drm310 ( talk) 17:32, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello. Sorry to bother you with this but there is a new discussion at WP:ANI under the above heading. This makes reference to a formal warning which you issued to Py0alb a couple of years ago and you may wish to take part given your prior involvement. Thanks very much. Jack | talk page 21:24, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
I will apologize in advance for bothering you with a rather trivial question, but I want to be certain I understand this statement correctly:
When you say "...it's all obviously untrue," you mean the statements made by Screwjack1981 and his/her Medidog1951 sock puppet, when he/they related their personal biographies?
Thank you, EditorASC ( talk) 05:39, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Despite your warning [53], Xtremedood continues to make frivolous SPIs against me, he just did at which I have marked for deletion as well. Capitals00 ( talk) 14:28, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Are you sure there shouldn't be a comma? https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Murder_of_Travis_Alexander&oldid=prev&diff=701438997 MattSucci ( talk) 17:08, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi Bbb23, I don't suppose you could run a CU on a set of IPs that have been harassing Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz ( talk · contribs) on their talk page? The messages are related to WP:ANI#Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz making multiple personal attacks and a dispute at Occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge and there's some suspicion that the IPs (which have never edited that article) represent a logged-out editor. At the very least, a rangeblock would help keep the IPs off his talk page and avoid outing anyone.
Thanks in advance. clpo13( talk) 19:40, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
FYI - a new user is accusing you of being a sock. -- Cahk ( talk) 07:27, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello Bbb23!
On 18 October of last year, you intervened on my talk page [60], and I believe you may be able to help in the situation developing, I am suspecting, with the same individual, at the Louis XVI of France article. Please check last edits of yesterday from here [61] to here [62]. Method, style, English, plus an obsession of pushing importance of overbearing details on physical appearance lead me to believe this is the person dealt with last August [63].
Please note that I did not revert or continue to edit the Louis XVI article, as I do not want to reproduce the situation we were caught in at the Marie Antoinette article, which lasted for months, with unending discussions on the talk page [64] as the article was being held hostage: one of the reasons I am declining to go to the Louis XVI talk page & get caught in same situation with same individual: I refuse to enter his game.
Note also that same individual signs in with a new name & works only on one article, quickly turning it into a battlefield. His notes on my talk page (Marie Antoinette & Chartres) plus the one you removed show what he is capable of.
Best regards, -- Blue Indigo ( talk) 08:51, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello
Bbb23 - Reporting six (6) new socks of same, this time at
Marie Antoinette article, beginning on 20 January 2016 at 23:14
Best regards, -- Blue Indigo ( talk) 12:37, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello Bbb23 - Newly signed-up sock Newqueen2 and his work [68] [69].
Best regards, -- Blue Indigo ( talk) 20:23, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
S/he's back, as Georgeparry22 ( talk · contribs) and as Blueindigo23 ( talk · contribs) under which s/he vandalised Vel' d'Hiv Roundup (a Holocaust article) and left a message on Blue Indigo's talk page. NebY ( talk) 22:25, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
Returned to
Vel' d'Hiv Roundup article
[70]
[71] under new sock name
BLue Undigo2
Regards, -- Blue Indigo ( talk) 13:46, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
I see you've dealt with the latest one while I was raising an ANI report. Thanks. NebY ( talk) 19:09, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Now as BlueUndigo8. NebY ( talk) 13:15, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
My apologies for wasting your time on the Hawes SPI. Either I somehow did not realize they were already blocked, or it did not show properly. GAB Hello! 00:22, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi B, I'm getting a funky vibe from IamRDOfficial, and looking through the edit history here, I notice that there are a ton of indeffed socks. (I don't know if you use User:NuclearWarfare/Mark-blocked script.js, but it strikes through the names of blocked users. Very useful. And I'm seeing a sea of blocked accounts.) Based on the name "IamRDOfficial", I started looking at some of the socks and found Rishika.dhanawade, which would be a smart choice for an sockmaster candidate based on the "RD". I also noticed that after being indeffed, Rishika.dhanawade started using their talk page as a sandbox to flesh out an article on Mukta Barve, which by no coincidence was also edited by IamRDOfficial. I'm cool with indeffing and filing a perfunctory SPI, but I'm not sure whether I should start it at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rishika.dhanawade or at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Chander. I'm a little bit confused about your findings. Thoughts? Thanks, Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 20:46, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Spotted this one as I had one of them on my watchlist from CSDing their nonsense pages. You might want to check Beastboy2004 ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki), as it's only showing 1 year, instead of indef. I was just having a quick scan through contribs to see if there was any obvious vandalism remaining to be reverted, and spotted it.
Thanks for all the hard work on SPIs. Regards, Murph9000 ( talk) 01:09, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
This was shorter than the usual cycle. Jeh ( talk) 01:23, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
The user has involved the same editing as User:Strawberrygirls and User:Pistolplay4. 123.136.107.118 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:49, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi Mr. Administrator
Please Check this IP's History and it actions like this (look at Summary) and other edits. And If it is possible Block it thank You. World Cup 2010 ( talk) 08:40, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Can you explain the block at User:My Motherland? There was no SPI about it, just curious what you saw. -- allthefoxes ( Talk) 03:42, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
![]() |
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar |
For tireless good work on SPI cases. GAB Hello! 23:11, 29 January 2016 (UTC) |
When I tried to compare the editing pattern of some new accounts with confirmed socks of ELreydeEspana I realized that some closed cases are missing (23 April 2015, 13 May 2015, 14 June 2015). Was this revert an accident? JimRenge ( talk) 12:21, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
New account I've just blocked for, frankly, weirdness. Contribs are creating an LTA page for user:Никита-Родин-2002 and then creating an SPI about himself including CU request - Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SunMatchKol. Can you take a look, thanks. Nthep ( talk) 15:35, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi,
Bbb23,
There is an IP account that is going around posting "indefinitely banned" messages on user talk pages of editors you (and others) have recently blocked, like
Lennieteague04 and
Uncyclomusic. While it is not exactly improper behavior it is odd for a new IP account to focus on placing block notices. I thought it might be an admin or experienced editor who is editing logged out so I left a talk page message but I thought I should just alert an admin who might be affected. Maybe they are doing a valuable service, I don't know but I thought I'd pass it along.
Liz
Read!
Talk!
17:27, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi Bbb23, Thank you for applying discretionary sanctions to the above page. I look forward to adjudication regarding the deletions unilaterally made without prior discussion by User:Solntsa90. 09:00, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi BBb23, you blocked - here [72] - a couple of sock puppets who were constantly editing a number of TV series articles in a disruptive way. Starting the next day, there have been IP edits in the same vein with similar edit summaries - see for example [73] and [74]. I'm not sure how to report a suspected block evasion or what the next step would be, so if you could either let me know or have a look into it yourself that would be great, thanks. Melcous ( talk)
I think he may be back again [75], but he's subtler this time, so I thought it best to drop a note here before reopening SPI. What do you think? -- Drmargi ( talk) 15:40, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
And he's back again, daring us this time: User:2607:fb90:1362:ba31:0:1f:465:b801. Would it be worth semi'ing the articles as he pops up? -- Drmargi ( talk) 06:01, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
He's still at it. A couple new IPs and a new sock on White Collar; I'll take them to SPI in the morning, when I'm back on my desktop. Meanwhile, see just above about protecting a couple more articles. -- Drmargi ( talk) 09:22, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Hey Bbb23. I just wanted to get your attention for this sockpuppet investigation against Richelle Cohen [76] sockpuppet case. I know that the editor case is a bit stale, because you protected the page the user in question was vandalizing. I'm worried that the user will continue their tendentious editing on Katherine Harris when the protect expires. It's also pretty obvious user is a sock/meatpuppet of User:2600:1010:B02E:1269:AA64:8C2E:A7E0:E66C, who was blocked for editing in the same way, with the same edit summaries for every edit. Boomer Vial Holla 13:15, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
As I'm not very familiar with SPI, can I ask if your declined CPU means nothing wilk be done about Xtremedood's systematic harassment? He'll be able to continue ediring using his main account while harassing users who disagree with his edit through the dynamic IPs? Jeppiz ( talk) 15:02, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello. Gerua18 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who was warned for edits on Punjab, Pakistan a few days ago seems to be related to 5.107.112.47 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) who you blocked for block evasion (Xtremedood?). Check their contributions, with the IP continuing with the same edits as Gerua18 was making, right after Gerua18 was given a final warning, and also reverting an edit on Gerua18's talk page. Thomas.W talk 16:48, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
This CSD was originally declined by me. The user who first tagged the image then went and unlinked it [78] (after it had been around for 15 months) and retagged it. I don't think this deletion was a smart one, nor in keeping with the spirit of G5. Would you reconsider? Magog the Ogre ( t • c) 02:11, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Pardon me, but could you elaborate on this? The reason there is no technical evidence is that you decided to decline looking for technical evidence, isn't it? What other technical evidence could there be? Jeppiz ( talk) 21:03, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
FYI the utterly bizarre Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ItsLassieTime and the contributions of the now blocked editor who filed it [79]. Best, Voceditenore ( talk) 16:19, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
When you have a chance, could you take a look at 5.228.177.108 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) and their activity? The IP actually assisted me in correcting a badly created SPI, but in looking at its other edits it looks highly suspicious to me. Maybe I'm missing something. Thanks. General Ization Talk 16:42, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello. I noticed that WillShowU had been mentioned in another SPI, but see no similarities to that master, I do however see similarities between WillShowU and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AniceMathew, since both have edited Kolkata Knight Riders, both have many edits on articles about Bollywood movies, both seem to have had an above average interest in box-office returns of such movies and neither of them used talkpages (Anice Mathews made 1,340 edits, but only two on article talk pages, while WillSHowU made 187 edits, none of them on article talk). It would also explain why WillShowU knew his way around here from day one. Anything and everything about AniceMathews must be stale by now, so I don't expect any technical comparison, I just thought I'd mention it. /Tom Thomas.W talk 23:10, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
RedDeadJohn is still socking, now as User:BD567. I left a couple messages about this, but they're well up page now, so it might be best to start a new discussion. The article for White Collar needs page protection, too. -- Drmargi ( talk) 13:57, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Aaand he's back as Movieman191. Filed at SPI. This guy clearly needs to learn the definition of insanity. Would you protect Covert Affairs? -- Drmargi ( talk) 13:45, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello!
I am the creator of the page The Pilgreens, an article about a French Association that was going on the news around the world. The article was deleted, in my option this was due to a mistake and I should have improved the draft first before publishing it.
Could you provide me the content of the article so that I can then write a better founded version with improved reasons for the article to be important?
And could you also provide detailed reasons for the deletion, so that we can work on that and show the importance of the page?
Thank you!
Ludwig — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ludwigmerz ( talk • contribs) 10:57, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi
Bbb23, hope you're well -
Rich Piana's AfD has been running for 22 days now, would it be possible to have it closed? Much obliged
--
samtar
whisper
13:26, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi there Bbb23,
you deleted the page I created after it was flagged for speedy deletion. After review, on the talk page, it was tagged as being 'within the guidelines' and should not have been deleted. Can you please clarify as to why you deleted the page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spuderman ( talk • contribs) 20:53, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Bbb23 I will accept that. I'm still getting the hang of these things, so I appreciate your patience. ( Spuderman ( talk) 22:23, 5 February 2016 (UTC))
![]() |
These are really great. I regret not being born in The Netherlands. Nph ( talk) 13:22, 7 February 2016 (UTC) |
![]() | This page 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. |
Hello - you recently finished a sockpuppet investigation Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/PositiveEM (thanks for that) where the user and his socks were blocked indefinitely. The user is back with a similar account User:Trinbago1868 ( contribs) - do I create a new checkuser each time he shows back up or is their a different process? -- R45 talk! 21:49, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
This is no sock puppet, How is it ?, Everytime I edit something or contribute to something you guys keep blocking me ?, How's that fair to me...... I edit and contribute to articles in a positive way as you can see at all times, So what is the problem, I'm I not supposed to be a contributor?, Is this not a free site to contribute positively ?, Tell me what or which because I honestly don't understand the reason for blocking my account everytime I contribute in a positive way on articles, I provide appropriate sources, pictures, articles, ect. What's the problem? I really want to know....... I'm I not obligated to having an equal share in the contributions to Wikipedia ?
-- Trinbago1868 ( talk) 21:55, 15 November 2015 (UTC)Trinbago1868
I noticed that you blocked 172.100.212.147 ( talk · contribs) following a checkuser. No argument there. I just wondered what issue that stemmed from. There's been a lot of promotional editing lately involving the many subsidiaries of NRDC Equity Partners, which include Hudson's Bay Company, Lord and Taylor, and Saks Fifth Avenue. That IP editor insists on my talk page User talk:Nagle that they're not paid by Saks, but they do seem to be narrowly focused on the marketing and expansion plans of the chain. Is this related to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive902#Lord and Taylor COI anon editor is back., or is there another issue involving that corporate family? Thanks. John Nagle ( talk) 20:25, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
![]() |
Thanks for the reminder re: user talk page policy. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 22:50, 15 November 2015 (UTC) |
The University of South Africa is a distance-learning centre. Specifically, it is impossible for a person to be in attendance. The given address for the organisation is University of South Africa
P O Box 392 Unisa 0003
How can I legitimately revise the Ergun Caner page to reflect this fact, and present information nearer to the truth?
My reference is the 'About' section to be found at - http://www.unisa.ac.za/Default.asp?Cmd=ViewContent&ContentID=3
It reads, "As Africa's leading open distance learning institution, we offer internationally accredited qualifications and have world-class resources that inspire learners to create meaningful futures on their own terms."
To suggest that somebody attended the university for any duration, in person, is to mislead all that come to reference the article.
Regards, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.90.174.151 ( talk) 00:22, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello. Altimgamr/JasonHaddad is active right now on a number of IPv6s in the same range ( 2607:FB90:270E:8F8D:0:49:FD39:6901 ( talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 2607:FB90:422:2BA8:0:3C:9CFD:8101 ( talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 2607:FB90:2C35:FDF7:0:25:543E:5B01 ( talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and one or two more, with only the first two currently being blocked) so could we have a range-block? He also posted on my talk page as The Flow In ( talk · contribs · count) (blocked by SpacemanSpiff), a user that might yield an IP or two and is interesting since they signed their post on my talk page as Altimgamr, which I see as a confirmation that I'm right about their identity. I have also seen another IP or two over the past two days, but can't find them right now. But he's apparently very active now, after having taking some time off... Thomas.W talk 15:58, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm a-trying. I have not quite achieved con-artist nirvana yet, though I got close on User_talk:MichaelQSchmidt. :-) As for dragging you into the nudges again, quite seriously, I don't at all think you are inhuman. But I do think that being an arb is an exceedingly trying job, which requires a lot of patience, yet at the same time the ability to not succumb to patter and pressures, of various sorts. That User:Diannaa is resisting my ever-so-artistic-patter, along with urging from a dozen other people, with grace and tact, strongly suggests she would be a great arb. That is a job that needs the ability to think what you think, and stick to it.
Diannaa has got it, and although you and her disagree about the nuances of the correct way to approach disruption, and the editors around disruption seems to statistically and habitually swirl, you have the same fundamental characteristic as she does: you think what you think, and you stick to it. Arbs are constantly getting pushed from various wiki-factions, trying to influence the remedies. Thus, to be a good arb, you have to have the goal of building an encyclopedia deeply ingrained, you have to know the wiki-policies both broadly and deeply, and you have to stick to what you think.
In conclusion, not only did I try to get you to run before, I *still* think you should run. :-) If you are worried about the timesink, and going poof, why don't you and Diannaa run on a joint ticket, two rock-solid wikipedians seeking a single arb-seat, and divvy up the responsibilities of the work betwixt yourselves, in any way you see fit? (Alternate days; alternate cases; flip a coin; draw straws; editcountitis during the past week; whatever.) Sure, it is a bit IAR, but that is allowed: if we want to have arbcom attract candidates worried about going poof, we need to come up with a way to make arb-ship less of a timesink. That means, in the short-term, off the wall things like two wikipedians running for arbship on a joint ticket; in the medium-term, it means spinning off some of the arbcom duties to other venues (personally I would rather see some kind of community-run reverse-RfA-process for desysop for instance -- purposely geared to be slow as molasses and take a minimum of a month -- with arbcom only handling desysop cases & motions where the evidence was oversighted or where emergency-haste was required).
In order to have ANY HOPE of getting some arbcom reforms, like the ones I want to see, we need good people to run, right now, in the next 12 hours. So I'm trying to feed Diannaa to the wolves, and already fed The Good Mister Faddle to the wolves. Admin-land will be the poorer, if she runs and wins. AfC-land will be the poorer, if *he* runs and wins. SPI-land will be the poorer, if *you* run and win. But I stick to what I think: you should run, please. Either standalone, or in some kind of multi-candidate-seeking-one-arb-seat arrangement. Best, 75.108.94.227 ( talk) 13:41, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
![]() |
The Admin's Barnstar |
How about this? You're one of the wheels that keeps SPI moving. Sometimes ignored (cause who looks at tires?) but if you go missing, we're in for a bumpy ride. NeilN talk to me 05:04, 19 November 2015 (UTC) |
Hi. Do I need to submit a SPI case for this guy every time he returns with a new account? Not only this case, but what should I do with obvious socks? Report them to WP:AIV? -- Zyma ( talk) 15:33, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Okay. Thanks. -- Zyma ( talk) 17:56, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
You recently closed this case here [4]. I would like to point out that the following edits by user:D4iNa4 [5], [6], [7], [8], and [9], in the article Slavery and religion clearly shows biased POV edits. It looks similar the changes done earlier by user:Bladesmulti, which is a confirmed sockpuppet of OccultZone, in the following edit [10]. Now, a new user, user:Capitals00 is making the same changes as , as seen here [11]. Xtremedood ( talk) 11:29, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
![]() |
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar |
For countering disruption through great SPI work. GAB Hello! 20:35, 20 November 2015 (UTC) |
Hi Bbb23, this newly-created account appears to be the latest Rolani sock [12], from the contribs and date of creation. Thanks, Athenean ( talk) 19:30, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello. I think Bonadea's blanking of her user pages has something to do with a paid editing scheme she's been looking at, as I wrote on ANI (and there's more about what I think
here, including a couple of diffs). I feel strongly about this both because I've had only positive encounters with her, and because I hate to see the paid bad guys win...
Thomas.W
talk
20:22, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
I was hoping you'd just archive it rather than nuke it. I apologise for trying to save anybody the effort of reinvestigating their relationship. Bazj ( talk) 23:01, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, I did not know I made that last section without logging in. I am recreating it, because it keeps throwing an error saying "this edit is not constructive", and all I was doing was adding a comment, or at least that is how I thought I should add a comment (::comment text).
I am new to Wikipedia, and I am trying to understand the 'Credible claim of significance' thing that caused the Labyrinth CCG page to get speedily deleted. I am trying to create a video game stub describing the game, similar to these:
/info/en/?search=Blackguards_2
/info/en/?search=Category:Video_game_stubs
but it keeps getting deleted. Are these stubs that I am designing it after also supposed to be deleted? What information do I need to include in order to prevent instant deletion? InvincibleWall ( talk) 14:19, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Please see this request at WP:ARCA. Thank you, RGloucester — ☎ 17:01, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
The White Ribbon Campaign article has had quite a bloc of info added to it sourced to A Voice For Men. I was wondering if this means the article now falls under the restrictions of said article probation and thought I'd ask an admin. Ongepotchket ( talk) 03:23, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Huccha Venkat. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Rajannamysore ( talk) 15:46, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi there Bbb. Directing this query to you as you just closed the latest in the ongoing series of BarbaraJohnson/CK Morgan sockpuppets. Do you think there is any chance CK Morgan and it's various permutations can be salted? True, every time it is deleted another version with different punctuation pops up, but still.... Coretheapple ( talk) 18:38, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
Krzyhorse22 (
talk)
20:12, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello. Nikita Rodin is an old "friend" of mine who almost always tags his own socks, even before they're blocked, and reports himself at SPI in order to rack up as many blocked and tagged socks as possible, no doubt to have something to brag to his equally juvenile friends about. Which is why I'm not adding this to the SPI. Special:Contributions/107.155.78.242 geolocates to Austin, TX, but is Rodin, judging by the contributions, including the self-tagging, so it's probably an open proxy. Special:Contributions/188.32.104.125 geolocates to Moscow (which is where he's now, after previously having been in Saint Petersburg, Russia) and is Rodin (as clearly evident by the contributions, including adding a sock tag to their own talk page), and Janger IN ( talk · contribs · count) is with all probability also Rodin (note the obsession with sock tags, adding or modifying sock tags on both their own user page and the user pages of two previous Rodin socks, Mya2ru and Mya2rud, #1, #2, #3). He seems fairly harmless, mostly engaging in tagging himself and editing the Wikipedia Sandbox, but his socks can't be totally ignored, because he occasionally goes on a high speed vandalism spree, moving other people's user pages around, blanking articles etc etc. Thomas.W talk 15:25, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
User:Annoy_Chakraborty has been adding time tables of trains to lot of pages. As per WP:NTT those are not required. I had this on his talk page. But same kind of edits again yesterday here.-- Vin09 ( talk) 05:52, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
His contributions - here.-- Vin09 ( talk) 05:56, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello,
I need your hel sir or madam,
I have been gone for a while, I started editing again last night. I made a vote on ani to oppose topic banning for to w17. I read over all the info and saw that W17 looks to have made a staremenr from his mobile phone. The dude clearly asked. In his. Statement that has a. punter proposal for a topic ban against editor savktuaryx. I tried to adjust the subtopics heading to let his asking for a topic ban for her on all the Allie c articles. The dude has the to put forth a to ban proposal as swell. Could you please look art he headings an d make this fair to all. Hopefully not but those there might say you are wrong too. I am washing my hands of this altogether thank you I hope you time to at least make the topic headings equitable Zpeopleheart ( talk) 21:01, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
[15] Edit warring to re-instate his previous sock's edits. Can anything be done with this guy? He just keeps creating new socks. Doesn't even bother creating a user page anymore. Athenean ( talk) 02:15, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Checkuser has shown that Excelse and Related0877 are confirmed sockpuppets, although Excelse has explicitly claimed that they are different users (see [16]). It is likely that Excelse has also used this IP in order to remove the same content and to avoid the 3RR. So he may be one of my former opponents who was banned by arbcom some years ago, and by reporting me for alleged probation violations he seems to be the person who is gaming the system here. For a relatively new user with less than 100 edits, he is all too well-versed with specific Wikipedia terminology such as WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT; WP:GAMING; WP:POINT; WP:RSN; WP:FORUM; WP:CHERRYPICK; WP:BLUDGEONING, etc. (see the many false claims made in this arbcom case, which has now been closed by the administrators), as would only have been expected from a user who in the past was deeply involved in similar edit wars and arbcom cases. To my mind, this user should be banned or placed on probation for sockpuppetry, edit warring, making false claims and gaming the system. His edits were clearly disruptive as he and his sockpuppets have only blindly removed content from Wikipedia articles - content that was part of the said articles for several years. Other users were of the same opinion. See, for instance, this revision history, which shows that, according to User:RA0808, the repeated removal of content from the Memphis Mafia article was unexplained. Furthermore, despite of this warning by administrator EdJohnson, Excelse has continued to remove content that is not in line with his personal opinion from article pages (see [17]), and it is to be feared that this will also happen in the future. See also his justification on User talk:Excelse. Onefortyone ( talk) 11:52, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Bbb23,
I believe the evidence posted on the SPI page should be more than enough, but in any case, me and Smsarmad can also add his IP range which he extensively used and abused since at least early 2012 up to including mid 2014. Including at least 10 or 20 of the IP's itself. Can either list them there on the SPI, or mail them to you. Its basically this that what DoRd and DeltaQuad meant. Please don't hesitate to let me know. Oh, and if you want even more evidence of Krzyhorse22 with previous socks and Lagoo sab, or perhaps with the IPs, let me know as well; got much more left behind hands, but I thought it'd be overkill otherwise as we already have plenty there. Bests - LouisAragon ( talk) 12:25, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Hmm bon appetit.
Drmies (
talk)
00:56, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Created the same day as the other socks and just restarted the edit-warring at Sukhoi 100: Valitro. Dr. K. 06:38, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Not quite sure to do about this, if anything. The editor in question has been editing and commenting in a particularly aggressive and combative manner at the Umpqua Community College Shooting article and at the article's [ talk page] as IP User:72.198.26.61. I've wondered for a few days if the IP was a block-evading sock, turns out he's just a sock. An undeclared one until today. Because of the way he's been so combative and aggressive, though, it does make me wonder if he was intentionally trying to avoid scrutiny by editing anonymously due to his recent 24-hour block for edit warring [18]. He's now claiming he didn't realize he was logged in when he admitted to editing from other accounts? [19] I'm confused and don't know if there's been a policy violation or not (it seems there has). That's why I'm bringing this here to you. Pinging MSGJ as the blocking admin. Thanks for taking the time, -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:04, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
I have received a talk page message from an IP editor claiming to be Babitaarora, whom you blocked as a result of your CheckUSer at a SPI which is at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Chander/Archive.
The claim of Babitaarora and Chander is that they are respectively brother and sister, who have used the same laptop computer, thus accounting for the CU evidence. Of course, I am fully aware of the "my little brother" excuse for sockpuppetry (and in this case it is indeed the brother who is supposed to be younger), but even so, that does not rule out the possibility that this time it may be true, so I have extensively examined the editing history to look for behavioural evidence. I do not doubt that all the other accounts you listed at the SPI were indeed sockpuppets of Chander, but Babitaarora looks rather different. There is indeed a considerable overlap of what articles have been edited, more so than would be typical for two siblings editing independently. Nevertheless, I also saw some very striking differences in ways of expressing themselves and using English, and some striking differences in use of edit summaries. For example, skimming down Chanders's contributions history, I was struck by the frequency of edits where the edit summary was just (uw), which he used when creating a new talk page to post a warning. In his last 250 edits, he used that edit summary 52 times, but Babitaarora has never used that edit summary, at least not in her last 1000 edits. In fact, when Babitaarora has created talk pages to post warnings, she has produced edit summaries of the form (←Created page with '==October 2015 == {{subst:uw-vandalism1|}} ~~~~'), which accounts for 17 of her last 250 edits, while Chander has never produced that type of edit summary. It is way beyond any reasonable possibility that such a degree of difference would be just chance coincidence from an editor using two accounts randomly, so either the accounts are not the same person or else it is someone putting in a remarkable effort to make it look like two editors, in a rather obscure way that he or she could not reasonably have expected would be checked. I have also seen more examples of types of edit summaries that tend to be more common for one or other of the accounts, but those are the most striking and extreme examples.
In this sort of situation, I like to check talk page posts to look for similarities or differences in ways of expressing themselves. Chander has a very poor grasp of English grammar: for example, after being blocked he wrote "Why you blocked my account without notifying me about this or asked me about the multiple accounts or paid editing issues before blocking? Why you calling me a paid editor when you know that I'm a whitelist user and has done 6K edits on thousands of articles?" Babitaarora, on the other hand, has a much higher competence in English, as a quick look at her talk page will show.
Another thing to look for is evidence of abuse of multiple accounts. I can find none. Even when the two accounts have edited the same page, I have not seen a single example of doing so in abusive ways, such as edit-warring in tandem, or supporting one another's opinions in discussions to give a spurious impression of independent support. In fact, if the two accounts were used by one person, then I can see no reason why the editor has bothered to do so.
It looks to me very much as though all the other accounts that you listed at the SPI were indeed sockpuppets of Chander, but that Babitaarora may well really be his sister, as she claims. Can you let me know what you think? The editor who uses the pseudonym " JamesBWatson" ( talk) 10:49, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
What is this? I know you're very busy but your actions indicate that you hate my guts. Give me a break. That guy admitted that he's creating sockpuppets and using proxies. If he emailed you and asked to remove my edits, it means he is what I suspected. Why are you biased toward me?-- Krzyhorse22 ( talk) 19:10, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi B, curious about this situation: User RAGHUallen, a user who'd been causing some promotional difficulty at Indian cinema articles, was blocked by Diannaa the other day for copyright violations. This guy Himesh Kuttiyal popped up after not editing in almost 2 months to request an autoblock be lifted. He was subsequently blocked be Elockid. The users have quite a bit of intersection, and frankly I've felt for a while that I'm dealing with a sock ring in Indian cinema. I'm curious about sleepers. Should I create an SPI? Thanks, Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 17:17, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi
Bbb23, I just reverted
86.147.209.31 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
filter log ·
WHOIS ·
RDNS ·
RBLs ·
http ·
block user ·
block log) on the help desk as they appear to be Vote X For.. who kept disrupting AN/I - could you have a look and block? --
samtar
whisper
16:31, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Given what's on this user's talk page, you should probably revoke their talk page access. Thanks, -- Rubbish computer ( HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 22:30, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
I was about to compile facts for an SPI, but I thought I'd try to check with you first. I believe that User:Sdjkl1 may be LTA banned sockmaster User:HarveyCarter. Their edits to Anthony Eden, Ramsay McDonald, Appeasement and [[German declaration of war against the United States {19431)]] look very much like the editing style of User:Gafbns, User:LanceCaldwell, and User:CharltonChiltern - all sockpuppets of HarveyCarter, and all (I believe) CU blocked by you. These editors add "facts" to the articles, some of which run counter to the normal consensus among historians, but all of which are totally unsourced. They are presented as positive declarative statements, some of which are interpretative, but none of which ever have a source. When one asks for sourcing, the "facts" are repeated ad nauseum on the talk page, often with exactly the same wording, but almost never with a source.
I wondered if you could take a look at least at the behavior and see what you think -- although in looking through the SPI archives, it seems that with HarveryCarter there is almost always more than one sock found when a CU is run. If you think my sketch of the problem here is insufficient, please let me know and I'll work up something more extensive for SPI. Thanks. BMK ( talk) 23:57, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
...is the SPI table failing to update again?-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 21:45, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
I did not see a sitewide notice pointing to a discussion to determine if there was consensus for your break. -- NeilN talk to me 16:28, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
The clarification request is archived at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion#Clarification request: Abortion (November 2015). For the Arbitration Committee, Mini apolis 20:11, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi! I don't quite understand the technicalities related to CU check being performed in SPIs. But I noticed that at the
Chander SPI you could fetch out a lot of accounts even though they were not reported as suspects. I think that's possible through whatever tools you guys use. I now have a doubt that while doing such a check, are only non-blocked or active accounts checked? Or are old accounts which are blocked or are not active since ages also get checked?
Why I come here is that the Chander case was a surprise to see many accounts with high number of edit counts. Incidentally, they happened to be editing same genre of articles, of Indian film and television which were favorite with
Noormohammed satya socks and also
Vibhas Kashyap socks.
The problem here is that this isn't a fanboy editing selective pages but ranges to so many pages and with so many accounts involved its difficult to base any case on behavioural evidence and many well-meaning established editors think that this is all paid editing of PR firms. Hence wanted to check my doubt. I understand you are away now, so maybe some of your tps can help answer. §§
Dharmadhyaksha§§ {
Talk /
Edits}
04:45, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
I altered the block conditions on a CU block you executed to remove talk page access by the user. Is that allowed? See 66.188.93.2 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Thanks Tide rolls 12:00, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
I'm sorry; I know you don't like admins without checkuser ability declining editors with a checkuser block, but this one annoyed me. -- Anthony Bradbury "talk" 17:58, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
MarnetteD|
Talk is wishing you
Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's
Solstice or
Christmas,
Diwali,
Hogmanay,
Hanukkah,
Lenaia,
Festivus or even the
Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!
Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{ subst: User:WereSpielChequers/Dec15b}} to your friends' talk pages.
Hi Bbb23. I am wondering if you could take a look at User:Kritksh because I think it might be User:Kritaksh who you blocked back in November for being a sockpuppet of Kartiktiwary. The username is practically identical (only the difference is an "a"), and the edit focusing seems to be Siya Ke Ram and other articles edited by the sockmaster and their socks. It could be just a coincidence of course, but it seems like a duck to me. Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 09:08, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
This is Krit Krishna from New Delhi. I can't understand what did you say.i will first read more about it then i will give you an appropriate answer. Kritksh ( talk) 03:32, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi.
You were the last admin who dealt with Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Radoezikova/Archive, so I thought I'd come to you with a question. This person made a huge number of fantasy Eurovision and Big Brother pages in their user space, all of which have been deleted for using Wikipedia as a web host. I noticed at Big Brother: The Boss, the user:Radoslav Tsanev account made a bunch of edits. He added hiss fantasy material and then did some edits, and finished by removing the material he added to leave the article looking like it hadn't been really changed. Doing it once can be put down to an accident, but the next day... He added back the fantasy material, along with one day's worth of fantasy game play. After some more of these edity, the material was removed again like before. I just quickly looked at another set of edits in article space from this account, and this shows that this behaviour is not in just one article.
This person is well-versed in editing Wikipedia, and doing multiple times in more than one article shows deliberate intent. I suspect that this person is trying to use the history function of Wikipedia articles to host his fantasy game material.
So at last my question: Is this something that needs to have revisions deleted to remove them? If so, I'm willing to go through the contributions from all the accounts and check them.
Thanks. -- Whpq ( talk) 18:29, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
I wonder if you would be willing to have a look at an unblock request at User talk:Rishika.dhanawade. You placed a CheckUser block on the account on 19 October, on the basis of sockpuppetry with User:Digvijay411. You reported your CU findings at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TekkenJinKazama/Archive, but you did not think that Rishika.dhanawade/Digvijay411 was the same person as TekkenJinKazama.
Rishika.dhanawade now admits to using Digvijay411 as a sockpuppet, but promises not to repeat any of the "mistakes and wrong editing habits". I am inclined to consider giving the editor another chance, and with that view I have invited the editor to give more explanation as to what "mistakes and wrong editing habits" he/she thinks he/she has made and will avoid. However, can you give an opinion on the unblock request? The editor who uses the pseudonym " JamesBWatson" ( talk) 13:21, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
A very happy Christmas and New Year to you! |
![]() |
|
|
Hi, Bbb23. Thank you very much for
this. After viewing the lengthy list of open cases at
WP:SPI, I was sure that case wouldn't be looked at for a month or more. Thanks for breaking speed records! Happy, stress-free holidays to you! Regards,
Xenophrenic (
talk) 01:10, 21 December 2015 (UTC) P.S.~ I pondered your "despite your labeling 23 a random number" quip, and wondered what I was missing. I did some Google searches and eventually recalled the
23 enigma, and the significance of that number. So you were correct; it's not such a "random" number after all. Satisfied that I had solved the mystery, I thought no more about it, and came here to leave a 'Thank you' note. It wasn't until after I clicked 'Save page' just now that I looked again at your username...
Facepalm
Xenophrenic (
talk)
01:11, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
This user is back [20]. New account [21] Misdemenor ( talk) 23:26, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Nice work. I've been alerted to a Buzzfeed article about what seems to be the same crew active this summer. Going to look through these people's contribs in case of any more hoax articles, but right now everything seems to have been already deleted. Blythwood ( talk) 01:26, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi Bbb23. Best of the Season to you. Unfortunately, the Holiday cheer is somehow disturbed by the work of socks who do not seem to have much regard for it. Case in point. Still, I would not have bothered you with these news, had the three-month CU limit not been so close in this SPI. If you have any spare time your intervention would be much appreciated. Take care. Dr. K. 02:01, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
How long (or short) is the period Check users can look back? The Banner talk 22:10, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
![]() |
Merry Christmas!! |
Hello, I wish you and your family a Merry Christmas and a very Happy New Year, Thanks for all your help on the 'pedia!
|
GAB
Hello! is wishing you a
Merry
Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes
WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a
Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!
Spread the cheer by adding {{ subst:Xmas6}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Best of luck in the new year,
GAB Hello! 22:05, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Looks like we may have a new BiKaz sock [22]. Doug Weller talk 07:08, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
I think Anti (album) might need protection because multiple IP addresses are abusing it, but I am not 100% sure. CLCStudent ( talk) 16:32, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
Hey Bbb23, since you seem to be around, could you have a look at the history of Naga, Cebu, and this section on the talk page. It seems pretty clear cut to me (note that Unbuttered Parsnip was recently blocked for 48 hours for 3RR, and looks to be doing it logged out to avoid a reblock). I have semiprotected the page, but would prefer to have a checkuser look into it. I would do it myself, but my CU bit is still in the mail I suppose. -- kelapstick( bainuu) 05:51, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
It is not my intention to edit war. However, User:XPrintGirl has repeatedly removed reliably sourced information I added to the Benedict Cumberbatch article, even after I requested that she desist. I have provided reliable sources to back up the edits I made, whereas XPrintGirl has so far only engaged in counterproductive revert warring. She has also now falsely accused me of making edits she made herself. [23] [24] - OneLittleDragon ( talk) 05:40, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi! Re Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Coat_of_Many_Colours/Archive#20_December_2015 and this ISP Delta Quad blocked another ISP [25] has popped up to continue the conversation and same reversions. Pretty clearly all the same editor. No doubt the "head of department" will be along shortly. Cheers, Johnbod ( talk) 11:10, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
Can I kindly ask why? -- Vituzzu ( talk) 14:29, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
Who are u?? The page. Admin ?? The person who owns this page or someone who thinks he owns my identity .. Bcos .. FYI .. I am Andria D'souza .. The Vj , Rj and actress Andria D'souza And If I see rubbish or wrong articles written about me I have the right to speak .. Or else .. I would claim a defamation case against you and Wikipedia for making my account without my knowledge or consent and for tampering or defaming me by writing n conveying wrong information to people reading about me
I have the right to speak about my image don't I?? Officialandria ( talk) 10:11, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
It might be worth removing talk page access to go with your CheckUser block. This edit added a claim that admins have ganged up to crucify him, a crucified Christ image, and what appears to be a a threat to continue socking. He also insists on blanking the sock block notice and unblock requests. Meters ( talk) 05:44, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
And thanks for all the good work you do here, Bbb. Best wishes from 99, 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 ( talk) 15:49, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
For [26]. Kept several people busy :-) And Happy Holidays to you. Poepkop ( talk) 15:58, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi Bbb23, I wondered if you had seen this [28] on the simple wikipedia, I cannot rollback on the simple wiki (no meta rights). Maybe I could just delete but I do not know what you'd want (and if you actually created that page yourself or if IP did so for this purpose). Poepkop ( talk) 15:07, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
A while ago, you indef blocked User:Peacebigline and User:Wikedpluri for using multiple accounts on Lee Man-hee and Shincheonji Church of Jesus the Temple of the Tabernacle of the Testimony - there is another account there now Special:Contributions/Robertseo, making the same edits. I was just going to file a sock puppet report, but I'm sure that even if they get blocked, they will come back with a string of new accounts, so I have a request. Could you put some form of protection on those articles, please? Even semi protected would help. Socks are less effective on articles that require confirmed accounts. Spacecowboy420 ( talk) 06:22, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
I normally have a huge admiration for the work you do but this kind of comment in answer to a perfectly reasonable technical question does not encourage me at all to report or block any future socks when when I come across them. I can understand now why so many people describe the SPI cabal as a Walled Garden. -- Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 10:15, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
I don't really touch sock investigations but thought you might want to see
Special:Contributions/88.194.149.117 in relation to
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Musicchief007/Archive.
czar
22:14, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
![]() |
Happy New Year! |
Best wishes for a wonderful 2016!---- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:42, 30 December 2015 (UTC) |
Bbb23,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable
New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Poepkop (
talk)
13:54, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
.
I appreciate you closing the EW report against me as 'no violation', as well as semi-protecting the page. Do you think it would be appropriate for me to undo my precautionary self revert at this point?
I also want to question your statements that such reverts of IPs, while exempt from 1RR, are still subject to 3RR. This seems to contradict a recent ArbCom ruling that followed the block and subsequent unblock of Huldra for making 10 (!!) such reverts on As'ad AbuKhalil - see the ANI report and follow-on Request for clarification where the drafting arbitrator of the 30/500 restriction stated "As for how to enforce the new GP, I think, as the drafter who voted against it, that This prohibition may be enforced by reverts, page protections, blocks, the use of Pending Changes, and appropriate edit filters. pretty much gives any use a unlimited authority to revert someone who is violating it", and another arbitrator stated "Huldra's actions "" (she reverted 10 times in rapid succession - see [29]) When Other Legends Are Forgotten ( talk) 00:34, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
Bbb23,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable
New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. –
Davey2010
Merry Xmas / Happy New Year
11:21, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
I recently undid an unconstructive edit of an opinion on List of Sweden international footballers. Do you think a warning is necessary in this case, and if so what level as the editor has received two warnings (in July and August 2015)? Thanks. Leeds United FC fan ( talk) 20:21, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
Due to the futility of mentioning this fact at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tirgil34, i'm posting the evidence here to get your direct attention. MagnificentMehmet inserts at Urheimat [30] the same content as an IP at Proto-Turkic language. [31] BronzeAgeYeniseian marks his edit at Karasuk culture [32] exactly like an IP at Bey. [33] Both of these IP's belonge to the range which was blocked as belonging to Tirgil34 in May 2015. [34] Egaplaicesp restores [35] Tirgil34 sock Weftsbuddy [36] at Haplogroup R1b, and Swathmafia creates the article Pazyryk rug [37] based on content added at Pazyryk burials by Tirgil34 sock Osgoem. [38] It's about time that the Egaplaicesp socks are tagged as belonging to Tirgil34 so that their edits can be removed as per WP:EVASION. On a sidenote, Happy New Year! Krakkos ( talk) 00:02, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
![]() (
Charles R. Knight, 1922)
|
Happy New Year 2016! Best regards, Sam Sailor Talk! 00:08, 2 January 2016 (UTC) Pass on! Send this greeting by adding
{{
subst:
User:Sam Sailor/Templates/HappyNewYear}} to user talk pages. |
![]() (Unknown artist,
Norway, 1916)
|
Re: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Alwayssmileguys/Archive, the sockmaster's original draft of Patrick Scott Patterson (now salted) has showed up at Patrick S Patterson by the new user Kaleshkalu1. Duck? czar 05:11, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
![]() |
I hope you all have a great year, despite all the recent SPI stuff (which is depressing). Tropicalkitty ( talk) 09:35, 3 January 2016 (UTC) |
New sock Special:Contributions/82.53.179.230 as a return to contributing. Can you block him/her? (also reverted edit as well). 115.164.216.90 ( talk) 15:08, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Sorry to bother you but I was wondering if you could have a look at two new editors who have popped up. Sadiazaki2015 started on Dec 29th and has made edits to both the article and AfD for Jibin which was created by Alwayssmileguys in addition to creating the article Gina_Messina_Dysert which has then been edited by user Femme111 as their only edits. I know it is a little thin but considering Alwayssmileguys' comment about coming back I thought it might be good to bring to your attention. Mrfrobinson ( talk) 11:45, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello Bbb23,
Hope your holidays and New Years went well.
So my editor interaction tool hasn't been working. It would be helpful for this recent SPI I filed: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/NovaSkola#06_January_2016. Does it work for you? Is it like this for everyone? Ciao! Étienne Dolet ( talk) 05:32, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
WP:Block evasion: A past user who you just block has come back with a new account User:Polopaladin03. Herman Jaka ( talk) 10:42, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
In the first paragraph of his talk page, Supreme Leader of Wikipedia admits to being the recently blocked Supreme Leader Kim Jong-un, and the blocking admin suspects that they're both aliases of Kingshowman; could you check these two accounts and look for sleepers and related IP activity? Thanks. Nyttend ( talk) 11:35, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello. I noticed your 3RR-warning, but there's also a report against them at WP:AIV for repeated political vandalism on Gilgit-Baltistan (repeatedly changing "India" to "Pakistan", moving Jammu and Kashmir to the other side of the border...), so would you mind taking a look at it? Thomas.W talk 19:02, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Do 82.132.227.172's edits meet the criteria to be hidden from public view? Some of their comments push the boundaries, in my opinion, such as the nazi comment and the other comment making fun of an administrator's perceived penis size. Amaury ( talk) 00:06, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for reverting the editor and revdel'ing their edits. If this keeps up, would you mind semi-protecting my talk page in the future? Snuggums ( talk / edits) 05:17, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Hey Bbb23. That guy with that mixed-up SPI case whom you blocked today, just created another sock and started editing. [41] 110% duck. Bests - LouisAragon ( talk) 08:17, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
@ Bbb23:, I think I got another one here. Reinstatement of the same bogus like earlier blocked socks, [46] as well as the username. - LouisAragon ( talk) 11:11, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
On the sockpuppet investigation page, you appear to have listed one puppet, JenMercadoHeras, twice. Either I have missed a subtle distinction here, or one of these should probably be removed. RolandR ( talk) 12:32, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
circumventing the formal channels, but as you appear to be working now, please have a look at Madaya, Syria article. As is clear from the edit history, the article ought to be blocked, either completely, or for anonymous and newly registered. Axxxion ( talk) 16:50, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
User:Jonjon893 is back with another account. Here's his latest: Special:Contributions/Jonathan_Sydel -- 50.29.199.144 ( talk) 18:47, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi Bbb23! Thought you might be interested in the note at User:AlF6Na3/sandbox, in case you haven't seen it already. Happy editing! GoingBatty ( talk) 00:10, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello
I wrote an article about the Syrian actor Wael Sharaf, and it's was deleted by Bbb23 and I don't know the real reason behind it, because I can find other articles about Syrian actors on wikipedia. Therefor I want and answer for my question and I hope we can bring the article back again, because he is one of the most popular actor in the Arab world. By the way, I'm in touch with the actor himself and I have all rights to share information about him.
Regards
Wisam Shakir. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wisamshakir ( talk • contribs) 23:25, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Whose sock was it? I had the account on my WP:Watchlist due to suspicion. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 02:20, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
I think I mainly had the account on my WP:Watchlist due to this matter. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 02:23, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
There's an person, user:NearEMPTiness, who has a sideline in making up words, adulatory COI auto-(and family)-biographies, and hyperspecialized usages, who has again put a neologism as the title of a new article, Trolleyboat.
As even a casual glance will show, this isn't a standard English word, and the few uses found are for something else entirely, a morphodite half-breed of a DUKW and a streetcar. Anmccaff ( talk) 18:06, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Hey B, what do you make of this guy? I saw that you reverted at least one of his edits a few days ago. It looks to me like he's going around flagging sock accounts as globally locked. I notice some gravedancing in his past. I suppose stuff like this could be helpful, but a very weird area of interest. Any thoughts? Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 07:39, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Hey, I'm bothering you again. I previously asked for a CU to link user WillShowU to WikiBriefed. I'm no longer convinced that they're the same person. However, based on some editing patterns, I now think that the master for WikiBriefed could be AniceMathew. (Both seem really chatty and condescending in edit summaries, both tend to issue edicts about references, their edit summary typography is similar [excessive and misuse of ellipses] and so forth.) The question is whether or not the most recently identified AniceMathew sock, RameshNambiath edited recently enough (August 2015) for there to still be enough data to make the link? I'm also going to look further into the Ambeinghari accounts to see if there's a link. WikiBriefed's behavior is peculiar enough that I feel like he's a sock of someone, it's just a matter of getting through the soup. Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 18:51, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
You don't like the citation? It's a quote from her, it's insufficient? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.7.5.208 ( talk) 16:40, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Take a look, she said it: https://www.facebook.com/mohammad.hamad.75/posts/1028656247193421?comment_id=1028672027191843&comment_tracking={%22tn%22%3A%22R9%22} — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.7.5.208 ( talk) 17:00, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Hey Bbb23,
Someone else randomly just closed this SPI even though absolutely no evaluation has been made yet by any moderator or any SPI staff. Is it going to be done anytime soon? I can guarantee for 110% that those accounts are linked together, if only someone would read through the extensive evidence provided. Therefore I would like to ask for it to be re-opened until someone at least can look at it for once. I was waiting all the time for SPI staff to evaluate it, and now it just got closed without any evaluation or any comment on the material or whatsoever. Bests - LouisAragon ( talk) 09:39, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
Speaking for myself, I rarely do full-scale behavioral evaluations since I've become a CheckUser, and the evidence in this particular SPI is long. It wouldn't suprise me if its length (as LouisAragorn says "effort") isn't playing a role in its being untouched (we are human after all). Also, it's not necessarily true that no one has evaluated it. Someone may have done a partial evaluation and not been able to make a determination they were comfortable with. That would happen in the background, and no one except the evaluator would know it.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 20:44, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi Bbb23, could you take a look at and provide your view at User_talk:Dfunk006? @ Kuru: says you've expressed other concerns so your input would be good as the blocking admin, especially since it's a checkuser block. only ( talk) 23:26, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello. How can I reopen a sockpuppet investigation? I want to reopen this. Thanks. -- Bleckter ( talk) 00:56, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
User:VegasCasinoKid has asked for a deletion review of Love & Devotion (Michael Bow song). Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. — Cryptic 04:24, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
The phone number 1 800 235 6302 appears to be connected with http://windowsithelp.com/ - would it be an idea to add them (and the UK number 0-800-086-9133 too) to the filters? The name Lalit Singh also comes up with them, but there might be more of that name that aren't involved. This is widely spammed. Peridon ( talk) 16:17, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
You reverted an edit by an IP editor. The change made by the IP editor was as follows:
The source cited says:
In my opinion the IP editor made a good edit.-- Toddy1 (talk) 19:50, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
Hey, can you userfy this for me in my userspace? I'd like to see if I can work it into something. Thanks! Montanabw (talk) 04:06, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi Bbb23, can you check the following account: Lostrigot ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) created Dec 31st [47], created just three days after the most recent Rolandi sock was blocked [48]. Edits similar articles, e.g. Panagiotis Kone [49] [50]. The new account's name, Lostrigot, sounds very similar to the Laestrygones, creatures from the Odyssey, a subject Rolandi had shown an interest in [51]. Thanks in advance. Athenean ( talk) 21:38, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi, just checking to see if this is true? Did you give permission or is it a new sock of Alexiulian25 ( talk · contribs)? Qed237 (talk) 19:51, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
I asked this at the general admin noticeboard but didn't get an answer: Is it allowed to make requests like the one I made of AmericanDad86? I want to do things within the etiquette but I can't get much information on what it is. Darkfrog24 ( talk) 21:51, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. -- JBL ( talk) 15:49, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi - this was the next in the queue, so I took it and thought I'd run it by you as the blocking admin. He seems to have given you a couple of gray hairs. ;-) I'm not impressed with the appeal, but I'm open to the standard offer if he agrees to not sock and to conform with copyright policy. Let me know your thoughts. Katie talk 22:28, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi Bbb23. I know you're a regular at WP:SPI, so I wonder if you could answer something for me. I regularly patrol/post at WP:UAA, and every so often I see a name with some variation of "Deez Nutz". It turns out that User:Deez Nutz was blocked as a sockpuppet of User:Dick Witham, but there is no investigations casepage for this individual.
Looking at Special:CentralAuth, I can find a slew of names with the "Deez N*" or "DeezN*" pattern that could be potential socks. Some have been blocked for username violations, others not. No one appears to have raised any concerns that these could be socks, so is it worth opening an investigation at this point? -- Drm310 ( talk) 17:32, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello. Sorry to bother you with this but there is a new discussion at WP:ANI under the above heading. This makes reference to a formal warning which you issued to Py0alb a couple of years ago and you may wish to take part given your prior involvement. Thanks very much. Jack | talk page 21:24, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
I will apologize in advance for bothering you with a rather trivial question, but I want to be certain I understand this statement correctly:
When you say "...it's all obviously untrue," you mean the statements made by Screwjack1981 and his/her Medidog1951 sock puppet, when he/they related their personal biographies?
Thank you, EditorASC ( talk) 05:39, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Despite your warning [53], Xtremedood continues to make frivolous SPIs against me, he just did at which I have marked for deletion as well. Capitals00 ( talk) 14:28, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Are you sure there shouldn't be a comma? https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Murder_of_Travis_Alexander&oldid=prev&diff=701438997 MattSucci ( talk) 17:08, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi Bbb23, I don't suppose you could run a CU on a set of IPs that have been harassing Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz ( talk · contribs) on their talk page? The messages are related to WP:ANI#Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz making multiple personal attacks and a dispute at Occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge and there's some suspicion that the IPs (which have never edited that article) represent a logged-out editor. At the very least, a rangeblock would help keep the IPs off his talk page and avoid outing anyone.
Thanks in advance. clpo13( talk) 19:40, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
FYI - a new user is accusing you of being a sock. -- Cahk ( talk) 07:27, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello Bbb23!
On 18 October of last year, you intervened on my talk page [60], and I believe you may be able to help in the situation developing, I am suspecting, with the same individual, at the Louis XVI of France article. Please check last edits of yesterday from here [61] to here [62]. Method, style, English, plus an obsession of pushing importance of overbearing details on physical appearance lead me to believe this is the person dealt with last August [63].
Please note that I did not revert or continue to edit the Louis XVI article, as I do not want to reproduce the situation we were caught in at the Marie Antoinette article, which lasted for months, with unending discussions on the talk page [64] as the article was being held hostage: one of the reasons I am declining to go to the Louis XVI talk page & get caught in same situation with same individual: I refuse to enter his game.
Note also that same individual signs in with a new name & works only on one article, quickly turning it into a battlefield. His notes on my talk page (Marie Antoinette & Chartres) plus the one you removed show what he is capable of.
Best regards, -- Blue Indigo ( talk) 08:51, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello
Bbb23 - Reporting six (6) new socks of same, this time at
Marie Antoinette article, beginning on 20 January 2016 at 23:14
Best regards, -- Blue Indigo ( talk) 12:37, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello Bbb23 - Newly signed-up sock Newqueen2 and his work [68] [69].
Best regards, -- Blue Indigo ( talk) 20:23, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
S/he's back, as Georgeparry22 ( talk · contribs) and as Blueindigo23 ( talk · contribs) under which s/he vandalised Vel' d'Hiv Roundup (a Holocaust article) and left a message on Blue Indigo's talk page. NebY ( talk) 22:25, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
Returned to
Vel' d'Hiv Roundup article
[70]
[71] under new sock name
BLue Undigo2
Regards, -- Blue Indigo ( talk) 13:46, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
I see you've dealt with the latest one while I was raising an ANI report. Thanks. NebY ( talk) 19:09, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Now as BlueUndigo8. NebY ( talk) 13:15, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
My apologies for wasting your time on the Hawes SPI. Either I somehow did not realize they were already blocked, or it did not show properly. GAB Hello! 00:22, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi B, I'm getting a funky vibe from IamRDOfficial, and looking through the edit history here, I notice that there are a ton of indeffed socks. (I don't know if you use User:NuclearWarfare/Mark-blocked script.js, but it strikes through the names of blocked users. Very useful. And I'm seeing a sea of blocked accounts.) Based on the name "IamRDOfficial", I started looking at some of the socks and found Rishika.dhanawade, which would be a smart choice for an sockmaster candidate based on the "RD". I also noticed that after being indeffed, Rishika.dhanawade started using their talk page as a sandbox to flesh out an article on Mukta Barve, which by no coincidence was also edited by IamRDOfficial. I'm cool with indeffing and filing a perfunctory SPI, but I'm not sure whether I should start it at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rishika.dhanawade or at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Chander. I'm a little bit confused about your findings. Thoughts? Thanks, Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 20:46, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Spotted this one as I had one of them on my watchlist from CSDing their nonsense pages. You might want to check Beastboy2004 ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki), as it's only showing 1 year, instead of indef. I was just having a quick scan through contribs to see if there was any obvious vandalism remaining to be reverted, and spotted it.
Thanks for all the hard work on SPIs. Regards, Murph9000 ( talk) 01:09, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
This was shorter than the usual cycle. Jeh ( talk) 01:23, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
The user has involved the same editing as User:Strawberrygirls and User:Pistolplay4. 123.136.107.118 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:49, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi Mr. Administrator
Please Check this IP's History and it actions like this (look at Summary) and other edits. And If it is possible Block it thank You. World Cup 2010 ( talk) 08:40, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Can you explain the block at User:My Motherland? There was no SPI about it, just curious what you saw. -- allthefoxes ( Talk) 03:42, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
![]() |
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar |
For tireless good work on SPI cases. GAB Hello! 23:11, 29 January 2016 (UTC) |
When I tried to compare the editing pattern of some new accounts with confirmed socks of ELreydeEspana I realized that some closed cases are missing (23 April 2015, 13 May 2015, 14 June 2015). Was this revert an accident? JimRenge ( talk) 12:21, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
New account I've just blocked for, frankly, weirdness. Contribs are creating an LTA page for user:Никита-Родин-2002 and then creating an SPI about himself including CU request - Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SunMatchKol. Can you take a look, thanks. Nthep ( talk) 15:35, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi,
Bbb23,
There is an IP account that is going around posting "indefinitely banned" messages on user talk pages of editors you (and others) have recently blocked, like
Lennieteague04 and
Uncyclomusic. While it is not exactly improper behavior it is odd for a new IP account to focus on placing block notices. I thought it might be an admin or experienced editor who is editing logged out so I left a talk page message but I thought I should just alert an admin who might be affected. Maybe they are doing a valuable service, I don't know but I thought I'd pass it along.
Liz
Read!
Talk!
17:27, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi Bbb23, Thank you for applying discretionary sanctions to the above page. I look forward to adjudication regarding the deletions unilaterally made without prior discussion by User:Solntsa90. 09:00, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi BBb23, you blocked - here [72] - a couple of sock puppets who were constantly editing a number of TV series articles in a disruptive way. Starting the next day, there have been IP edits in the same vein with similar edit summaries - see for example [73] and [74]. I'm not sure how to report a suspected block evasion or what the next step would be, so if you could either let me know or have a look into it yourself that would be great, thanks. Melcous ( talk)
I think he may be back again [75], but he's subtler this time, so I thought it best to drop a note here before reopening SPI. What do you think? -- Drmargi ( talk) 15:40, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
And he's back again, daring us this time: User:2607:fb90:1362:ba31:0:1f:465:b801. Would it be worth semi'ing the articles as he pops up? -- Drmargi ( talk) 06:01, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
He's still at it. A couple new IPs and a new sock on White Collar; I'll take them to SPI in the morning, when I'm back on my desktop. Meanwhile, see just above about protecting a couple more articles. -- Drmargi ( talk) 09:22, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Hey Bbb23. I just wanted to get your attention for this sockpuppet investigation against Richelle Cohen [76] sockpuppet case. I know that the editor case is a bit stale, because you protected the page the user in question was vandalizing. I'm worried that the user will continue their tendentious editing on Katherine Harris when the protect expires. It's also pretty obvious user is a sock/meatpuppet of User:2600:1010:B02E:1269:AA64:8C2E:A7E0:E66C, who was blocked for editing in the same way, with the same edit summaries for every edit. Boomer Vial Holla 13:15, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
As I'm not very familiar with SPI, can I ask if your declined CPU means nothing wilk be done about Xtremedood's systematic harassment? He'll be able to continue ediring using his main account while harassing users who disagree with his edit through the dynamic IPs? Jeppiz ( talk) 15:02, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello. Gerua18 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who was warned for edits on Punjab, Pakistan a few days ago seems to be related to 5.107.112.47 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) who you blocked for block evasion (Xtremedood?). Check their contributions, with the IP continuing with the same edits as Gerua18 was making, right after Gerua18 was given a final warning, and also reverting an edit on Gerua18's talk page. Thomas.W talk 16:48, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
This CSD was originally declined by me. The user who first tagged the image then went and unlinked it [78] (after it had been around for 15 months) and retagged it. I don't think this deletion was a smart one, nor in keeping with the spirit of G5. Would you reconsider? Magog the Ogre ( t • c) 02:11, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Pardon me, but could you elaborate on this? The reason there is no technical evidence is that you decided to decline looking for technical evidence, isn't it? What other technical evidence could there be? Jeppiz ( talk) 21:03, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
FYI the utterly bizarre Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ItsLassieTime and the contributions of the now blocked editor who filed it [79]. Best, Voceditenore ( talk) 16:19, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
When you have a chance, could you take a look at 5.228.177.108 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) and their activity? The IP actually assisted me in correcting a badly created SPI, but in looking at its other edits it looks highly suspicious to me. Maybe I'm missing something. Thanks. General Ization Talk 16:42, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello. I noticed that WillShowU had been mentioned in another SPI, but see no similarities to that master, I do however see similarities between WillShowU and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AniceMathew, since both have edited Kolkata Knight Riders, both have many edits on articles about Bollywood movies, both seem to have had an above average interest in box-office returns of such movies and neither of them used talkpages (Anice Mathews made 1,340 edits, but only two on article talk pages, while WillSHowU made 187 edits, none of them on article talk). It would also explain why WillShowU knew his way around here from day one. Anything and everything about AniceMathews must be stale by now, so I don't expect any technical comparison, I just thought I'd mention it. /Tom Thomas.W talk 23:10, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
RedDeadJohn is still socking, now as User:BD567. I left a couple messages about this, but they're well up page now, so it might be best to start a new discussion. The article for White Collar needs page protection, too. -- Drmargi ( talk) 13:57, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Aaand he's back as Movieman191. Filed at SPI. This guy clearly needs to learn the definition of insanity. Would you protect Covert Affairs? -- Drmargi ( talk) 13:45, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello!
I am the creator of the page The Pilgreens, an article about a French Association that was going on the news around the world. The article was deleted, in my option this was due to a mistake and I should have improved the draft first before publishing it.
Could you provide me the content of the article so that I can then write a better founded version with improved reasons for the article to be important?
And could you also provide detailed reasons for the deletion, so that we can work on that and show the importance of the page?
Thank you!
Ludwig — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ludwigmerz ( talk • contribs) 10:57, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi
Bbb23, hope you're well -
Rich Piana's AfD has been running for 22 days now, would it be possible to have it closed? Much obliged
--
samtar
whisper
13:26, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi there Bbb23,
you deleted the page I created after it was flagged for speedy deletion. After review, on the talk page, it was tagged as being 'within the guidelines' and should not have been deleted. Can you please clarify as to why you deleted the page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spuderman ( talk • contribs) 20:53, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Bbb23 I will accept that. I'm still getting the hang of these things, so I appreciate your patience. ( Spuderman ( talk) 22:23, 5 February 2016 (UTC))
![]() |
These are really great. I regret not being born in The Netherlands. Nph ( talk) 13:22, 7 February 2016 (UTC) |