Misplaced Pages

User talk:Bbb23: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 21:52, 22 October 2016 view sourceDatGuy (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Administrators39,858 editsm Please stop block evading← Previous edit Revision as of 22:44, 22 October 2016 view source Magnolia677 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers139,434 edits →17th Satellite Awards: new sectionNext edit →
Line 211: Line 211:


:: Tonight's "block count" is now three. So far... - '''Tom''' | ] ] :: Tonight's "block count" is now three. So far... - '''Tom''' | ] ]

== ] ==

Would you be willing to redact the recent edit summaries at ], per ] #2? I left the editor who wrote them a very firm talk page message, so hopefully they will stop. Thank you very much. ] (]) 22:44, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Revision as of 22:44, 22 October 2016

Archiving icon
Archives
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3
Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6
Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9
Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12
Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15
Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18
Archive 19Archive 20Archive 21
Archive 22Archive 23Archive 24
Archive 25Archive 26Archive 27
Archive 28Archive 29Archive 30
Archive 31Archive 32Archive 33
Archive 34Archive 35Archive 36
Archive 37Archive 38Archive 39
Archive 40Archive 41Archive 42
Archive 43Archive 44Archive 45
Archive 46Archive 47Archive 48
Archive 49Archive 50Archive 51
Archive 52Archive 53Archive 54
Archive 55Archive 56Archive 57
Archive 58Archive 59Archive 60
Archive 61Archive 62Archive 63
Archive 64

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 10 sections are present.

Caution
  • Unless otherwise requested, I will respond on this page.
  • Please include links to pertinent page(s).
  • Click New section on the top right to start a new topic.

ThomasMatt22 et al

I have a suspicion that this user is back in the form of Special:Contributions/JayMehta1995 and probably Special:Contributions/CollingwoodFC1980 & Special:Contributions/SteveHA. The previous incarnation had a technique of edit warring with himself, so possibly also some other accounts that already have been blocked, a couple of them you can see here https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Soccer_in_Australia&action=history. I suspect 1.39.8.40 involved there is him as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.217.48.63 (talk) 22:44, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks much.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:31, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

And again it seems, Special:Contributions/JayKM22 with presumably a new IP Special:Contributions/1.39.47.82 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.132.233 (talk) 06:45, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Socks of MiG29VN?

Hi. As far as you're aware, which other accounts are certain or believed to be socks of MiG29VN? I've looked at this account's SPI archive, and I see you CU'ed a bunch of suspected socks on 27 June 2016 — but although you said several accounts were confirmed to each other, you don't seem to have said they were confirmed to be linked to MiG29VN. Was there something additional, not mentioned in that older SPI, which established that link (or made it likely)? — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 03:03, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Rich, what I did in both the MiG29VN and the Haohaomyy SPIs is pretty common. When I checked the suspected puppets in June 2016, the master was stale. Technically, I couldn't connect any new accounts to the master. So I found that several accounts were socks and the clerk made the behavioral connection and tagged them. When I made the findings in the Haohaomyy SPI, I very carefully said the accounts were likely, not to MiG29VN, but to previous socks. Again, a clerk, or more precisely a clerk-trainee, made the behavioral connection and tagged the accounts as proven socks of MiG29VN. If based on your own analysis you want to challenge GeneralizationsAreBad's analysis, that's up to you. GAB is easy to work with, and the two of you could always compare your reasoning to see why you think the accounts are not connected and why he thinks they are.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:50, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
OK, thanks. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 07:14, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Caroline A. Murphy

Thanks for dealing with the case so quickly. Apart from the sock's recreation of Jacob Cass, a blatant continuation of his PR campaign, the socks other articles (Paras Nath Rajwade, Shyam Bihari Jaiswal, & Champa Devi Pawle) look OK and I'm not sure whether to G5 them or not. They're no great masterpieces, but they're not trash either. Other than discouraging puppetry (and I'm fairly convinced that Jacob Cass was the objective of this puppetry) there seems little point deleting them. How do you feel? Regards, Cabayi (talk) 14:32, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Personally, I would G5 them, but nothing requires you to do so.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:55, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
I was on the fence, and discouraging puppetry seems a good enough reason. Thanks for the push. Cabayi (talk) 10:42, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Re: your edit summary

at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Nariman.kirgizbaev of doing the filer's job... I filled out the (Twinkle?) drop-down SPI-template as fully as I could but in the course of my research kept on coming up with more possibly-related accounts - I do not remember multiple CheckUser requests being an option on that particular template. Looks like some form of thanks would be in order for your catching of that oversight - in any case, would be great to slow down the master & all the apparent associated puppets for some period of time on all the "Minot Duck/Minot Al Duck/Minot Al Duck Jr/Minot Al Duck Park" creations. Shearonink (talk) 18:24, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by "multiple CheckUser requests". The only real problem with what you did was you didn't list all the suspected puppets in the proper location. If those additional accounts occurred to you later, you just go back in and edit the SPI and add them (in the proper way), along with the evidence in support.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:37, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
Yeah I know I could go back in later to fill in all those probable socks & would have been glad to do so but you beat me to it. I guess I am not sure what the intent of your edit summary was - tone of voice is so hard to hear online. Shearonink (talk) 20:31, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
It was crabby and for that I apologize.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:26, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, muchly appreciated. Cheers, Shearonink (talk) 14:35, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

mail

It might be a messy bit of filing if I put it up now, but it needs to be done... one way or other JarrahTree 01:37, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

@JarrahTree: You'll have to file. I know nothing about these accounts.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:41, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
Fair enough, thank you for even replying - it is a hunch, I'll have to be careful I will have to go back and check the diffs and apparent similarities before I do - thanks again JarrahTree 15:44, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

36hourblock "suspected sockpuppet of Chie One"?

Hey! Thanks for dealing with the SPI the other day.

I was just wondering about formatting following the closing, moving and archiving of an SPI that CU found after the fact to have been mistitled. Currently the (already archived) SPI has me listing Iamboredsenseless and 36hourblock as both being "suspected sockpuppets" of Chie One, but technically I never suspected that. I was 100% certain Iamboredsenseless was somebody's sockpuppet, and had an inkling that it might be 36hourblock.

Would it be possible to add some kind of note to the effect that I had opened the SPI under a different title?

The fact that you moved the page following CU isn't noted anywhere in the archived investigation, and since the archive is a subpage the move isn't even in the page history of the page where it... currently... is... Sorry, couldn't figure out how to word that better.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:46, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

No note is necessary or even appropriate. The final disposition of the case is normal when there is a change of master. And it can be determined from the revision history if anyone really cares. Don't worry about it. It's certainly no reflection on you.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:52, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

vandalism

Greetings,

I recently received a message from this user warning that I have been vandalizing wikipedia. I would like to ask a question. I have been in an "edit war" with someone on a controversial page, which led to the message. The page is about Troy davis, https://en.wikipedia.org/Troy_Davis, an accused murderer who was sentenced to death in the US, even though human rights organizations like Amnesty International claimed the evidence was attained by police coercion. The page is slanted to make it sound as if he is guilty, and I have been continually trying to make the page reflect the serious questions about his trial, only someone keeps changing the page back. I don't know what to do about this, but would like the page to show the serious debate about Mr. Davis's case and doubt about his guilt. Will gladly create an account but don't know how to report the page so that someone can't just keep changing it back. I am not trying to be a vandal :). Many thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:204:D605:760:F020:D0ED:F159:92ED (talk) 19:36, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Create an account and discuss your issues with the article on its Talk page. Otherwise, I and others may continue to revert your edits.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:26, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

I find your standard for what is a "neutral edit" a little harsh. If you read the article as it currently reads, it is not currently neutral, I am displeased that any change I make is immediately removed by you. What would a "neutral change" look like. I stated a fact that groups had raised concerns--how can we make the article reflect those concerns? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wgm2016 (talk • contribs) 22:26, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

We overlapped. I just left you a note at your Talk page explaining to you what you need to do. This discussion does not belong here or at your Talk page but at the Davis Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:28, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

CU investigation and Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Matheus Soares

You may already have noticed it, but Rayan Makkonen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) just removed your CUnote at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Matheus Soares (diff). —C.Fred (talk) 21:14, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Leontyne Price

Hi Bbb23,

I know that for some time you've monitored the Leontyne Price article. Would you have any interest in collaborating with me to remove those 3 cite tags there? Cheers! X4n6 (talk) 23:21, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

@X4n6: It's a great idea, but I'm afraid I don't have the time given my extensive administrative activities. Sorry.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:44, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for getting back to me. I do understand that time constraints can make this a daunting challenge. But I'd love to see the article upgraded to at least GA status over time. I think it deserves it. But I know that'll be a very long, gradual process. I'll work on it, as time permits. But should you have any time to pop in, even occasionally, please do, and feel free to offer any thoughts, suggestions or other input along the way. I think a major overhaul is long overdue to get it to that level; and as I say, I'd certainly welcome even intermittent help. Thanks again. X4n6 (talk) 00:00, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Matheus Soares

Another sockpuppet closed the Afd even though it was clearly going toward delete.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 06:23, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

HarveyCarter

Seems obvious that Hoohahhah is another HC sock. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:08, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Getter Saar

This discussion is closed.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:58, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

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

There were at least three contributions to this article (one, and the most voluminous (facts/refs filled), by etwi admin Andres), so, we made the article into article, to be in the row with other badminton players; besides that, started with deleting all copyright violation related text (resulted basically in one sentence, "X is a Y", plus infobox). Do please undo your action, thanks!—Pietadè (talk) 17:55, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Or else, I like badminton, prhps not the only 1...—Pietadè (talk)

I agree, too much paranoia is not good for Misplaced Pages. Florentyna (talk) 18:38, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Here is much too much paranoia in the game. I invested a lot of time into the articles of this author to make from the stubs a little bit better stubs. This is not a way good for Misplaced Pages like it went here. You are blocking the user and then you are wondering when he creates articles (no vandalism!!!) under a new name??? Seems that he is not an English native, so poor English can be expected. Teaching users, not penalting! Florentyna (talk) 18:46, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Enough. The article was restored.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:56, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

What was his illegitimate behaviour in the first place? Why was he blocked? I think we should restore all his stubs and unblock him. If something is to be deleted then perhaps not deletedly. Andres (talk) 19:10, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree. Too much work was deleted without consensus. Florentyna (talk) 19:14, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

66.87.77.21

Hi Bbb23,

I just wanted to inform you that this IP who you blocked has made an unblock request. I was the IP that they were claiming had edit warred. Thank you. 2607:FB90:815F:8DAD:0:0:27A:7B01 (talk) 22:19, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up and your vigilance at the RfA.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:27, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

One of the badmittion player pages made by the banned user that was not deleted

Here Getter Saar-someone deleted the speedy also (which I did restore) Wgolf (talk) 22:42, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

I declined the G5. If you look at the closed discussion about this article not too far above this section on my Talk page, you should be able to follow why. If you have any further questions, let me know. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:57, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Would you please tell me where I could continue the closed discussion? Andres (talk) 07:34, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
If I understand you properly, you want the sock master unblocked and any articles deleted per G5 restored. An unblock request should come from the blocked person. There's nothing to do without that. The master made an unblock request through UTRS, which was rejected. Why he went through UTRS rather than a normal unblock request is a mystery, but he has access to his Talk page and he can still request an unblock if he wishes. As for the deleted pages, you can restore articles if you think they are appropriate per Misplaced Pages's guidelines. You don't need my permission to do that.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:36, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for advice!
For a newcomer it is difficult to find the proper way, so I don't think it's a mystery that he doesn't know how to proceed. Andres (talk) 13:57, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

CheckUser enquiry

Bbb23, sorry to contact you in this way. However, I have come across a rather unusual case in which as user as stated the phrase "please do not block me again!", yet their logs show they have never been blocked before. Furthermore, a second comment by the same user states that their next block would be for a period of 1-month. How can they know that length of time if they have never been blocked before, unless they are evading a block and editing under a sock account. Any advice would be truly appreciated. Wes Mouse   22:49, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Please provide diffs.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:12, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
This is when the user has said "Don't block me again". The Blocklog for "RVFan1930" contains no blocks. At that point I assumed good faith that the term "again" was a typo error. However, moments later they say their next block would be for "one-month". Solo edit from Rvfan101 (talk · contribs) to Red Velvet (band) (an Asian girl band). And what triggers a possible connection is this with a list of Asia-related "role-play" list - although I could be grasping straws on that connection. But it is the talk page comments and the clean-sheet block record, and the similarities in user name that just doesn't add up. Wes Mouse   01:01, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
I can't check the two accounts because Rvfan101 is  Stale.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:45, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Hmmm, stale account. I'm guessing that is due to the lack of edits. Do you not find the comments a bit peculiar though? To say tell one person not to block them again, and then to tell another that their next block would be for 1-month as if they have already been warned the duration of their next block. Yet neither of those RV accounts have ever been blocked. I find it rather strange. Ah well, I'll let it pass I suppose. You know what they say, give 'em enough rope and they'll hang themselves. I'm sure they will slip up and the name of their blocked account will come out eventually. They have to be one crafty sock to be evading scrutiny. Thanks for checking anyway, really appreciated. Wes Mouse   04:17, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Bbb23, the user RVFan1930 is now becoming a bit of a problematic user. 6 warnings in the last 5 days about adding content without providing any citations. And after checking their changes, even I could not find sources to back-up their claims. I'm wondering if a soft-block is in order as a preventative measure, as they are clearly not taking heed of the warnings. Wes Mouse  09:36, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Question

Have you checked in on this situation yet? Particularly since the battleground mentality, dramatics, and invented conflicts with others – all issues which this user has a deep history of, chronicled at ANI – are returning. Chase (talk | contributions) 06:05, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Chase is a hound. You, as an admin, should know better not to follow a troll's advice.--MaranoFan (talk) 06:08, 19 October 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MaranoBoy (talk • contribs)
In addition to the unfounded "hound" accusation above (and in a series of recent reverts), Bbb23, please also note the personal attacks here, incivility here, and a suspicious set of anonymous user page vandalisms detailed here. Chase (talk | contributions) 06:14, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Also, the editor in question has access to their main account again, fwiw, where the disruption and incivility have continued. Chase (talk | contributions) 07:03, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Note to Bbb23, If you don't hat and archive this discussion now, the troll will make heaps and bounds of walls of text on here that mean absolutely nothing.--MaranoFan (talk) 07:14, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
OMG I found his sockpuppet..--MaranoFan (talk) 07:20, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
That's the best laugh I've had all morning. Even I can tell the difference between a legitimate alternative account (which is allowed on Misplaced Pages) and a sock account (which are not allowed). Perhaps brushing up on the differences first would be better than trying to play spot the difference whilst wearing a blindfold. Wes Mouse   07:49, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
MaranoBoy is a legitimate alternative account, used to edit Misplaced Pages on public computers to maintain security. There's your explanation, Bbb23, bwahaha..--MaranoFan (talk) 08:11, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
And even I can see through that as a lie. One is your true account. The other is a sock account, because your main one was blocked. That is the definition of a WP:SOCK and quite a wiffy one at that. When was the last time they got put through the washing machine? Wes Mouse   08:17, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Are you dumb or just mildly idiotic? I wasn't blocked at all. I haven't been for almost half a year.--MaranoFan (talk) 09:14, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Aquila Records

Hello, you deleted my article Aquila Records, even after I made the corrections necessary. I was still adding information to the page. I believe it was deleted due to the lack of importance of the company. Aquila records is a record label in Nigeria that houses three major music artists under its umbrella. I was going to add more information to the page, but at this point I cannot access the article. Could you please restore the page, and I will add on to the article outlining the labels importance, please. I would appreciate your assistance in this matter. Snzeakor (talk) 06:39, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

You shouldn't create an article in main space unless it is ready. If you wish to work on the article some more, I can WP:USERFY it for you and you can then submit it through WP:AFC to get feedback from other editors as to whether it meets Misplaced Pages guidelines. Let me know if that's you want me to do.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:40, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes could you please do that. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snzeakor (talk • contribs) 07:59, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

I just noticed that you already have a draft of this article. Why do you need another one then?--Bbb23 (talk) 12:22, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Sevcohaha

Hi Bbb23. Would you mind taking a look at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Sevcohaha when you have the time? I believe you were the admin who issued the original block against the master. The editor seems to be contributing more positively than before and is even asking to granted autopatrolled rights at Misplaced Pages:Requests for permissions/Autopatrolled. Although I think they are sincere, they still are engaging in socking and block evasion and probably would be best to request an unblock of their master account. Perhaps there are special circumstances that will allow you to consider unblocking them or you can advise them on what they need to do to be unblocked? -- Marchjuly (talk)

Question for: Ivanvector + BBB23 - This user is a valued contributor. What needs to happen in order for the editor to be able to further contribute? cc: Marchjuly Hmlarson (talk) 20:20, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
@Marchjuly and Hmlarson: why should this be considered "special circumstances"? They were blocked for flagrant personal attacks, and continued making those attacks with sockpuppet accounts after they were blocked. The user was advised of the standard offer; had they any interest in being a "valued contributor" they would have taken it. Instead they flipped the bird at our rules and edited around their block anyway, even going so far as to request advanced permissions with a sockpuppet account, a flagrant and egregious abuse of trust. I would not support an unblock request from this editor. But do feel free to ask again in six months, I give a lot of credit to users who take the standard offer seriously. Ivanvector (/Edits) 00:19, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
@Ivanvector: Which account was blocked for flagrant personal attacks? Hmlarson (talk) 00:22, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
@Hmlarson: see and . The user is blocked; it matters not which of their multiple accounts they are logged in with at the time. Ivanvector (/Edits) 00:27, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
@Ivanvector: The first link you share is the only one to mention "flagrant personal attacks" from a 9/20/15 edit war where both users were blocked for 2 weeks. Your second link is a duplicate of what's already in 1. Per Marchjuly's original message and my inquiry, it seems appropriate in this case to advise the editor on what they need to do to be unblocked. Hmlarson (talk) 00:44, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
No, it doesn't, and this discussion is closed.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:46, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Then seems the cycle will continue endlessly. Not my cup of tea - but good day to you, sir. Hmlarson (talk) 00:52, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Just to clarify things, I was trying to play the role of devil's advocate above and find out if there were any other options available to this editor in order to provide them with accurate information on how they might be able to get unblocked. My experiences with this editor have been less than amicable, and I have added a number of their socks to the SPI. Personally, I think they should have just accepted the standard offer made by Vanjagenije, waited the required time period, and then requested that their original account (whichever one that is) be unblocked via UTRS. Unfortunately, they chose to try and circumvent the process by creating new accounts, perhaps hoping nobody would notice. I think that even now if they were to accept the standard offer and abide by it, then the community might be willing to reconsider things and give them a second chance. Sorry Bbb23 if my original post brought some unwanted drama to your talk page. I was just asking in good faith. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:01, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Ana Rute Serra

Ana Rute Serra (talk · contribs) is evading block at João Vale e Azevedo, with second sock puppet of Jose Enes (talk · contribs). User also vandalized Luís Filipe Vieira. SLBedit (talk) 18:14, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Blocked, thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:27, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Z07x10

I note that you have declined the CU as the master (I assume this is Z07x10) is stale. Please forgive my ignorance of the SPI process, but as Z07x10 is indefinitely blocked he/she won't have made any recent edits, however I am sure that the alleged socks I listed are socks of Z07x10. If the master hasn't made recent edits (because they're blocked) how are we supposed to link the socks back to them? Do I need to start this process again with the oldest alleged sock as the master? If so how can this be linked back to Z07x10 whose disruptive and abusive editting I wish to protect against? regards Mztourist (talk) 16:08, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

The matter will be decided based on behavioral evidence.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:40, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
OK, but I would have thought checkuser would be a much faster method. regards Mztourist (talk) 17:14, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
To obtain a technical finding between two accounts, you compare the CU data of one against the other. If one of them is "stale", that means there is no data for that account. Data is retained for 90 days. The alleged master hasn't edited in well over 90 days.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:18, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Mass deletion of pages by Mom393

Hi! There are some articles by Mom393 that I already edited, and I think it shouldn't be deleted like Chiang Mei-hui, Lee Chia-hsin, and Teo Ee Yi. --Stvbastian (talk) 17:17, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

@Stvbastian: The more important question is do you think the articles satisfy Misplaced Pages's guidelines for inclusion? If so, I'll restore them.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:21, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Yes, and if there are any shortage i will try to fix it. Thanks --Stvbastian (talk) 17:48, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
 Done --Bbb23 (talk) 17:55, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks--Stvbastian (talk) 20:38, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Hi! Please restore Stefka Hargiono and Tessy Aulner articles because they are meet WP:NBADMINTON and I already edit this artilces.--Stvbastian (talk) 14:02, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

SPI

Wasn't aware of the rule that I can't change a close status of an SPI investigation, which I can't find written anywhere. What is the right way to have someone look at the link between the accounts that wasn't provable until after the checkuser was done? agtx 01:02, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Best thing is to comment as you did and ping someone, me or a clerk.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:36, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
In any event, I put the case on hold so I can review it later. That way it won't archive until after it's closed again.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:41, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Revoking talk access

I have no problem with that. It was going nowhere. I've been experimenting with this for a couple of years. It's not worth the effort now, but I hope to be able to boilerplate them one day and turn the time investment into minutes and be successful with a higher percentage. Right now I'm at about 12%, no so good. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 18:54, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Anna, I've watched you implement your system. Maybe you should patent it. :-) I think 12% is pretty good myself. Do you know I was running a check against her and found several other accounts to block. A few were using the same range with the same technical data as she was. Some people are just a waste of time. Best.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:49, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Well, I'd better get it to work a little better before I patent it. :) As for who is who, it was clear to me the whole time, of course. My aim was simply to help her understand what an utter, utter waste of her precious life this has been. I sure hope she tries Wikia. Best wishes, my friend. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:23, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Nairspecht

Hi B, I'm curious about the Nairspecht case. Could I trouble you to please comment on his page to clarify what generally you found that led to his block? And does his explanation that he might have edited at work make a difference in terms of plausibility? I do notice the intersecting articles, but I also notice that Vini2611 marked all his edits as minor and didn't use edit summaries while XFLRG6174 used copious edit summaries and not too many minor edits. Any info is appreciated. Thanks mate, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:00, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't comment.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:03, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
OK. Thanks for responding. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:05, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
@Cyphoidbomb: I can say one thing. Of the five socks, three were the most obvious behaviorally. You picked out one of them (XFLRG6174); the other two were Sonixgirl and Sportonion555. Sonixgirl and Nairspecht even edited the same AfD. I don't think you can expect that all the voicing details will be the same. That's often so in many socking cases. Indeed, in one instance here one sock reverted another sock. I actually found that more persuasive in support of socking.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:27, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Sock

Hello. An impersonator (Thosam.W (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) has just been blocked, showing all the usual signs of being an Evlekis sock (check the contributions), so there might be more of the same. - Tom | Thomas.W

Tonight's "block count" is now three. So far... - Tom | Thomas.W

17th Satellite Awards

Would you be willing to redact the recent edit summaries at 17th Satellite Awards, per WP:CRD #2? I left the editor who wrote them a very firm talk page message, so hopefully they will stop. Thank you very much. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:44, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

User talk:Bbb23: Difference between revisions Add topic