Hey! I noticed you reverted my addition of a speedy deletion tag to a page. No it was not a mistake. I don't really see a point in the page existing if the team hasn't even played a single game yet (and therefore they have no records at all). If A3 isn't the appropriate CSD criteria for something like that then I apologize for that. I had just seen someone add it previously and then the article creator removed it with no reason as to why. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 14:46, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Come on, really, have you read WP:A3? It doesn't mean that you don't like the content but that there is no content (with noted exceptions).--Bbb23 (talk) 14:49, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Not saying I don't like it. I'm saying that there is practically no meaningful content on the page. Everything on the page is blank cause they haven't played any games yet. (And also the article was created by a suspected sock, but it won't qualify under G5 until they are blocked as a sock} ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 14:51, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Everything on the page is NOT blank. It has an opening paragraph. It has an infobox, which is specifically mentioned in A3 ("this criterion does not cover a page having only an infobox"). Your interpretation of no content for the purpose of A3 is simply wrong.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:57, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Alright my apologies. Like I said another user had previously nominated it for A3 and the page author removed it with no reason so I assumed that was the appropriated CSD criteria. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 14:59, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Well, they were wrong too. The things you see at CSD. In any event, you can tag it as G5 as soon as the account is sock-blocked, which seems a slam dunk to me. Meanwhile, you've worn me out. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 15:05, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Alright sounds good. Apologies for wearing you out, that was not my intention. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 15:08, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Mostly kidding. I think no sleep last night played a bigger role than this conversation.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:24, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

That can definitely do it. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 17:13, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Aloha,

I just wanted to point out that the page name is "Anthony Aikhunegbe Malik" and the account editing it is User:Ainakhu. It's pretty clearly someone making a page about themselves (which is also why I failed to tag the user, since it was, to me, pretty clearly spam. I can be better about that in the future!). Photonsoup (talk) 23:46, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi, is this IP the blocked user loutsocking? If so, they could do with a block. Thanks, Giraffer ^{(talk·contribs)} 18:12, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Just as I say that they basically confess – reported them to AIV instead. Giraffer ^{(talk·contribs)} 18:15, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, Bbb23 for blocking me and unblocking me. It taught me a lesson about sockpuppets on the internet including the Wikipedia circle. For that, I give out my mea culpa for my wrongdoings and I owe you credit for it. Thanks, again for all you did to protect this page from my past shenanigans after I vandalized Wikipedia and evaded blocks. Happy Valentine's Day. Darrion "Beans" Brown 🙂 (my talk page / my sandbox) 04:17, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm very sorry for my inaccurate ANI closure. Given that it seemed like a relatively self-explanatory conclusion, I thought my closure was relatively safe; but obviously this is why you are an admin and checkuser and I'm not. :-) I appreciate you correcting me. --WaltCip-(talk) 14:51, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

No worries. I'm not a checkuser.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:53, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello, dear Bbb23. Recently you have deleted article Cnick, the reason for speedy deletion was G11. As I wrote this article I want to tell you that I have almost 10 years of working on Wikipedia (generally in Georgian Wikipedia), I know rules perfectly and I totally respect them, including G11 - I know that articles must not be promotional and must be written from a neutral point of view. I am quite sure that article Cnick was written in compliance with all the rules. I used only facts about the company and all parts of the article were backed up by relevant references and sources. Maybe in the article were some separate words that need to be reviewed and changed but I believe that article doesn't need to be fundamentally rewritten to serve as encyclopedia articles and if you review it once again, you will be sure of that.

Besides, could you tell me exactly what I should change in order to make the article no more deleted - please, tell me the exact part or sentence which is against the rules.

Yours sincerely. --Saliner (talk) 00:04, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

The entire article is an advertisement, and some of it is copyright infringement of the website. I don't know about your experience at the Georgian wiki, nor do I know what guidelines or standards they have, but you have very little experience here.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:18, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

What do you mean when you say that "the entire article is an advertisement"? Does it mean that it can't be an article about this startup company at all? If none of the rules are violated only with being article then that means problem is with its content. So, it needs discussion in the article's talk and not quick deletion. I think the article contained only proven facts with relevant references, like other articles about other startup companies, for example Glovo. 1. Could you tell me why Cnick is the entire article an advertisement and Glovo not? 2. And secondly, I wonder if there might be an article about this company at all? Because I am going to rewrite an article with different words and want to know it is forbidden or not. As for my experience, it only means that I always respect wiki rules and standards and my little experience here can't be a reason for any deletion, I guess. Only big respect and best wishes to you.--Saliner (talk) 10:29, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello, as per AE report for the whole Balkan area and per decisions of multiple admins on March 20th 2021 [[1]] per indefinite ban of 2 editors, it was also decided that a strict rules are going to be applied against any editors who are misusing rules of Wikipedia. This editor [[2]] has been indefinitely banned 2 times already for using multiple accounts see here, please [[3]], [[4]], also they were indef blocked as discovered to be Joycewood [[5]] this 2 are is still blocked, also the block log of both MF/Crovata is pretty huge MF being blocked 7 times [[6]] for edit warring, 3RR rule violation and personal attacks, the same thing as Crovata who has been blocked 9 times (?) [[7]] and what is interesting Crovata was already under 1RR rule which they could not follow. What I do not understand how is this editor even allowed to edit anymore on Wikipedia, and yet they reappeared again few days ago doing the same thing (personal attacks, pinging other editors[[8]]per WP:TAGTEAM disruptive editing as you can see only on Serb related pages - i.e this one [[9]] where linguist Czerwinski deals with linguistic consistency and inconsistency of Dubrovnik area [[10]] and he definitely does not make conclusions provided by editor, it is way complicated then that (abstract is in english, last page). I am pretty sure that this last edit was against me on TP [[11]] which was not a first time [[12]] even though I did not remove the text but only over excessive quote that can be traced as illegal copy edit [[13]], on this page [[14]] I posted reliable sources of international scholars but the editor decided on talk page to tag team again the editors with whom they cooperated in the past [[15]], one of them already indefinitely blocked [[16]], the other one defended them on Sock investigation [[17]] and today another editor with whom they hope they are going to go on their side [[18]] another example of WP:TAGTEAM it is obvious that the behaviour of the editor has not changed, exampling the same behaviour of insults, cherrypicking of sources, tag teaming etc. Therefore I ask that this editor should be indefinetly block again, for the 3rd time. Thank you. Theonewithreason (talk) 12:42, 13.February 2022 (UTC)

Also it would be note checking that during indefinite block time this editor was probably editing under different IP [[19]], this one use the same behaviour pattern like the MF edits the same pages like them [[20]] and uses the same "language" like they do, [[21]] Theonewithreason (talk) 12:42, 13.February 2022 (UTC)

This is a duplicate of this post on my talk, a semi-duplicate of this user page talk, and summarised at this SPI. Do with this information what you will. Primefac (talk) 19:13, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello,

I have a question based on your recent edit to Cooper Kupp. You removed his two son's names and date of birth with an edit summary of " remove sons' DOBs and names, ce", and I was just curious if this is a standard thing to do? Personally I'm interested in knowing when players have their kids and what they name them, but I understand that not everybody is. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:11, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

We should not be including minor children's DOBs, and generally their names are not noteworthy, although it's very common for editors to include them because they're sourced, forgetting that just because something is sourced doesn't mean it's worth noting.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:17, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

I can understand the not including minor's date of birth part. Do you have any objection to when editors put the month and year but not the specific day? I ask because I often look at that in context of football and how it may have affected a player's career (but that's just me). Hey man im josh (talk) 13:20, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

I almost never look at sports articles. In this instance, I did because Kupp was on the mainpage. I wouldn't remove month/year, although for some reason I still don't like it instinctively ... but that's not a great reason, is it?--Bbb23 (talk) 13:28, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the responses. These types of clarifications and conversations help me continue to learn and I really appreciate it.Hey man im josh (talk) 13:58, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello Bob, Hope you are doing good. You have deleted my article 'Therthally' which was approved after 5 months of wait! Could you please let me know the reason and restore it, i will make the necessary changes after that. Also there is another page 'Joseph Pamplany' was also deleted saying that it's an advertisement. Can you please restore this as well so that I can make necessary changes. Also Joseph Pamplany is not an advertisement, you can see in Google search as well as many wikipedia pages linked to this account. Maninthemiddle002 (talk) 14:21, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

The Therthally draft should never have been approved. It was badly written and sourced. As for the Pamplany article, I deleted it per WP:G11 and WP:G12. I will not restore it.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:28, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

You should look into the topics and content before directly deleting like a bot. I don't know different administrator have different criteria. Also will be appreciated if you give some time to review and edit it if there is any problems on the content before deletion and moving to draft. Maninthemiddle002 (talk) 14:36, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Answered on M-i-t-M's talk page. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:50, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello @Bbb23, just to clarify this further "Antonian Sapphire" is my self-admitted former account of which has not been used since 2020, and therefore does not constitute a sockpuppet. I have my own private reasons for legitimately moving on to a new account, but there is no deception here- --Sunderland Renaissance (talk) 01:54, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

I wanted to give due notice to you that I have re-created the page Ram Ranch as I believe it's risen to notability since it's deletion in 2019. Take care! CaffeinAddict (talk) 00:25, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

The article on Thredded is written by its creator. I don't want to be banned again. Do you want to deal with it? DeadMansTown (talk) 21:09, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

I see no reason for me "to deal with it". If you think the article doesn't satisfy WP:GNG, you can nominate it (not tag it) for deletion, and the community can decide if they agree with you.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:20, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Greetings. Hate to bug you, but here's a question. I don't send stuff to SPI often, but I do do it from time to time. I saw your comment at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NeverTry4Me, and was wondering when and if I should check the box "check user" requested when sending something to SPI? Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:43, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

It's always a judgment call, but in this instance you could have requested it but you'd have to explain the joe-jobber issue. If you weren't already familiar with the issue, not requesting it seems reasonable.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:46, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:13, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi,

Thank you for reviewing my article. Please, can I send the article to you in other to help modify to Wikipedia article. Thanks.Precious Umeh (talk) 14:45, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

I was given a suggestion by Epicgenius to at least temporarily protect my talk page, since R-galo 10 seemingly has some kind of obsession with me for absolutely no reason and it doesn't seem like he will stop leaving spam on my talk page. Please let me know if it's allowed to request protection on talk pages, and if it's basically the same step as getting protection on an article page. Mtattrain (talk) 14:24, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Your Talk page has been protected many times in the past because of the socking, and you don't have to ask at WP:RFPP. Just ask an admin as you're doing now. Most admins would readily protect your page. I've done so for one month.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:14, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

you have rolled back but not given any reason for that. Since Kartar Singh (Professor) who is recipient of Tagore Ratan Award in 2012 and by that award he obtained fellowship of Sangeet Natak Akademy , and his name was found missing from page so I edited it, what is mistake in doing so ? Please explain how I can rectify that ?Guglani (talk) 19:04, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

you have also speedily deleted subject Kartar Singh (Professor) even when I explained that text is ready to be donated by Gurmat Sangeet Legend who is owner of text at SikhNet , I request to restore text back to me . I had already explained reasons to contest deletion on talk page of article, which have not been addressed.Guglani (talk) 19:29, 24 February 2022 (UTC)Guglani (talk) 19:33, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

What's your relationship with Gurmat Sangeet Legend?--Bbb23 (talk) 20:28, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

He is my friend who wanted to become contributor at Wikipedia Guglani (talk) 23:54, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you so much for helping me combat the user MadeASDedia. They were making me quite uncomfortable, and I feel much better now that they are banned. Just thank you.

InterstateFive (talk) - just another roadgeek 21:53, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

I understand. That kind of editor makes everyone uncomfortable.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:56, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I found the "new section" tab... Can you please point out what about the article is promotional of the food store. I have tried to make it as neutral as possible. I have had no personal connection to the store for close to 50 years nor do I have any personal connections to anyone at the store today. I am simply trying to document an important cooperative food store that is known throughout the cooperative food store movement. Any help would be appreciated. DavisDavisHayden (talk) 03:23, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi, You guys are tough editors! Ok, I looked up ”Coop” under different ways about a year ago and found no articles on coops in Wiki, but upon trying again yesterday, I found a link buried in the article about coops that I probably missed. It was a list of coops in the US and some of them had published wiki articles. So, I will rewrite this article to follow how they wrote them and hopefully you will appreciate the changed ”tone”. Although I have hundreds of presentations and publications in academic journals, I have never attempted an encyclopedia article. I did not keep a recent copy of the article so can someone at least email me a copy of it so I can look it over and get the list of references? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavisHayden (talk • contribs) 01:28, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for protecting my talk page. Is there any way you could suppress the revisions and protect my talk page? It's happened before unfortunately. And I am yet again advocating for a long-term block of the /40, similar to blocks on the T-Mobile 2607:FB90:0:0:0:0:0:0/32 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) as I know of multiple LTAs who abuse the range. wizzito | say hello! 23:15, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

@Wizzito: I've semi-protected your Talk page for three months. It looks like another administrator dealt with the more immediate concerns.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:00, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Uhh did you intend to blank the rest of your talk page when you replied? wizzito | say hello! 00:00, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Honestly, there are times when I'd like to blank my Talk page (smiling), but, no, I had a power outage, and I'm not sure if the blanking occurred right before or after the power came back. It should be fixed now.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:05, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm certain that new user Baurach86 is the same person as Albertaont and HaudenosauneeC. I noticed their edits on the Mexico–United States relations page where they made an identical edit to the other accounts:1,2, 3. The account also edited the little viewed page of H. William Burgess just as HaudenosauneeC did. Nettless (talk) 21:04, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Looks like a sock to me. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:31, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello. Can you please explain how each of the following edits is a valid use of rollback?

[22] [23] [24] [25][26][27][28][29][30][31]

Modulus12 (talk) 00:15, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

You've now made 30 more edits while ignoring my request. WP:ADMINACCT: Administrators are expected to respond promptly ... to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct. ... Administrators should justify their actions when requested. Here's another eight questionable uses of rollback on good-faith edits from this past week: [32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39] Modulus12 (talk) 20:49, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

What is your problem? As far as I know, I've never interacted with you, and although I haven't looked at the latest diffs, the others did not involve rollbacks of your edits, nor even articles that you recently edited. What triggered your monitoring my edits?--Bbb23 (talk) 20:52, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

WP:ADMINACCT: Editors are free to question or to criticize administrator actions. I don't need to answer any of your questions. (In fact, it's rather rude of you to immediately start interrogating me.) Policy requires you to answer my questions. But if you must know, I saw these two rollbacks [40][41] at ANI that looked possibly improper at first glance, checked your contributions to see if it was a pattern, and I didn't have to look very far to find the rest. Modulus12 (talk) 21:19, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Both of the rollbacks at ANI were of trolls, one of whom I blocked. "Possibly improper"? Give me a break.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:52, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm not too bothered by the ANI rollbacks (although the second one could have used an explanation in the edit summary so everyone knows you didn't misclick). If that was all it was, I would "give you a break". But it's the other 17 in article space, in one week, that give me more concern. They're sometimes sub-par text additions, but still good-faith. These mostly brand-new editors deserve an explanation for why you're undoing their contribution. In this rollback you objectively made the article worse; the edit appears helpful and you reverted to a revision that links a character's name (Sephora) to the company that sells beauty products. Careless. In this rollback, the editor was possibly connected to the company, but they were updating the information with references. How is that suitable for rollback? Here the editor removed unsourced information with an explanation, and you rollbacked with no explanation.

These all look like misuse of the tool to me. Modulus12 (talk) 22:59, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

You are welcome to undo disruptive edits with an explanation. As an administrator, I'm more interested in preventing disruption than I am in being "nice" to disruptive "new editors", e.g, an editor whom you say was "possibly connected to the company" and was then blocked for promotion by another administrator. Your perspective on when to assume good faith and when not to is quite different from mine. I'm just doing my job.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:48, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

A later block is irrelevant to your decision-making at the time of rollback. And the edit in question was not promotional, certainly not to the point of "obvious vandalism" or "reason for reverting is absolutely clear". They copy-edited a sentence, and updated the revenue and board members, which is boring factual data. This is not just a disagreement over "perspectives". I think you are violating the guideline WP:ROLLBACKUSE. Are you saying you believe your edits are in compliance with that guideline? Or are you saying you just don't care if I think they aren't? Modulus12 (talk) 01:11, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Bbb23 and rollback. Thank you. Modulus12 (talk) 05:36, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Bbb23:, can you please help me with something User:Derwishi10 seems to have returned yet again under another disguise – User:Ingkaa (see the first edit here to access their edit history: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zenepe_Pirani&action=history). Whilst I submitted the sockpuppet investigation for the last set of accounts he was using, I'm not sure of the process for a repeated offence? Do I go to the page of the historic sockpuppet investigation and somehow resurrect it or do I just submit a fresh request? Would appreciate some assistance on this! Thank you --Jkaharper (talk) 17:34, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

@Jkaharper: If you go to WP:SPI and click on Show next to "How to open an investigation", you then put in the name of the master and fill out the form. That will automatically file a new report for you.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:17, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! --Jkaharper (talk) 18:18, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Hey, the last couple of days the editor is/was back. Today with 77.191.62.188 (talk · contribs) (Removing something just to add it back, classic Charli). I will revert the edits and maybe you are still up for blocking his account(s)? Kante4 (talk) 17:37, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

No war in Ukraine (talk · contribs) seems like another one. And Last night03 (talk · contribs). Kante4 (talk) 14:03, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

@Kante4: Last night03 fits a pattern that I recognize. However, No war in Ukraine is a bit different. First, there is the inflammatory username. Second, the user has occasional edit summaries. And third the block reason at de.wiki does not specifically tie the account to Charli. Perhaps you can help a bit?--Bbb23 (talk) 15:06, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Will contact RoBri (talk · contribs) at de. who helps there with that editor. The first one does the same edits at articles than all other socks, that's why i think it's him (knows how it works right away e.g.). If it's not him i would be first to apologize of course. Kante4 (talk) 15:11, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi. According to https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vandalismusmeldung#Benutzer:No_war_in_Ukraine_(erl.) the account is clearly tied to Charli, which may indeed not become obvious just by the recorded block reason. --Roger (talk) 15:16, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

That helps some, thanks, but it'd be nice if the block reason had been clearer.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:44, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree. ;-) --Roger (talk) 17:00, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Back today with 89.14.147.102 (talk · contribs), same articles and habits (alrady talking to another user to report him). Kante4 (talk) 12:41, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Next one Loveislove30 (talk · contribs). Kante4 (talk) 14:46, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi, according to CU, I can confirm that No war in Ukraine, Last night03 and Loveislove30 are him. Regards --Schniggendiller talk 20:50, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for that, Schniggendiller, and for the global locks.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:01, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

77.183.255.157 (talk · contribs) is the newest one. Kante4 (talk) 09:51, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

And after that comes directly Sportschau0303 (talk · contribs). Not sure what the fun is to edit only to get every edit reverted and blocked. Kante4 (talk) 13:50, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Just letting you know I've changed your tagging of Mirra Jankbith to reflect The King349 as the master per the following:

• Mirra Jankbith data on Commons are a match for The King349;
• Mirra Jankbith has overlap with The King349 socks--e.g., Busiswa (Mirra Jankbith, The Dhelronda4884); and
• Mirra Jankbith's second edit was to User talk:Girth Summit, a user with whom that particular account had never interacted. Girth Summit was been a focus of King349 socks (e.g., K.K Mbungo), and the edit referenced "moving Yanga" (Yanga Chief), an article edited by King349 socks Gazinit, Uvalo45998, Mfundisi Xason678, etc. Эlcobbola _talk 16:44, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:03, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

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

Guideline and policy news

• A RfC is open to change the wording of revision deletion criterion 1 to remove the sentence relating to non-infringing contributions.
• A RfC is open to discuss prohibiting draftification of articles over 90 days old.

Technical news

• The deployment of the reply tool as an opt-out feature, as announced in last month's newsletter, has been delayed to 7 March. Feedback and comments are being welcomed at Wikipedia talk:Talk pages project. (T296645)
• Special:Nuke will now allow the selection of standard deletion reasons to be used when mass-deleting pages. This was a Community Wishlist Survey request from 2022. (T25020)
• The ability to undelete the talk page when undeleting a page using Special:Undelete or the API will be added soon. This change was requested in the 2021 Community Wishlist Survey. (T295389)

Arbitration

• Several unused discretionary sanctions and article probation remedies have been rescinded. This follows the community feedback from the 2021 Discretionary Sanctions review.

Miscellaneous

• The 2022 appointees for the Ombuds commission are Érico, Faendalimas, Galahad, Infinite0694, Mykola7, Olugold, Udehb and Zabe as regular members and Ameisenigel and JJMC89 as advisory members.
• Following the 2022 Steward Elections, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: AntiCompositeNumber, BRPever, Hasley, TheresNoTime, and Vermont.
• The 2022 Community Wishlist Survey results have been published alongside the ranking of prioritized proposals.

---

Slight "post closure" there... apologies. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 23:32, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi. Do you know of any other socks of the user User:Harald.Hardradã.1015? Claims to have 15 accounts [42] — DaxServer (t · c) 09:03, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Could you block the IP. Continued personal attacks on other user as well — DaxServer (t · c) 09:13, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Bbb23:, Can I create this article Quetta Gladiators in 2018 where as the user who had redirected this was blocked by you for abusing of multiple accounts and I remind you that I am not a sock of that account. Thank you ! Fade258 (talk) 03:08, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't see why not.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:34, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Why did you delete JJS Studios on 21:33 March 7th it did nothing wrong and I worked so hard on everything come on man — Preceding unsigned comment added by EcologicBee4677 (talk • contribs) 21:48, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

I deleted it per WP:G11, which means it was overly promotional. Please pay attention the WP:COI notice I posted on your Talk page. You must follow the instructions on it, or you risk being blocked for undisclosed paid editing. Finally, do not create articles in article space.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:59, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

With this edit in mind, I encourage you to provide substantive reasons for future reverts. See Wikipedia:Don't revert due solely to "no consensus"#The problem with a "no consensus" edit summary and Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines#Bold (italics in original):

Although most editors find prior discussion, especially at well-developed pages, very helpful, directly editing these pages is permitted by Wikipedia's policies. Consequently, you should not remove any change solely on the grounds that there was no formal discussion indicating consensus for the change before it was made. Instead, you should give a substantive reason for challenging it either in your edit summary or on the talk page.

- Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 02:43, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for blocking MGK king. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:38, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Bbb23, trust you are good. Thanks for the good work you are doing in the Wiki community. My name is Kemi and my username is semmy1960, I am appealing to you on behalf of our new Editors who were blocked. We are working on a project on Lagos State Ministries and Parastatals and i am the team lead for the project. The Editors you blocked are new and two different people who joined the project and work from different location. They are two different people and are on the project as well. This is the link to the project https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Project/Rapid/Semmy1960/WikiLagos_Nigeria_Ministries_and_parastatals_cleanup This is the link to the dashboard https://outreachdashboard.wmflabs.org/courses/WikiLagos_Nigeria_Ministries_and_Parastatals_cleanup/WikiLagos_Nigeria_Ministries_and_Parastatals_cleanup/home. Please kindly help, they just joined the Wiki community and it has really motivated them and they dont want to be blocked. We appreciate your meticulous and detailed work. Kindly help. ~~~ Semmy1960 (talk) 14:12, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Although you don't say, I assume you're referring to Odomero2711 and Ebubechukwu1, the former having made an unblock request. I can believe that they are not actually sock puppets, but their conduct, and by extension yours, has been sub-optimal. If you have a project that is apparently sanctioned/funded by the WMF, why is that the two editors don't identify themselves as part of that project on their userpages? Why is it that they don't follow normal Wikipedia procedures, like WP:AFC? Even in Odomero2711's unblock request, they don't mention what's going on, probably because they are not getting proper guidance from editors familiar with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I can't even find a list of the editors who are involved in this project.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:50, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, noted Semmy1960 (talk) 19:27, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

has made a plausible unblock request at UTRS appeal #55809. But he socked in August. Need your thoughts. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:38, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Not only did 2.55.9.163 leave a {{ygm}} template on my user talk today, but there were also failed login attempts at the same time. Obvious hacker is obvious...and unsuccessful. —C.Fred (talk) 18:12, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

I've had one of those failed login attempts this morning too (after my block). No one has ever hacked into my Wikipedia account.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:04, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

You deleted a page that was incorrectly marked for speedy deletion and apparently ignored the fact this was contested. Page - Slowjamastan. Is there a way to undo that and leave it for consideration after contesting? It meets the criteria for inclusion of micronations. smithryanallen — Preceding undated comment added 23:06, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

I know it was contested. Articles are deleted all the time that are contested. I've never heard of any "criteria for inclusion of micronations". BTW, it looks like you have a WP:COI with the article. Such a conflict must be declared, or you are in violation of policy and may be blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:19, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I appreciate the quick reply. I don't have a conflict of interest. I have read the policy and also responded to such on my user talk page. This is simply news where I live that I find really interesting. And as for inclusion: I meant that it's newsworthy and has higher amounts of news coverage than many other micronations that were deemed worthy of publication, so I'm confused about why this is being applied unevenly. If numerous newspapers are covering something, I assume that meets the "newsworthy" category. Am I misunderstanding this? Thanks. [[user:smithryanallen|smithryanallen}} Smithryanallen (talk) 00:57, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

I asked for protection on this page yesterday and the result was for you to block several of the IP addresses involved. Unfortunately this hasn't helped - it is consistenly being edited from varying IP addresses. I've re-requested protection. Barry Wom (talk) 12:41, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

There's only been one edit since I blocked some of the ranges yesterday. Let me know if it gets significantly worse. Perhaps another admin will feel differently at WP:RFPP.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:58, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Apologies; I'd failed to notice you'd blocked IP ranges rather than individual ones. That should help considerably. Thanks. Barry Wom (talk) 10:58, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

	The Admin's Barnstar
	I have interacted with you on many occasions, most of which involve admin actions, you have definitely earned a Barnstar for those actions. Zippybonzo (talk) 16:10, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi Bbb23, you are a good sleuth. When have a moment can you take a look at Bloodyredbarron? S0091 (talk) 23:24, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Flattery works! Sock blocked and tagged.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:31, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Dang, that was quick! So yep, you are good :). S0091 (talk) S0091 (talk) 23:36, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello! Not disputing your decision to remove the speedy delete template from Wendy Riche, but I'm definitely attempting to understand it. There's a single source for the article (a minor youtube channel) and a whole host of unsubstantiated (and false) claims, a la the Emmy wins. I did some digging beforehand to see if outside sources could be used to establish notability and no, not really. Again, I'm not arguing, but this isn't the first time you and I have disagreed on an A7, which clearly means I'm missing something even while (I'm trying to be) following the speedy delete procedures here. Any advice would be appreciated. Photonsoup (talk) 23:37, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

An A7 is evaluated without regard to sources. The Emmy claim is credible on the surface. If it and other statements in the article are false, you should edit the article accordingly. Also, I - and my guess is other admins as well - always examine an article that has been around for a while with greater scrutiny than a new article. Not that I don't occasionally delete a longstanding article, but it has to be very clear-cut to me. This one is not.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:46, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Just as a comment, this is the extent of the Emmy claims which are credible. I mean, I'm fine going through the AFD process but by all metrics this does appear to be an a7 case. Clearly it isn't, but I'm still struggling to understand why. It appears to mostly mimic the IMDB page of someone who doesn't meet WP:N on their own. I did go through the edit history since I wanted to tag the person who created the article (a since-banned account). My understanding was a7 is independent of "verifiability and reliability of sources", but not the existence (or lack thereof) of sources. Again, I'd like to stress I'm not trying to argue with your decision, I just genuinely want to make sure I don't run into this issue again and I'm definitely not there with understanding this one (and I'll avoid a7 speedy deletes until I've got it down better, unless it's pretty patent, which to be fair I did think this one was). Photonsoup (talk) 00:13, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

The 212. IP, which you had temporarily blocked is back at it at the Warnborough College page. No threats (so far), but the same deletion or alteration of sourced material, and addition of unsourced material. Also, using talk page to solicit funds for charitable foundation. Banks Irk (talk) 14:09, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Got it, this time we'll try a partial block for a year from the college page, the college Talk page, and the IP's Talk page. If the IP starts editing disruptively elsewhere, please let me know.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:51, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Not sure why the the article Hakki Akdeniz was deleted? Page was created years ago and had no issues. More than likely, someone edited recently, adding information that caused it to be deleted. Please add to Draft Space or User Space so corrections can be made. (talk) 12:25, 21 March 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gwalkerone (talk • contribs) 17:23, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

It was deleted per WP:G11 because it was "unambiguously promotional". However, I have looked at the history of the article and have moved an earlier version (far less promotional) to Draft:Hakki Akdeniz.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:45, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello Bbb23,
yesterday i wrote the stub Adevinta, which was in your words "not ready for main space - unsourced", and indeed it was not. Now i did a major rewrite and added sources.
Yesterday i wrote "Adevinta is the biggest classifieds ads service in Europe and possibly worldwide." After reading an Financial Times article [43] it now says: "Adevinta is the worlds largest online classifieds service".
Could you have a look at the draft?
--Alex42 (talk) 11:37, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

It looks much better. Please wait for it to be reviewed.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:18, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

The "company or organization [has] not yet shown to meet notability guidelines". A company with €1.5bn ($1.66bn) revenue seems too small for en-wiki. --Alex42 (talk) 17:22, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

And i would like to clarify that I am in no way affiliated with this corp. --Alex42 (talk) 21:09, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

He came for advice on IRC, so I gave it to him. He has not acknowledged the UPE either, but I can feel it. If this turns in to check user block, it will be even better. For that matter, he's not even made a meaningful pass at the proposed conditions. I spent over an hour on IRC, and so far he has not come close. --Deepfriedokra (talk)00:50, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi Bbb23. I've had your block of User:Adrianmn1110 brought to my attention, and I'd like to ask you to expand on your reasoning. At present, I'm not seeing any egregious personal attacks or any evidence of harassment from this account. I'd appreciate a bit more information please. Either here, or by email. Worm^TT(talk) 16:10, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't think there is anything I can add that you have not already seen on the user's Talk page. If you don't think that the user's pursuit of Scottywong, raised by EvergreenFir, and subsequent heavy-handed snark (worse in my view than directly calling Scotty names) constitutes personal attacks, I'm at a loss as to what else I can say.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:21, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

FWIW, I was keeping an eye on that account for being a likely sockpuppet and NOTHERE after their edits on RationalWiki. The personal attacks, imo, just strengthened the NOTHERE evidence. Just my ¥2. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:25, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

I think that there may well be sufficient evidence for an indefinite block, but simply marking it as "personal attacks" at the level of commentary does nothing for those admins reviewing the situation. I appreciate the views given. Thanks. Worm^TT(talk) 16:54, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Scottywong lazily accusing an editor of being a sockpuppet, with no intention of going to SPI, is far from exemplary behavior, from an admin no less. Adrianmn1110 responding with the "heavy-handed snark" would never catch more than a warning if it came from an experienced user. Half of ANI would probably say the incivility was somewhat justified. And yet Adrianmn1110 is indef-blocked with no prior warnings. Double standards. the user's pursuit All I see is a single edit to Scottywong's talk page, and it's not a personal attack. That edit surely should not factor into your blocking decision. Bbb23, Wikipedia will not collapse if we allow newish users more time to correct their behavior before rushing to block. And I think the community conveniently ignores enforcing WP:NPA/WP:CIVILITY policy when some "good" user is caught being incivil to some "bad"/incompetent user who "deserved" it. If we're going to harshly enforce those policies against new users, then it should be the same for old users. Modulus12 (talk) 04:19, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi,

Just noticed you speedily deleted the article I created about the American Real Estate Society. Just wanted to get some clarification, I looked up their journals and I can provide more examples of ARES journals being cited by publications like PolitiFact, WSJ, etc. Also a few examples of people receiving the awards ARES issues if that helps. Does this help with citations/notability? I can also take another shot at maintaining a neutral tone throughout the article, I read that the deleting administrator can help get the text of an article back and if you're willing to share that with me I'd be more than happy to keep working on this article.

Thanks for clarifying! Would love another shot at getting this article up and running. Will respond after the weekend. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SuzukiEsteem1998 (talk • contribs) 22:31, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi Bbb23. I've had your block of User:MVDGC brought to my attention, But User:MVDGC is continuously rolling back my edits. So, what can i do ? Thank you. MT731 (talk) 07:41, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

@MT731: Until just now when I blocked them as a sock, I've never blocked MVDGC, so what block are you referring to? --Bbb23 (talk) 12:29, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello, looks like him Sport4455 (talk · contribs). If you don't mind. Kante4 (talk) 19:07, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Globally locked while I was eating lunch.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:16, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

I see. :D Kante4 (talk) 21:20, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I wanted to thank you for the message on my talk page. As someone who is just starting out to edit and contribute to Wikipedia, I realize that there is a lot that I need to learn. I spent the weekend reading up on how I can meaningfully contribute and make edits which aren't disruptive. I also intend to comply with Wikipedia's rules regarding paid editing. I will look forward to engaging with you and other moderators to make my presence on Wikipedia more constructive, positive and meaningful. Thank you.

CherylWiki007 (talk) 17:56, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Greetings. You Admin protected the VeraCrypt page. The reasoning was "Edit warring / content dispute". This action locked the page to only Admin editing and page moving until 13:06, 31 March 2022. I see you blocked one apparent problematic editor.

I am not familiar with, or have run into, such an action before. I can understand some protection while administrative work is being performed, but this type of long-term page protection now appears unwarranted. If there is still an ongoing editor issue then please address this (block, etc...) so the page can be unlocked.

I would think this form of action necessary (if at all in this case) for an immediate very short time limit.

I was bot summoned and immediately found some serious source and content issues including advertising ("Contact Us – IDRIX") and teaching issues ("VeraCrypt User Guide"). The "VeraCrypt Official Website" is used more than once as a source and included as an "External link. :I also note (fast count) almost half the sources are primary with a lot of "VeraCrypt Documentation". This article may be at a TNT tipping point (lead: "This logic may also be applied to sections or parts of an article") and much of the content chopped resulting in a stub.

I had intended some dual editing, the talk page, and the article to place some tags, and couldn't edit. Please consider some alternative action so that other involved editors or someone (like me), totally disinterested in the subject so unbiased, are not hindered by these actions without seeking permission. -- Otr500 (talk) 04:18, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Articles are not fully protected for "administrative work". As I recall, I protected the article based on a report at WP:ANEW. This is not unusual. The amount of time chosen for protection is discretionary generally based on the recent history of the article. The block of one of the warriors came 4 days after the protection and was unrelated to the battle. An RfC was started by another editor to try to resolve the content dispute. It's still ongoing. I don't see anything urgent about the edits you wish to make, but you can always request that edits be made on the article Talk page using {{Edit fully-protected}}.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:37, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

I noticed my edits were reverted on 'Musical Notes' after some weirdo called 'Wahoo5' simply changed them back. I really want to have rollback to change the vandalism and show my corrected typos (Which he reverted back). From WingingJester27, Wikipedian and typo fixer.

Wahoo5's Talk Page:https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Wahoofive&action=view WingingJester (talk) 20:00, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Hi WingingJester, I'm afraid you have an incorrect perception of the rollback permission. It does not make you the deciding voice in which edits remain in an article. It allows access to certain automated tools and makes it more efficient to revert multiple sequential edits; that's all. If your edit has been reverted, you should start a discussion on the article's talk page and discuss the objections with the other editor so you can both reach consensus on the issue. Good luck! Schazjmd (talk) 20:47, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello, I hope you are well. Please review Mehran Ghafourian's draft. I made some changes. If the article is rejected again, write the reason. Thanks for your following up Amir ghpro (talk) 19:41, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Today, I had accidently moved published the draft "The Great Translation Movement" into the Wikipedia: section. However, it should be in the article section. I moved it into the right place, but maybe forgot to undo the previous step. Thank you for your correction! JohnGalt1984 (talk) 15:17, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Please provide a reason for deletion so I know what to do, thank you.Greendes (talk) 08:16, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

The article was tagged as WP:G11 (umambiguously promotional), and I agreed.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:08, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

I am pretty certain that Oraclesegz is a sock of JosephBlakeSmith, whom you blocked on March 15. They're a SPA, created on March 29, and the only edits were to re-create the hoax draft Draft:Joseph Blake Smith. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 19:08, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! --Bbb23 (talk) 19:15, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Please help and look at this Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dusty8686; this LTA's disruption has increased rapidly in the past few days and it now involves a username w/ a threat to an admin. Thanks. wizzito | say hello! 23:55, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Why you reverted here?

What I reported is, that the user was blocked for socking for 1 month and is now engaging in socking with IP address. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 13:54, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

You did not list an IP address in the suspected socks section.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:25, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

My mistake. Can I restore it or you are willing to self-revert? I am online for next hour so I will make the necessary change ASAP. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 14:28, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Feel free to undo my edit and correct the report.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:29, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

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

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC is open proposing a change to the minimum activity requirements for administrators.

Technical news

• Access to Special:RevisionDelete has been expanded to include users who have the deletelogentry and deletedhistory rights. This means that those in the Researcher user group and Checkusers who are not administrators can now access Special:RevisionDelete. The users able to view the special page after this change are the 3 users in the Researcher group, as there are currently no checkusers who are not already administrators. (T301928)
• When viewing deleted revisions or diffs on Special:Undelete a back link to the undelete page for the associated page is now present. (T284114)

Arbitration

• Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures § Opening of proceedings has been updated to reflect current practice following a motion.
• A arbitration case regarding Skepticism and coordinated editing has been closed.
• A arbitration case regarding WikiProject Tropical Cyclones has been opened.

Miscellaneous

• Voting for the Universal Code of Conduct Enforcement guidelines has closed, and the results were that 56.98% of voters supported the guidelines. The results of this vote mean the Wikimedia Foundation Board will now review the guidelines.

---

I'd just like to enquire as to whether you believe you have made satisfactory use of your admin privileges in this case? I'm only asking as I see you've moved on to making edits on other pages... - EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 23:23, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for helping out. I was up most of the night with a sick dog and was not feeling especially patient (or smart) this morning. Acroterion (talk) 22:27, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

You're welcome. I hope your dog is feeling better.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:40, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

She's much better. We think she licked a toad, which produces drama and spit for hours. Everybody is looking forward to a night's sleep. Acroterion (talk) 00:00, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Per WP:USERNOCAT, non-existent categories, such as Category:User, should not be on user pages, which is why I removed it from User:Ekho-1. Best, UnitedStatesian (talk) 14:56, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

First, don't use an automated tool to "remove" categories from someone's userpage that is apparently intended to disable categories on drafts. Second, you didn't remove the category - you commented it out; I fail to see the logic in commenting out a non-existent category. Third, the problem with non-existent cats on userpages is most of the time they are there for one of two reasons: the user is incompetent (Ekh0-1's case), or it's an experienced user trying to make a point. I believe experienced users have lost that battle, but in many cases they've found ways around it by creating pointy categories that have not been deleted. In any event, the whole thing is silly in my view, and you should let it go. Finally, your edit to the user's Talk page was worse because you asked the user to remove the cat when the user is blocked. I undid that edit, too. I'm only taking this much time to respond to you because you are a very experienced, hard-working editor, and I think you deserve a full explanation for my actions.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:56, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Just because of I linked old diffs proving slow edit warring? Should I report him again with just recent diffs? SLBedit (talk) 17:16, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

There are none; the most recent diff is over two days old.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:31, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Okay then. I have reverted his edit and told him to discuss the matter on the article talk page. SLBedit (talk) 17:32, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

I just want to let you know that p3dro is being uncivil, again. SLBedit (talk) 20:41, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

What does "FCPedit" mean?--Bbb23 (talk) 20:42, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

It's a pun on my username. I am an SL Benfica (SLB) supporter, and he's saying that I support rivals FC Porto (FCP). SLBedit (talk) 20:46, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Huh. I wouldn't consider such an edit summary sanctionable.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:13, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Neither would I, but it just shows his behavior, now and then. Maybe he thinks that, by removing/ignoring warnings, he can't be held responsible for edit warring. SLBedit (talk) 23:09, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

A Wiki jaguar here, letting you know about a malformed unblock request. The request was posted, somehow, within the body of a Welcome message at the top of the editor's Talk page. I have a pretty good idea how this time sink is going to turn out, but I thought you should know. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 14:26, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Excpet 103.82.14.67 which is long-time used by Flix11. The rest IPs are ramdom for me. So I think we should semi-protect articles instead. What do you think? See also Flix11 SPI Hhkohh (talk) 11:30, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

I see that GliderMaven has been blocked now. Thank you for your efforts to end this altercation. Still, my positive contribution remains removed, and the statement that this user keeps reinstating remains in place. I think any reasonable person would, at least after reading my explanation on the talk page, agree that said statement doesn't belong. As such, can we restore the lastest version contributed by me? Or do we need to get consensus somehow? What's the best way to try and obtain this consensus given the circumstances? It would be nice if there were some process for ensuring that, when an edit war has been reported, the content dispute that underlies the edit war can be settled reasonably quickly. — Smjg (talk) 15:43, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, you cannot edit that article directly. I warned both of you about edit-warring to restore your version. If you do so on your own, I will block you. You're going to have to find a way to resolve the dispute through dispute resolution.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:47, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Bbb23, I'm concerned that NikolaosFanaris may be a sock account. They have done two three things that raise my suspicion. First, for an account with less than 100 edits and that was started 30 Jan 2022 they seem to know their way around Wikipedia. They have requested a page deletion here [44]. They also identified a sock account [45] of an editor who was blocked in Sept 2021 [46]. Their account was just a month and 10 days old at that point. It seems suspicious to recognize the similarities between a new sock account and an account closed 5 months prior to opening your own account. Springee (talk) 15:15, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Unless you have a master whom you suspect, there's nothing I can do.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:33, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Understood. Springee (talk) 20:35, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

22:52, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

User:Hiyhiy and User:Italian Pasta23: both accounts were created today, both accounts made same inappropriate edits in Vice Ganda's article. —Princess Faye ^{(my talk)} 12:55, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Not enough to block as socks. Seems like there are quite a few new SPAs that add variations of that material to the article in the last few months.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:13, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi Bbb23, I have reached out to you before because you have institutional knowledge and know how to snuff things out. Any clue about Seinfeld429? Either way, mind keeping an eye out? S0091 (talk) 23:24, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Opps thought it was just a joke button thing like there's a slap a fish one on someones page and the square things that says stuff like this user is blah blah things like that now I looked into it It was a mistake. No trolling intending I thought it was just a gag to have on your page. Return to Monkey Island (talk) 23:24, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

She did it's in the Manga Return to Monkey Island (talk) 01:11, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

The link was correct page and nowhere else did it link there. If someone was looking at it they could click and go to the team. There was nothing wrong with that edit. Return to Monkey Island (talk) 01:18, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Stop posting to my Talk page after every action I take that you disagree with.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:19, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

How else can I say that it wasn't vandalism? If I revert it I'd get blocked for edit war. I'm telling you why it wasn't a troll edit and why it helped improved the page. Return to Monkey Island (talk) 01:21, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

I never said it was vandalism; nor did I say it was a "troll edit". If you look at Texas Roadhouse, you'll see that it's a steakhouse, not a cycling team; that's why I removed the wikilink.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:26, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Ok I feel stupid and will go sorry..in fairness my first message was also and apology for using site wrong. Return to Monkey Island (talk) 01:28, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

A draft page you deleted you said was because of "advertising or promotion". I don't see how that was advertising or promotion if the game literally has billions of players lmfao. WasNotTaken69 (talk) 16:05, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

He did the same to me as well. He even erased my article's SANDBOX. I'm not sure why someone feels the need to remove a draft or a sandbox where they created an article. They cant even create an improvement for god sake Someone like this should be given permission to delete or have their draft pages removed. Furthermore, these administrators examine your whole account for one thing they may remove if you say something that they dont like. They are the top tier feds of Wikipedia Gameforall (talk) 18:54, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

I'd ask you to please restore the article I had on my sandbox. You're not even giving me the opportunity to enhance the piece by removing the "advertising or promotion" you say. You may delete the article by deleting the sandbox, which is illogical. Nobody will check my sandbox unless it is a high tier fed for no apparent reason. As if someone is going to rummage through my sandbox like what gives you the right to delete it for what. Its not public on Wikipedia articles. I think being a Wikipedia admin is getting into your head. Gameforall (talk) 19:05, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, Gameforall, your sandbox was "public on Wikipedia articles" after you put its text into article space with the name Ericdoa a couple of days ago. I think telling lies about it is getting into your head. Bishonen | tålk 19:48, 17 April 2022 (UTC).

I'm sure it is. Every post I write is first created is im my sandbox. In my sandbox, I could have improved it and redone the article. My argument is that no Wikipedia newcomer or user will notice my sandbox or search for it on Wikipedia. I understand that admins have the right to delete the article, but why should admins delete my sandbox where I plan future articles? All I want is for the article to be un-deleted from my sandbox so that I can update it and resubmit it, as well as for the advertisement or promotion that the admin alleges is there to be removed. I admit I was a little snarky in my comment about the advertising or promotion since I was pissed with the admin deleting my sandbox so I apologize Gameforall (talk) 23:41, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

I have filed a couple of SPI requests in the past in regards to this user that you have closed in the past. Is there anything we can do with all of the IPs that the user edits under as well. See here, here, here, and many others. Is there any way a range block can be calculated or something like that? Adamtt9 (talk) 17:43, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

And one more I ran into here. Adamtt9 (talk) 13:25, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

This master hops so much that by the time someone alerts me to IP socking, he's already moved on to another set of IPs that I don't know about. It's frustrating, but there's not much I can do about it.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:32, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Hello. There still is de:User:RoBri/Charli with listed IPs. Maybe some ranges can be extrapolated and blocked (or filtered, as in deWP)? --Roger (talk) 14:44, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for finding and deleting Draft:BilCat. Unfortunately, Im now being accused of sockpuppetry at WP:ANI#Prolific sock master? auto generated account? Strange night. BilCat (talk) 04:28, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

My night just got stranger: The use, User:Maile66, is an admin! Seriously? They are behaving like an inexperienced user, not an administrator! BilCat (talk) 06:04, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

No one commenting at ANI (there are now two threads) thought the accusation had any merit, and Maile is being roundly criticized for it and the subsequent protection of their Talk page. As others have said, the only thing you should have done differently was not to leave a final NPA warning on Maile's Talk page. It's always best to check editors first before leaving standardized warnings. I'm sure it's unpleasant, but I'd let it go.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:14, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I was a bit angry at the accusations, but had I known the user was an admin, I'm not sure what I would have done. Probably something worse! :) I haven't seen the second thread as yet, so I'll check it out now. BilCat (talk) 18:26, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Wow, a lot went on while I was asleep! I'm still somewhat concerned that an admin showed such a lack of judgment and experience, but we all make mistakes. I gave them a cheeseburger as an apology, so hopefully we can move on from this. Thanks again. BilCat (talk) 18:42, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Hello Bbb23,
do you think Draft:Adevinta now meets the notability guidelines? --Alex42 (talk) 19:39, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

The AFC reviewers should be able to help you with that.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:36, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

They were not able to help me. --Alex42 (talk) 12:57, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Liance, you're the last editor to review the draft. I'm afraid I don't know how this process works; can you help Alex? Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:04, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Hey Alex42. How large or how much revenue a company brings in does not establish notability - corporations must meet criteria at WP:NCORP, namely WP:ORGCRIT. If the company is "relatively unknown" as you stated it might not pass the criteria if notability cannot be demonstrated. Much of the references currently at the article cover acquisitions, mergers, etc. which are considered trivial coverage. If you think you can meet the notability criteria please identify the WP:THREE that best meet WP:ORGCRIT and note them on your draft before resubmitting. -Liance^{talk/contribs} 16:11, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Looks like I forgot I was on Bbb23's talk page, my apologies! Alex42, if you have any further comments or questions please direct them to my talk page instead. -Liance^{talk/contribs} 16:12, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Hello Liance, since the discussion started here, it makes sense to continue it here so it doesn't get torn up.

In the draft there are mentioned two articles by the Financial Times, two by Reuters and and one in Der Spiegel (largest weekly magazine in Europe). And out there are probably much more.

According to the criteria in WP:ORGCRIT these are Significant, Independent, Reliable, Secondary, aren't they? --Alex42 (talk) 16:42, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Liance; please move this to their Talk page. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:04, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

I told you so. SLBedit (talk) 21:12, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

I left them a warning; if they do it again, let me know.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:09, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

I've been seeing those socks all over the place, and figured at this point it's basically an RBI situation. Was hoping to save an admin some time they could use to review a good faith edit request. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 03:45, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi Bbb23, the IP in question is a quack WP:LTA/INTSF sock. If you are uncomfortable with the wording used for my close, please consider reclosing with an alternative explanation, to prevent the user in question sucking up the time of any editor who might want to look into an open AN/I discussion. CMD (talk) 13:09, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) For what it's worth, I agree that this is INTSF based on behaviour and the type of proxy being used – I should have probably noted that in the log. Don't think it matters too much in the grand scheme of things, though. --Blablubbs (talk) 15:00, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi Bbb23, as part of this Wikipedia training event along with @Drkirstyross I have trained a group of highly motivated students from Yemen and Syria to write articles about notable Arab women like the one created about Zohra Slim and then deleted. The goal is to teach them new Wiki skills and fill the gap of knowledge about our Arab women leaders from the tech domain in the English and Arabic versions of Wikipedia. As the Co-Founder and CWO of InstaDeep Zorha has a prominent presence on the global stage as a tech entrepreneur and advocate for supporting women in tech. I am not appealing your decision. However, I would really appreciate it if you could help me by guiding the authors of this article on how to avoid or rectify this situation. I don't want that their first experience to end like this. I believe that with Zohra's great success with non-tech background deserves recognition. Her startup in London was successful in pulling through a $100m funding which is well covered by the media (TechCrunch, uktech , siliconangle, beauhurst) After all I suggested their work list and the trainees had no promotional intentions. Many thanks, Abd Alsattar Ardati (talk) 18:56, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

P.S. I have asked the trainees to submit a draft, but I guess they got excited or mistakenly submitted it to the main directly. I also noted the case sensitive issue in the title, I wonder if that contributed to the deletion too. With appreciation. Abd Alsattar Ardati (talk) 19:11, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Honestly, the very brief article was a piece of promotional crud. Having no "promotional intentions" is irrelevant. First, if there is more than one editor-trainee, they should identify themselves or they may be mistaken for meat or sock puppets. Second, they should only work in draft space. Third, even if they create a draft, if it's anything like the article, it may still be deleted per WP:G11. The case issue had nothing to do with the deletion; that kind of issue can always be easily corrected.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:46, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

I appreciate your detailed feedback. The training was conducted in English and most of the attendees' native lanugage is Arabic. So I feel a bit responsible for rectifying the situation that may have resulted from any miscommunication during the training. I will make sure to email the trainees to avoid similar situations and hopefully better contributions in the future. Many thanks again for your time. Abd Alsattar Ardati (talk) 10:16, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Dear Bb23 , I request you to fully protect my Userpage completely after creation because I want to display on all Wikimedia projects by creating a Userpage on meta, my home wiki Hindi Wikipedia my Userpage is completely fully protected after creation, can you please fully protect my Userpage the complete build upon request?. Regards Aviram7 (talk) 14:16, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Stop plastering this request all over Wikipedia.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:26, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi

I'm working with some staff members at the International Energy Agency to release their content under an open license and they are starting to add content to sandboxes so I can check it before its added to the articles. One of the sandboxes was deleted by you last week, please could undelete it so we can continue working on it?

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 11:46, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

 Done --Bbb23 (talk) 12:36, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks very much

John Cummings (talk) 14:24, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Bbb23 also their user page please. Thanks John Cummings (talk) 20:35, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Why (you don't need to ping me on my own Talk page)? --Bbb23 (talk) 20:41, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Because they need to tell people who they are to conform with the COI guidelines, also Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers. Thanks John Cummings (talk) 09:07, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

They can recreate their userpage with a brief description of their COI. What I deleted went well beyond that and was a clear violation of WP:U5.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:09, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

hello sir , please i humble request the creation of the above news source website, let me know if i can provide with more reference Kenpmi (talk) 15:55, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

You created the article. It was properly moved to draft space because it could not survive deletion, but you insisted on moving it back to article space.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:57, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi Bbb23, it looks like you deleted my sandbox for being promotional. I am aware that the content I was working on was too promotional to be an article, which it why I was working on it in my sandbox rather than publishing it. I hadn't reached the point of refining it into an article that would withstand deletion. I thought the sandbox was a safe space and not subject to deletion, or I would have been going about it differently. Can I get back my content so I don't need to start over completely? And how would you suggest I proceed? Do I need to hold my in-progress sandbox content to the same standard as articles? Thanks! AngelicaBooth (talk) 17:00, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Are you affiliated with Pacific Dental Services?--Bbb23 (talk) 21:31, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I am being paid to create a Wikipedia article for Pacific Dental Services. I'll admit that I'm far from a Wikipedia expert and am currently boning up on the COI rules, but based on my reading of the rules on paid editors, I should be able to submit a draft article in the Articles for Creation section. Is that correct? If so, is my sandbox the appropriate place to work on the draft that I'll ultimately submit? Thanks! —AngelicaBooth (talk) 22:36, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Undisclosed paid editing is a violation of policy. You must follow the instructions in that section of the COI policy before you can do anything else.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:51, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Alrighty, I have added the paid editor disclosure to my User page. I haven't edited any articles yet, so there are no articles to add a disclosure to. Is this all I need to do at the moment? Thanks! —AngelicaBooth (talk) 23:25, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Okay, I have restored your sandbox and moved it to draft space - that's a better name space for drafts than sandboxes. Just be aware that the page is still very promotional, and if you don't clean that up, it may be deleted again per WP:G11.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:45, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Dear Bbb23, I was just looking at the talks page for Teknologi Exprt and saw your reversion of the notice put up on this editors talks page in January by Admenwino. Obviously, this makes sense since Admenwino was a sock puppet for Nyxaros2. However, I will say that the notice on the talks page may have actually been warranted - I guess my question is if this notice can be re-added or if it has to stay removed since it was added by Admenwino/Nyxaros2. Thanks Willthehelpfuleditor (talk 13:31, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

I wouldn't re-add it.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:24, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Ok thanks! Willthehelpfuleditor (talk 12:46, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

This user has some kind of problem with me. He is constantly insulting me, harrassing me, reverting my work on S.L. Benfica related pages. In here he called me a fdp (Filho da Puta, portuguese for Son of a Bitch). Here he calls me a vandal just because I removend an appalling and unsorced edit about a curse. P3DRO (talk) 09:51, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Sigh, if you and SLBedit cannot interact without attacking each other, then you're either going to have a request a two-way interaction ban (try WP:ANI) or find yourselves both blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:14, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

He's trolling you. That's all I can say. SLBedit (talk) 18:50, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi Bbb23. I came across a user and I'm not sure what to do about the situation. The user states they had a previous account on they're userpage. And from this comment it would appear to be this user (due to this renaming). Both users have very similar retirement messages on their userpages. Both have been active in the last month. But I'm unsure how to proceed, whether this is an issue at all or if I should simply drop them a message about the issue. Do you have any advice? - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 15:33, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

I have switched accounts. The old account is not used by me anymore, due to psychological reasons I do not want anything to do with it anymore. It triggers my anxiety. What's the problem?... A poor son of Adam (talk) 16:33, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

It last edited on the 8th of April, and have been doing so since last year. So the accounts appear to be editting simultaneously, which goes against what you have stated. Sorry that you noticed this I was hoping to get advice without dragging you into it, as per you notice of anxiousness about the account. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:00, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

I see that you've been giving them a number of warnings, so I'm reaching out. Is this in any way constructive? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:11, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

I dunno. I noticed it yesterday. I think we have too many redirects, but most people think "redirects are cheap", so unless a redirect is obviously wrong, I tend to leave them alone. That said, you're welcome to tag it for speedy deletion or nominate it for discussion if you wish. For some of the user's other edits, though, since my "final warning", I've blocked them indefinitely.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:49, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

I was looking at the speedy rationales, but apparently cross-space redirects are okay to category space? That's what twinkle tells me anyway. Thanks for taking care of the disruption, it's appreciated. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:57, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi,

Discovered you deleted the article after it was flagged for speedy deletion. I acknowledge your prompt action, but would love to plead with you to restore the article (perhaps, into my sandbox).

I am trying to profile presidential aspirants in coming Nigerian 2023 election. The personality is a contender, one of the underdog. I might have made some mistakes while writing the article, I would definitely rework on it when it is restored.

But I will also appreciate if you help with areas you think should be removed or added.

Looking forward to swift and kind action. Drsmartofficial (talk) 06:49, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

I've restored the article and moved it to Draft:Christopher Imumolen. It's going to need a lot of work. The WP:AFC reviewers should be able to help you with it, and as Liz noted on your Talk page, editors at the WP:Teahouse may also be able to help you.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:10, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Hello user:Bbb22, Thank you for restoring the article. I have redrafted it and submitted for review. Do you mind going through it and possibly approve?

Looking forward to your response. Drsmartofficial (talk) 17:46, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

User:Bbb23, I mean. Apologies. My replies can't be edited. Drsmartofficial (talk) 17:48, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't review drafts.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:48, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Dear Administrator, Please do not delete the Anfisa Letiago page because: 1. Your remark about infringing foreign copyrights has been removed and the text is already copyrighted. 2. The personality is very famous and is quoted by many world famous magazines and sites, in addition there are 752k followers on Instagram! Thank you very much for your understanding and if you have other remarks, can you let me know immediately ?! Let's not stop the development of this encyclopedia?! --Petr73 (talk) 20:49, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

I would move it to draft space for you, but the article is way too promotional to be kept.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:40, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I see that you deleted Beno Koller as a category A7 CSD. I'm afraid I think I made a mistake: I posted on the talk page that I was contesting this deletion, whereas I see I should have removed the CSD tag. I'm not 100% convinced that Koller is genuinely notable, but I do think he has a sufficient credible claim to deserve a proper AfD discussion rather than a speedy deletion. He was a Polish soldier who remained in London after the war and was heavily involved in Polish language theatre. The English WP article had suffered a disaster in its sourcing, but the corresponding article on the Polish wikipedia does give sources including contemporary newspaper articles. The English article was nominated as A7, no demonstration of notability, by an editor who does not speak Polish (I checked their home page, where they list their languages). The most useful sources are entirely in Polish, and not machine-translatable as they're scans, not text. As such I am utterly certain that the proposer was not in a position to check the sources before concluding that Koller wasn't notable. That's why I contested the nomination. I feel, strongly, that this was a misuse of CSD and a misuse of category A7. It looks likely to me that the English article was an unacknowledged translation of the Polish one, in which the translator made a complete pig's ear of the references, so it could have been deleted as an infringement of Polish WP's copyright, although I think it would have been better to add the attribution. But it definitely, definitely wasn't a valid A7 speedy deletion because my act of raising a good-faith, credible objection makes it controversial. I appreciate that English WP has better standards of notability than most other WPs, but the existence of an article on another WP should be taken as a red flag for A7 deletions, in my view: it at least hints that a coherent argument could be made that the subject has some notability. Any chance of getting this back so we can do it properly? Sorry to be a pain Elemimele (talk) 06:08, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

If the author of the article wishes me to restore it and move it to draft space, I will.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:38, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Note also that purported scans of articles, in the era of Photoshop, are not generally considered reliable sources. We need citations to actual published articles. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:59, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Just so you know, the actual sockmaster is the WMF-banned editor User:Bishal Khan; compare diff of known sock. Skh sourav is also a known sock; the LTA uses that name nowadays probably due to filters. JavaHurricane 15:14, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Now there's a voice from the past. Seems like someone should sort out Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/জঙ্গলবাসী and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Skh sourav halder, and it ain't gonna be me.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:29, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

It probably would qualify for G3 blatant hoax. It's a nonexistent TV channel. The IP has put in drafts like this before that consist only of infoboxes for nonexistent "future" TV channels. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 18:27, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Right, I've already blocked it as a hoax, but next time tag it that way because G1 it is not. I've also blocked a range of IPs, including that one, for three months.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:28, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I've mostly done G3, but I wasn't sure if it met G1. It did...to me, at least. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 18:53, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi, you have deleted my sandbox page. I use it for personal stuff and is only accessed by me. I am not misinforming anybody so can it be undeleted. I use it for personal projects. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avessinus (talk • contribs) 23:14, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi Bbb23. You deleted this article back in March 2022 as an obvious hoax. It was just re-created and I came across it doing new page patrols. I haven't tagged the new article yet for CSD as I didn't quite see the issue myself. But just in case I was missing something I wanted to bring it to your attention. Singularity42 (talk) 16:16, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Why were my pages deleted? I was making custom drag race seasons on my sandbox, not passing them off as real articles? TatiVogue (talk) 15:24, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

It's a *user page*, I am not misinforming anyone. TatiVogue (talk) 15:25, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

I never said that it was true. It says FAKE season. I never passed it off as real. Plus, you wouldn't be able to find it as normal Wikipedia user. You would have to type in User:TatiVogue/ to get it. This deletion was highly unnecessary. It. Is. Fictional. I've worked extremely hard on it & it's been deleted for what reason? It's a sandbox. TatiVogue (talk) 15:35, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

I only use it for personal projects to experience myself with editing. I don't understand how I was "misinforming" people. TatiVogue (talk) 15:41, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a free webhosting service and personal material and fictional fancruft hosted in userspace can be deleted at any time. -- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:37, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

regarding this, please see this - I have tagged the IP as being linked to the named account. GiantSnowman 14:20, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Looks like the IP's edits predate the named account's. The IP may now be stopped by autoblock, but if they resume, they should be blocked for both spamming and block evasion.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:22, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Me and User:Blanchey need help asap. I’ve been tormented by IPs for days now, and I’ve just discovered all IPs blocked from my talkpage by User:JBW where all from ZestyLemonz. The IP confessed and everything on Blancheys page too. WikiFlame50 (talk) 18:04, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

I thought I should tell you because you dealt with the last sock who was HaveSomeSoups WikiFlame50 (talk) 18:08, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't understand as I see no recent IP edits to your Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:45, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

B, it's in Blanchey's talk page history ([47]).-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:58, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Also, hi. It's been raining here for days. I almost forget what it's like to see the sun.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:00, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Ain't that the truth? Dunno about you but it's also been unseasonably cool here. We're using space heaters upstairs because the upstairs heat pump broke and must be replaced. Fortunately, that will cost only a zillion dollars.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:02, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

I assume we'll all float away before the bill arrives, so at least there's that.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:08, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi, Bbb23 & Ponyo. If it's of any interest to either of you, the talk page edits took place up to 30 April, when I blocked 2a01:4c8:c00::/40 from editing WikiFlame50's talk page. Since then the IP editor has shifted to stalking and reverting WikiFlame50's editing as an alternative method of harassment. It looks to me very likely that it is ZestyLemonz, as WikiFlame50 says. I haven't yet looked at Blanchey's talk page. JBW (talk) 21:03, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Everything you say, JBW, is of interest to me. :-) I see only one recent IP edit on Blanchey's Talk page, and you've blocked it with another range block, so still nothing for me to do? --Bbb23 (talk) 21:06, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have explicitly said that there was nothing you needed to do, to save you wasting time. In fact my first draft of my message above did say that, but for some reason I missed it out of the version I actualy posted. There's still nothing you need to do, but again just for interest, after I posted the message above, I looked at User talk:Blanchey, and it's obviously ZestyLemonz using IP socks. JBW (talk) 07:13, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Check my talk page. Every IP that has added something from April 30th or so beyond. Was all zesty WikiFlame50 (talk) 21:40, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

I just wanna make sure that psycho doesn’t harass me or anyone else anymore. Thanks for the help. WikiFlame50 (talk) 21:42, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

This user is obviously NOTHERE, and their edits smell like some flavor of long-term abuse, but I don't know exactly who it would be. Edits involve uploading non-free images to commons with false license tags, then adding them to articles here. Anyway, would you mind helping take care of it with a minimum of drama/recognition? agtx 21:36, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi! Yesterday you blocked Logokalog (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) and today another account Dragondollx (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) with similar edit summary[48] started editing the page. Sid95Q (talk) 11:01, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Indeffed. Have neither tagged nor tried to figure out if there's more to this, though. --Blablubbs (talk) 19:11, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

@Blablubbs: I noticed Dragondollx when I blocked Logokalog, but at that time I wasn't confident (enough) that they were the same person, so did nothing, but I think there would be some benefit to opening an SPI and endorsing a CU as I also spotted other relatively new accounts all intersecting. Then it started giving me a headache, the easiest remedy for which was to let it all go.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:08, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Opened a SPI today Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Logokalog, when the new account started attacking me in edit summary. Sid95Q (talk) 08:18, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I stared at it for quite some time too, and came to the conclusion that the topic intersection, summaries, shared antagonism [49][50] and tag-teaming is enough to at least prove abusive MEAT. Though I have zero objection to you overturning if you think there isn't enough evidence. --Blablubbs (talk) 13:04, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

That's why I think a CU would be useful. BTW, does anyone know of a machine translator for Hindi -> English when the Hindi is in Roman characters?--Bbb23 (talk) 13:10, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Google translate works for me. Well, kind of – I think I get the gist, at least. --Blablubbs (talk) 13:14, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I get that, too, but when I tried using Google Translate at ANI to understand what Logokalog was saying in an edit summary, it did not work, and I had to ask Sid95Q to translate it for me. Perhaps it's the mix of Hindi and English, and some mixes throw Google off.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:24, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

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

Guideline and policy news

• Following an RfC, a change has been made to the administrators inactivity policy. Under the new policy, if an administrator has not made at least 100 edits over a period of 5 years they may be desysopped for inactivity.
• Following a discussion on the bureaucrat's noticeboard, a change has been made to the bureaucrats inactivity policy.

Technical news

• The ability to undelete the associated talk page when undeleting a page has been added. This was the 11th wish of the 2021 Community Wishlist Survey.
• A public status system for WMF wikis has been created. It is located at https://www.wikimediastatus.net/ and is hosted separately to WMF wikis so in the case of an outage it will remain viewable.

Arbitration

• Remedy 2 of the St Christopher case has been rescinded following a motion. The remedy previously authorised administrators to place a ban on single-purpose accounts who were disruptively editing on the article St Christopher Iba Mar Diop College of Medicine or related pages from those pages.

---

Hey Bbb, I recently came across an undisclosed paid editor, one of several who have contributed to Rajinder Gupta , Specifically, I'm referring to Sakshamjaintg (talk · contribs). Looking a bit further, this editor recently submitted Draft:Trident Group a recreation of an article you once deleted as "Mass deletion of pages added by Beingmai per G5)". Looking at the articles that still exist that Beingmai edited, I see that both editors also edited Rajinder Gupta . I can't see what deleted articles Beingmai added, but I'm wondering if someone with more privileges might see an obvious sock. If you have a few moments and are inclined to take a look, it might be interesting. Toddst1 (talk) 05:44, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Why did you revert my edit on the disruptive user's talk page? it's just to let him know that he's been reported, not my fault most admins are offline. Dinosaur TrexXX33 (chat?) 17:55, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't know what "most admins are offline" has to do with anything. With some administrative noticeboards, you are required to notify a user about a complaint, i.e., WP:ANI and WP:AN. Others notifications are optional, i.e., WP:SPI. For reports of blatant vandalism to WP:AIV, you do not notify the user.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:58, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

ok. thank you for the clarification. i did not see that anywhere so i was thinking that you deleted my edit for "not done" referring to the block not being done. Dinosaur TrexXX33 (chat?) 18:01, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

"not done" was shorthand for this isn't normally done. If I were going to decline to block, I would have said so at WP:AIV.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:07, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Apologies. I have only been on Wikipedia for 1 year and 10 months, I don't know much yet. Dinosaur TrexXX33 (chat?) 18:16, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

No need to apologize.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:22, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

@DinosaurTrexXX33: Please consider changing the colour of the first block in your signature. It's practically painful to look at.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:19, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

@Ponyo: Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I have been told this before but tbh I didn't really care back then. Dinosaur TrexXX33 (chat?) 18:21, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

There are many reasons why you should care. -- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:23, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes, excuse my under 18 self. Dinosaur TrexXX33 (chat?) 18:24, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

You changed the wrong block and made it worse.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:25, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Alright, is this better? Apologies, I am young and i've been on Wikipedia for a short amount of time. Dinosaur TrexXX33 (chat?) 18:27, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) No, it's more blinding than the last. PRAXIDICAE💕 18:28, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't get how, but now? Dinosaur TrexXX33 (chat?) 18:29, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

It's a group chat. Yay! If I understand Ponyo's original objection, it's the text of "Dinosaur", and you can resolve it by changing it to white. I don't see anything wrong with the other part myself.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:31, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! Sorry I got a little frustrated; most Wikipedia mods expect me to know everything when I join, which is really annoying, luckily for you it's not the case! Dinosaur TrexXX33 (chat?) 18:33, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

You still have to change the Dinosaur text to white, please.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:34, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

LOL! Apologies! Dinosaur TrexXX33 (chat?) 18:35, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Ha! Not sure why you changed the background of TrexXX33 to black; I liked green better, although black and white are visible, which is all that matters. The hell with my taste. Anyway, as long as the pearls diva is satisfied, we're done.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:38, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

That's much better DinosaurTrexXX33; I thank you and my eyes thank you. I'm off to drop into another conversation, somewhere, unannounced and determined to make a scene.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:00, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

why did you revert the ip at ani? their question seems valid. .usarnamechoice (talk) 02:57, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

• Hi, Bbb23. I too would like to understand the reason for Special:Diff/1086740805. Could you explain please?—S Marshall T/C 17:10, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

• I thought the IP was extremely suspicious, still do, but, regardless, I'm glad the report was restored.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:22, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

  what was suspicious? the IP is a large ISP provider for New York, and their contributions all seem legit including yet another remark from the IP being reverted at ANI, by you. what was suspicious about their question about Celestina007, and why did you revert them again back in October? .usarnamechoice (talk) 21:30, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

why did you revert the ip at ani? their question seems valid. .usarnamechoice (talk) 02:57, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

• Hi, Bbb23. I too would like to understand the reason for Special:Diff/1086740805. Could you explain please?—S Marshall T/C 17:10, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

• I thought the IP was extremely suspicious, still do, but, regardless, I'm glad the report was restored.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:22, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

  what was suspicious? the IP is a large ISP provider for New York, and their contributions all seem legit including yet another remark from the IP being reverted at ANI, by you. what was suspicious about their question about Celestina007, and why did you revert them again back in October? .usarnamechoice (talk) 21:30, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

W1lliam halifax was created days after you banned Baurach86 and the account immediately started editing Portal/current events pages like Baurach86, specifically content related to China: 1, 2. I noticed this account on Genocides in history where they only edited the see also section and changed the wording of Black genocide just as Baurach86 did: 1, 2. The account hasn't made many edits but it seem like an obvious sock. Nettless (talk) 19:27, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

I agree with you. Thanks! --Bbb23 (talk) 20:43, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

I would like to replace your 72 hour sitewide block with an indefinite pageblock from Dalida, allowing the editor to make edit requests at Talk: Dalida. The ownership issues and disruption go back quite a while, and I believe that this is the best long term solution. But I will not do so without your agreement. Please advise. Cullen328 (talk) 01:36, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Cullen328, I'm not a fan of partial blocks, especially for an editor who, besides the COI, appears to have some competence issues, but it sounds like it's worth a try. Thanks for asking.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:59, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

I am a big fan of pageblocks, when an editor is disrupting a specific article or a very narrow group of related articles. In my experience, these editors often have a lot of knowledge about the specific topic but lack the skills and experience to edit the article directly. Pageblocks allow them to make well-referenced edit requests on the article's talk page, and require them to work to build consensus there. If such an editor flips out and disrupts more broadly, then site wide blocking is easy. If they post constructive edit requests on the article talk page, then that is a win-win. That's my thinking. Cullen328 (talk) 02:59, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

DifficTones (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a likely sock, now attempting to recreate the page Dino James by editing deleted page contents in their sandbox. They have also taken up mimicking their user page after my own, probably to mock me since I have cleaned up after their paid editing messes under the "MickyShy" sock account. Mewnst (talk) 00:46, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure what makes you think I'm the right person to contact for your allegations; I suggest WP:SPI.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:04, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

I brought it up here because you've dealt with this sock several times before. Would a new investigation be necessary for every new sock in the laundry pile? Mewnst (talk) 23:19, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

My name doesn't even appear in the SPI. In any event, if I've ever had anything to do with it, I have zero recollection of it. Also, in glancing at the SPI, it is complex and new reports should probably be filed for every suspected sock.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:27, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Alrighty, sorry to bother you. Mewnst (talk) 00:05, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

The AfC submission that you deleted recently, has been recreated by myself due to an edit conflict. Please look into this and delete the sandbox if necessary. Regards. Hitro talk 18:39, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:43, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps a revdel of their edit summary [51]. That stuff certainly falls under disruptive material. Thanks. Dr.Pinsky (talk) 18:57, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

I think it's kinda borderline, but I deleted it.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:44, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Much appreciated. Dr.Pinsky (talk) 08:49, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Alright, so this user keeps personal attacking me. Is it possible if you can block him from editing his talk/userpage if he does this again? He is most likely a young child on the internet trolling. Dinosaur TrexXX33 (chat?) 17:22, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

TPA was revoked earlier.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:23, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! I really appreciate it. To be honest we should all just ignore him and let him waste his time. Dinosaur TrexXX33 (chat?) 17:25, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi! I see that you blocked Shiaryuhuhu and Kimjunnoodles for socking, but don't know whose socks they are. Do you hear a quacking sound here at all? Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:13, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

They are each other's socks. I've blocked and tagged Smithsmithy as reasonably obvious, and deleted the draft + a sandbox. Thanks for letting me know.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:03, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I saw that you reverted my edit for the announcement of a further 2 seasons of Heartstopper. This has been confirmed by the UK Netflix Instagram page, along with Alice Oseman's. Please do not revert again. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AbstractLakx (talk • contribs) 13:09, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

The material must be reliably sourced; you didn't source it at all.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:12, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Are the instagram pages of the creators of the series not reliable enough? I was unaware that I was allowed to cite them. If so, please feel free to add the edit yourself properly.

The animosity of seasoned wikipedia writers really does put off newer ones like myself, well demonstrated here. AbstractLakx (talk) 13:14, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Instagram is not a reliable source because it is a self-published source. Anyone can claim to be an expert at something, but in reality, they're not. Thanks. — 3PPYB6 — TALK — CONTRIBS — 13:15, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Okay, it has just been published by Hollywood Reporter. Can my edits be re-allowed now?

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/tv/tv-news/heartstopper-renewed-for-seasons-2-and-3-at-netflix-1235150962/ AbstractLakx (talk) 13:20, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

It doesn't matter anymore as another editor added the material and sourced it properly. As an aside, even if Instagram were acceptable as a source, which it sometimes is and sometimes is not depending on the context, you have to put in an actual reference, not just mention it in the material itself.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:22, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Of course not, but you might have to try and understand that not everyone is as perfect as you are at wikipedia writing. Sometimes people get things wrong, and I was not trying to 'disrupt' the article, as you claimed.

I was simply trying to write on wikipedia. The policing that you undertake, although I'm sure is well-intentioned, maybe should have it's patronising language dialled down slightly.

I'm new here, why can't that just be enough for you to say, 'by the way' instead of accusing me of disruptive editing. AbstractLakx (talk) 13:26, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @AbstractLakx – Understood; sometimes we (experienced Wikipedians) WP:BITE newcomers because they do not possess the same knowledge as we do. Tip of advice, though: if you wish not to be bitten in such a way, you may want to consider placing {{This is a new user}} on your user page. You may also want to take it slow and stay away from any heated conflict when you are a newcomer. Thanks. — 3PPYB6 — TALK — CONTRIBS — 13:34, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Totally understandable, and I have taken your advice and added it.

Thank you.

To be honest, I do intend to take it slow, as this is something I do in my free time, and didn't think my edits were as catastrophic as they were painted to be.

I didn't intend for conflict, but when I'm spoken to in such a way, it's hard for me to grin and bear it. Appreciate your comments, thanks again :) AbstractLakx (talk) 13:44, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Logokalog (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) is using their tslk page to attack me [52]. Sid95Q (talk) 07:33, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

When I use Google to translate that into English, I get "Where is the hidden interest, then come to the fore".--Bbb23 (talk) 13:01, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Tmc and madar*** are cuss words. Then they wrote "where are you hiding come to the fore". Sid95Q (talk) 13:42, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Heh, everyone's idea of "cuss words" is different (often a cultural issue). Can you give me an approximate English translation of the two words?--Bbb23 (talk) 13:45, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

TMC is shot form of "Teri maa ki chut” which means “your mothers vagina” and is used in the sense of a*hole, "Madarchod" means motherf... Sid95Q (talk) 13:51, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Good enough. Done.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:00, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello, sorry to bother you. You blocked User:WinOrVodka on 1 May 2022. I may be mistaken but it looks like they may be back, as perhaps three different accounts, adding bits to a conversation with themselves (??) at Talk:Ode to Joy. I don't get it – I can't understand what they are trying to do and I'm not superkeen to engage with it though they did try my Talk page. It's not actually vandalism (unlike the ?first account's start) but it does look a bit like maybe a competence issue, or they are playing games, or something ... gah, I don't know. Would you mind having a look please? Sorry if it is a timewaster for you. Thanks and best wishes DBaK (talk) 08:42, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

I've blocked and tagged all three. Somehow I suspect there's an earlier master (it's the colorful usernames and the interest in Naziism/Hitler), but my brain won't dredge it up. Such an absolutely beautiful piece of music.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:22, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you so much. I worried that I was going bonkers. And yes, what a great poem and great tune ... which makes the surreal conversation even weirder. But ho hum ... I am going to bake a cake on the grounds that it may make more sense to me than the encyclopaedia does at times! Cheers DBaK (talk) 14:46, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Now that sounds like heaven: listening to Beethoven's Ninth and eating homemade cake.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:07, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

I only got as far as the making, not the eating, and it's got a bit late so there is a treat to save for tomorrow. The Beethoven turned into a Marin Alsop-Fest cos we'd just watched that rather good documentary about her and then I found a Marin Alsop Essentials playlist on Apple Music so she accompanied me magnificently through various mixing and other preparation processes ... Short Ride In A Fast Machine seemed vaguely apposite ... DBaK (talk) 22:52, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Greetings Bbb23. I noticed you blocked IP 78.109.69.9 for 48hrs due to edit disruptions on 2022 Armenian protests. The IP hopper also uses 78.109.68.199, 78.109.68.79, 78.109.69.158 and 78.109.69.151. EdJohnston protected the page due to disruptions from these IP's. I've tried to engage the IP on multiple talk pages but they delete all messages/warnings immediately. I tried to initiate discussion on Talk:2022 Armenian protests, but the IP's last response was incredibly rude both towards myself, and you (for blocking them). At this point, I do not know what course of action to take. I believe this IP hopper is not here to genuinely WP:BUILD and will probably continue to disrupt the article as soon as the page protection expires. Any advice/help on what to do? Many thanks! Archives908 (talk) 13:47, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't see anything to do for the moment. None of those IPs has edited recently. Even using your list to build range Special:contributions/78.109.68.0/23 doesn't indicate any more recent editing.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:43, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Noted- thank you. I guess we'll see what happens on June 13. Regards, Archives908 (talk) 15:46, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

How much disruptive activity is "enough"? There have been 23 edits since protection was removed. Only four were not vandalism or reversion of vandalism. Sumanuil. 21:39, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Why did you remove the interview link? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Evrenosogullari (talk • contribs) 13:14, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Because it's clear you are promoting that magazine.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:17, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

I barely had time to file an ANEW report ([53])... :) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:40, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Silly me, apparently Twinkle doesn't check for duplicates? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:41, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Sorry for not responding yesterday but I was on my tablet, and it's really hard to type on it. I had noticed the EW report earlier but although there was a violation, it seemed like things had quieted down until the report was updated with another revert by the user. As for Twinkle, it has little intelligence of that nature.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:19, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

I had the diffs there that confirmed that the creator was in fact requesting deletion. I don't see why the G7 was declined.

By the way, sorry for not signing last time. My fault. ☢️Plutonical☢️ᶜᵒᵐᵐᵘⁿᶦᶜᵃᵗᶦᵒⁿˢ 16:59, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Damith Madhusanka was created by User:Sameera305.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:04, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Right now an SPI is active with the user who I acknowledge as the creater as well as Sameera305. I'll wait until that is done before I proceed, and if they are indeed unrelated, I'll let the MFD continue as usual. ☢️Plutonical☢️ᶜᵒᵐᵐᵘⁿᶦᶜᵃᵗᶦᵒⁿˢ 17:54, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

You take way too much on yourself. You act as if you have the authority to control what happens, and you do not. If the new user turns out to be a sock, then any edits or "requests" they make are for naught. I suggest you drop all of this. You have a problematic history and narrowly escaped being blocked a few months ago. Your behavior on this is disruptive.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:16, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Bbb23:, I request you to check these usernames i.e Curious boy km and JayMithila as I think these two usernames are related with each other. I also recommended you to check this investigation. If anything were wrong on nominating then please correct. (Note: I request you to check this beacuse you are the administrator who block the account of Curious boy km as a sock.) Fade258 (talk) 09:39, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Precious

One year!

I think 58.105.161.125 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is a sock of TheFattyClan (talk · contribs), based on their edits to Wikipedia:AFCRC. ― Qwerfjkltalk 09:46, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

I agree. The IP has been globally blocked for a few days.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:39, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi Bbb23! Your block on 2600:1010:B050:DDFB:C341:1AB9:1AF1:429 is expiring in an hour and a half. These consecutive edits by 2600:1010:B01F:1974:5DA8:AFE9:B574:A678, part of the same /40 range and restoring the same content at Katherine Delmar Burke School, are obvious block evasion. Giving you a heads up in case you'd like to sanction. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:33, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

That's a wide range - easier just to protect the page, which I've done for 3 months. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:37, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Sensible! Could you be convinced to lengthen the protection? I made the case for a long period at this RFPPI request. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:41, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Three months is longer than previous periods. If the disruption resumes after protection expires, I personally (can't speak for other admins) would increase the period to six months or a year. Before that, though, I wouldn't be surprised if the Talk page disruption resumes as its protection expires in a couple of days.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:08, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:09, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Umm, one year for what?--Bbb23 (talk) 15:39, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

There's a link, no? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:28, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Ah, I clicked on the picture, not the one year, although even now having clicked on it, I'm not sure what I've done. Clearly above my head. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 18:35, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Did you then click on your user name which doesn't go to the user page? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:41, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

No. Perhaps I deserve an award for cluelessness.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:41, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Next year you'll know, or deserve an award for a memory like mine. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:47, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi, Bbb. I noticed that you'd G3-deleted Draft:Rick Roll Land and blocked all contributors as sockpuppets, as well as one contributor to a related draft, Slowcolt (talk · contribs). I'd been aware of these two drafts for a while, because they kept coming up at EFFP when people would set off the rickroll filter. As best I can tell, "Rick Roll Land" is a hoax in a sense, but it's a hoax perpetrated by a YouTuber on his viewership, not a hoax perpetrated by his viewership on Wikipedia. See for instance this credulous coverage in an unreliable but widely-read source. Either way, from the readers' perspective there's no difference between a hoax by editors and a hoax that editors fell for, so I'm not challenging the G3, but regarding the sockblocks, I was wondering if there's a piece I'm missing? Having watched this unfold over two months, it looked pretty clearly to me like a bunch of kids working together on a draft, not like sockpuppetry. Some of them were probably on their way to blocks anyways, but Slowcolt in particular was generally contributing constructively. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 21:01, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

working together as a draft is meat puppetry. I saw Slowcolt's edits as a mix, but if they make another unblock request and you wish to unblock them, I have no objection.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:05, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Working together on a draft is something we regularly encourage users to do. This draft happens to have been about a hoax that the YouTuber they like pulled, and was probably linked from a subreddit or Discord or something. No one was editing on behalf of any blocked user, as far as I can tell. Auditing the nine users' edits in full, there are five who I don't see evidence engaged in any bad-faith conduct:

• Slowcolt: as discussed
• Xvixvi (talk · contribs): one edit, to add a comma
• Tlochsta (talk · contribs): one edit, not very constructive, but good-faith
• BlackTeishin (talk · contribs): five edits, likewise
• Greasy Sabotage (talk · contribs): one edit, constructive if one assumes credulity

I'm aware of no requirement that we must wait for an unblock request to unblock a user who has been blocked for an invalid reason. And in the case of Slowcolt, they have already put in a perfectly reasonable unblock request, declined only because the reviewing admin assumed that the underlying sockblock was valid. Thus, I would like to unblock these five users. Do you object to that? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 21:44, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I not only object but pretty much disagree with your analysis, including what constitutes meat puppetry, what we "encourage", and the definition of "good faith conduct", but I don't think arguing with you over these things would be productive. That said, if Yamla, who declined Slowcolt's unblock request, agrees the users/accounts should be unblocked, I'll leave it in your collective hands. I can't know if Yamla ran a check before declining the unblock request to make sure that all of the users are indeed separate people. If not, I would recommend such a check before addressing the other issues you raise.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:50, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

The technical evidence is non-trivial to unwind. For example, BlackTeishin is  Highly likely to Buddyduffymonkey and Buddyduffymonkeyoncrack and  Possible to Wikapedacooldan. AFRWQDA is  Highly likely to Manawayyy, who declared a conflict of interest, though I've no idea to what. However, apart from that, the accounts aren't a direct match. So, we'd be in WP:MEAT category. I fall closer on Bbb23's interpretation of meatpuppetry. Roughly speaking, I take a pretty dim view of people recruited to work together on obvious hoaxes or on commercial articles. This leaves pretty wide latitude for debating the "recruited" part. I'm not strongly inclined to unblock anyone here. I don't oppose unblocking any of the accounts if they, say, agree to stop creating articles about obvious hoaxes. Slowcolt is a plausible to good candidate here, particularly as they didn't appear to be involved in creating obvious hoaxes. Disclaimers: only had one cup of coffee, lots of technical data to unwind here and I mostly looked at the accounts named above (instead of trying to unwind AFRWQDA), I'm old enough that I'm not immediately familiar with almost any of the subjects these accounts are editing about and so miss a bit of context. --Yamla (talk) 11:37, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Yamla, thanks for your comments. Do you plan to do any more "unwinding" after you've had more coffee?--Bbb23 (talk) 13:21, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

No, not unless people think it's necessary. I expect I may be able to find some direct socks of AFRWQDA if I looked hard enough, but I very strongly doubt I'd find anything new with regard to the above named accounts. I'm not opposed to checking further, just pointing out that I don't think it'd be particularly productive. The above named accounts are connecting from geographically distant IP addresses, thankfully, so I'm pretty confident they aren't direct sockpuppets of each other. --Yamla (talk) 17:40, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Makes sense, thanks for your time.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:29, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

@Yamla: I can see the case for waiting for unblock requests from Tlochsta, BlackTeishin, and GreasySabotage (although realistically they'll just create new accounts and we'll probably never know). But if Slowcolt and Xvixvi aren't sox of anyone, then they haven't done anything blockable, so I would still like to unblock those two. Slowcolt's can be seen as a retroactive granting of their unblock request, which correctly stated, I've not made any edits or anything in awhile. I've also only had one account so not sure what this means. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 20:08, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

I lean somewhere between "don't oppose" and "support" on those two accounts. As you clearly understand, they aren't direct sockpuppets so at worst, this is WP:MEAT. You don't need my support, of course, as you have my technical findings. But, let me take a position. I'll support your decision to unblock Slowcolt, especially if combined with a polite warning to be careful with hoaxes (as we all should be; no implication of bad editing there). I'm going to stick with just not opposing you if you unblock Xvixvi. Your call. I could make the argument either way. Indeed, I've spent an awful lot of time recently thinking how I should perhaps be more willing to unblock, and how to write up my thoughts using template:brainstorming. That, though, is counterbalanced by so, so many unblocks turning out to be counterproductive. Anyway, a topic for another day. --Yamla (talk) 20:19, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

plese help Jaat24 (talk) 10:46, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the recent edit. I noticed your note on Disambiguation Link. Is this because the article is not in the mainspace or drafted? Making sure re-adding the infobox image and captions doesnt violate anything? Petra0922 (talk) 11:59, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

After edits only by you to the draft, I was taken aback by the IP's edit. You should not be editing logged out. The image is probably best left out in draft space.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:18, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello, I am pretty sure that Jaat24 is a sockpuppet of Jk deenu, he is reverting edits in List of programmes broadcast by Cartoon Network (India), kindly do something about it, Thank you.Yuu Haru Angelo (talk) 16:21, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

I am an autoconfirmed user jk deenu joined 20 days ago And i am editing CN page from 1 year Jaat24 (talk) 02:23, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Bbb23 I had strong suspicion couple of months ago about user Suthasianhistorian8 when a new account Aleena98 was editing same article Kaur. I mentioned this to you [54] but since it was based on suspicion and no credible evidence, i didn't pursue it. It has finally been revealed. You blocked the user Suthasianhistorian8 twice before [55] and [56] BUT after all the promises, this user went ahead and created 11 other accounts (including Aleena98) and continued to edit war, accused other editors of vandalism and used personal attacks. MehmoodS (talk) 12:19, 31 May 2022 (UTC) 

DeaconShotFire requests unblock. They write,

I understand that I was blocked for rude behaviour and edit warring. I fully admit to doing this. If I am unblocked, I will not begin edit wars or harass other users. I will not engage in this behaviour again. I have a genuine interest in improving Wikipedia, as evidenced by my edit history. I have made significant changes (that are still in place) to lead sections of major articles such as Ronald Reagan and Elizabeth II. I hope to continue improving the lead sections of articles. Another editor stated on my talk page following my indefinite mute that I should be given a chance to appeal it, an editor with whom I made those kinds of major edits.

Would this be acceptable as far as it goes? I expect them to fully explain how to handle disagreements w/o being disagreeable.( Frankly, I don't see them as being compatible. ) Do they need a TBAN as an unblock condition, assuming they formulate an acceptable unblock request ? Cheers, --Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:16, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Sorry for my belated response. I believe Bishonen "took ownership" of this editor, at which point I removed the editor from my watchlist and haven't thought about them since...until now. You've been talking to Bishonen about this, so I don't think you need me to chime in with my three cents (inflation!).--Bbb23 (talk) 13:30, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Hey, Bbb23,

When correcting for a page move by a sock or vandal, please consider leaving a redirect during the move. The problem is that after a vandal moves a page to the wrong, incorrect title, our bots immediately change all of the valid redirects to point to the new target page, the incorrect title. If you leave a redirect when you fix the vandalism, then the bots can move the redirects to point back to the original, correct page title. If you don't leave a redirect, it results in a lot of broken redirects. If an admin or editor doesn't step in and repair them, AnomieBOT III will just delete all of those pages.

I have created temporary redirects that will allow the bots to change the redirects back from Relegation and promotion to Promotion and relegation and then the temporary redirects can be deleted (or kept!). I usually change broken redirects manually if there are a half dozen or so but this time there are 16 redirects that need to be fixed so I'll let the bots handle them! Thanks! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:11, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, Liz, I don't really understand. Why should bots get involved at all? All I'm trying to do - often with some difficulty - is put everything back to the way it was before the sock moved the article. Leaving a redirect would not accomplish that, and in some instances we would end up with a biased title, even if it is "only" a redirect. In more egregious cases where, for example, a vandal moves someone else's userpage or user talk page, I don't usually see admins who correct it leaving a redirect when they move it back. Does that screw things up, too?--Bbb23 (talk) 12:16, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Saw you just blocked this user, I suspect this is the same person since they're creating the same nonsense. PRAXIDICAE💕 15:59, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Got it, thanks! --Bbb23 (talk) 16:19, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

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

Guideline and policy news

• Several areas of improvement collated from community member votes have been identified in the Universal Code of Conduct Enforcement guidelines. The areas of improvement have been sent back for review and you are invited to provide input on these areas.

Technical news

• Administrators using the mobile web interface can now access Special:Block directly from user pages. (T307341)
• The IP Info feature has been deployed to all wikis as a Beta Feature. Any autoconfirmed user may enable the feature using the "IP info" checkbox under Preferences → Beta features. Autoconfirmed users will be able to access basic information about an IP address that includes the country and connection method. Those with advanced privileges (admin, bureaucrat, checkuser) will have access to extra information that includes the Internet Service Provider and more specific location.

Arbitration

• Remedy 2 of the Rachel Marsden case has been rescinded following a motion. The remedy previously authorised administrators to delete or reduce to a stub, together with their talk pages, articles related to Rachel Marsden when they violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy.
• An arbitration case regarding WikiProject Tropical Cyclones has been closed.

---

Hello, my apologies for sending this message at such an unreasonably late hour, as I received a notification informing me, that my page on an individual by the name of Thomas Coreman, had been speedily deleted, finalized by yourself if I am not mistaken. I would have protested, were I awake at that time. Regardless, I evidently did not apply the proper notices to the article stating why it exists, so I'm asking for the original page's contents so I can redo it, in such a manner that it may be properly under notability guidelines. I could list why the deletion was of dubious nature, or what I am going to do with the transcript, but these are mostly irrelevant, the point I am making is simply that if it isn't good enough, in spite of my justifications which I made apparent on the relevant page's Talk section, I will redo it in such a manner that it becomes good enough. I will improve the article in one sitting, meaning no patches in subsequent edits to the page, and, since I didn't make it's notability clear enough, and I didn't add enough information in the article itself explaining it's notability, I will remake it so that both of these objectives are accomplished. Again, no patches, all in one sitting so I won't have the defense of it being an early edition anymore. Also, properly sourced with notations and explanations, so no one may state with any credibility that it lacks citations or clear examples of notability. Again, my apologies for contacting you at such an outrageous hour, at least for me, and I am sorry if I am causing any disturbances on your end. That should be all for now, thank you, and farewell. Markovich Rashkolnikov (talk) 06:52, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

As you've been notified on your Talk page, I've restored the article and moved it to draft space. It's not even close to ready for mainspace. Please use WP:AFC when you think it's ready; don't move it to article space on your own. One note: your comment on the article Talk page is bizarre.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:24, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Hey, Bbb23,

I was wondering about your take on User:Sarraei Team which also worked on this now protected article. Since the article was protected, they started a new version of the article on the talk page. I added them to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/KIIFF which had been closed but not archived yet. Thanks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:34, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi there! I see you revered CSD A7 on this; I was curious as to your thinking. As an article about a company that contains neither references nor a credible claim of importance, it clearly meets the criteria. Can you elaborate? Thanks! --DGaw (talk) 22:35, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

It does have credible claims of significance in the roster of musicians it handles. The absence of references is irrelevant to A7.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:38, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Bbb23. Apparently, Mohammed106 (talk · contribs) (the user who you indefinitely banned last year because of disruptive editing) is editing again, this time as Cleverkid1999 (talk · contribs) and PirateBoy123 (talk · contribs). IMHO, the editing pattern is very similar, and this seems like a WP:DUCK to me... On the other hand, its possible that accounts in question are connected to another banned user – Shingling334 (talk · contribs). Either way, they really look like sockpuppets. —Sundostund (talk) 11:50, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Shingling334 looks right to me. Zzuuzz, is it worth running a check to look for others? --Bbb23 (talk) 13:51, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Usually :/ -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:09, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Heh, thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:20, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Just for the record – its almost certain that Mohammed106 used this IP, two months ago – 41.253.40.196 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Its been inactive since then, but I just wanted to mention it as well. I'm quite sure that some others will pop out too... This one appears to be much more recent 41.253.49.230 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). —Sundostund (talk) 09:44, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Bbb23:, I see Derwishi10 has returned yet again under another username (despite a ban being in place until September), and is repeating past patterns of behaviour in excessive article creations/addition of unsourced material to existing articles. The new user is Contributo890. Can you please raise as a sockpuppet investigation? I would do it myself but the person in question visits a forum online I have an account on, and I do not want to deal with the messages he'll no doubt send. As said user continues to reappear without following the legitimate route to appeal their ban, would it be possible to ban this nuisance user indefinitely? Thanks --Jkaharper (talk) 14:24, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello Bbb23,

I would like to request a restoration of my sandbox page titled "User:Footballfan3570/sandbox" which I was in the process of revising. I would appreciate the chance to use this version as a reference to write new content that does not violate Wikipedia guidelines. Please let me know if this is possible, I do not have this version saved elsewhere. I have also had yet to submit this sandbox for review. Thanks -- Footballfan3570 (talk) 17:28, 6 June 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Footballfan3570 (talk • contribs) 17:25, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Who is User:ColewennerKS?--Bbb23 (talk) 17:30, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

It was a previous account in which I accidently submitted my sandbox draft for review. After reading many Wiki help pages, I found it best to create a new account and start over. With this said, I had deleted the content created under User:ColewennerKS to avoid problems concerning repeat content. I was unaware of any violations there may be for creating a new account. I would appreciate more insight on this matter. Thank you Bbb23. Footballfan3570 (talk) 17:51, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

After reading many Wiki help pages, I found it best to create a new account and start over. That makes no sense to me; why?--Bbb23 (talk) 17:58, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

I wanted to both change my username (my real name included in my username puts me at risk for harassment) as well as request the page to be reverted to a sandbox. It was suggested to make a new account as a whole since I had a low number of edits. I am sorry if I violated Wikipedia protocol, I was unaware of any wrongdoing and would greatly appreciate the ability to recover my content I was in the process of revising. I read this here: Wikipedia:Changing username - Wikipedia Footballfan3570 (talk) 18:07, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Greetings. I am reaching out regarding a speedy deletion of an article about an individual by the name of Nikolay Travkin. I was unaware that I may not have applied for proper notices on why the article exists, nor was I given a chance to respond to objections. I am kindly asking that you please restore the contents to the draft section so I can correct appropriately. I was not given ample opportunity to explain the significance of the subject matter or to make edits/adjustments as needed. Will work on adding appropriate citations as well. No pulishing until all parameters are addressed and completed. Thank you for your consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by M4pwr (talk • contribs) 13:43, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

I won't speak for Bbb23, but the subject of that article in no way meets Wikipedia's notability criteria, and the fact that you twice moved what is essentially a promotional bio from draft to article space makes me certain that you have a conflict of interest with regard to the subject. The content you created is suited to a personal website or social media profile; Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:14, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

If I can block for you, you can speak for me.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:15, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Sweet deal. I loooove to talk.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:16, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your warm acceptence into the Wikipedia community! The double move was done out of error, no malicious intent from this side. In relation to the subject of the article, I understand how this could have been misunderstood as promotional, but this person is no longer associated with any company mentioned. So what exactly is being promoted? This person is an inventor, who co-invented a patented piece of fitness equipment. Filing on record with USPTO. Not significant?

No chance to recreate or fix the issues you mentioned? What constitutes which articles that are able to be restored to draft and which are not? Thank you for your time, consideration and for keeping the Wikipedia community safe from promotions and false information. M4pwr (talk) 15:54, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

What is your affiliation with the subject?--Bbb23 (talk) 15:57, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Greetings. You decided in favor of the reporter in this case 22 minutes after it was reported. Long before I or North Carolina Man had a chance to even see it, much less discuss the merits of the report. Could you at least state your reasons for this here? Can it be reopened and discussed there? Both North Carolina Man and I have replied but there has been no answer from the reporter or you or any other administrator about it. It was archived even though the last comment was less than 24 hours old. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Kire1975 (talk) 19:31, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

I did not decide "in favor" of anyone. The report will not be reopened. You should focus on working out the content dispute on the article Talk page, not complaining about what you think is improper procedure. The report was archived days after the last timestamp. You added a comment (not particularly helpful, either) on June 9 but you didn't sign it, so there was no timestamp.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:46, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

I didn't notice that I forgot to sign it when I left my comment. And I certainly didn't know the archive was dependent on that. Good to know. I won't argue about semantics, but you granted Gulbenk's request. It's not in favor of anyone else. I don't have an improper procedure complaint. It's a request for reasons. If the case had been marked closed with clear reasons then my and North Carolina Man's additional comments - helpful or not - wouldn't have been posted. Kire1975 (talk) 20:15, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm curious. Putting aside the AN3 history, what do you think should happen now?--Bbb23 (talk) 20:21, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

You should state your reasons for the decision. Kire1975 (talk) 20:23, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

That is not what I asked. What administrative action should be taken now?--Bbb23 (talk) 20:24, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Per WP:INVOLVED, "Warnings, calm and reasonable discussion and explanation of those warnings, advice about community norms, and suggestions on possible wordings and approaches do not make an administrator involved" [emphasis added]. If you are unable to provide a reasonable explanation of your warning, then your objectivity as an administrator could be in question. A small thing to ask. Kire1975 (talk) 20:39, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

That's the wrong policy. You're thinking of WP:ADMINCOND, and I'm trying very hard to satisfy that, but you're making it tough. I protected the article because I thought that there was a content dispute between multiple editors that would be best resolved by full protection, giving the disputants a chance to come to a consensus through dispute resolution. This is a very normal action for an admin to take at WP:AN3. If you think I made the wrong decision, then tell me why and what you think I should do about it.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:44, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

As I said in the discussion, I was thinking Gulbenk should be TBAN'd from that page for Civil POV Pushing and abusing the edit warring notice board to tar and feather the integrity of me and User:North Carolina Man before we could take it to ANI ourselves. Kire1975 (talk) 20:50, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

That kind of request should go to WP:ANI, and it's highly unlikely that any administrator would have done such a thing based on Gulbenk's report at AN3. I can't unilaterally topic-ban anyone. I can partially block an editor from editing a specific page, but based on Gulbenk's conduct on that article, I don't see enough basis for doing so. Plus, you are talking not just about article conduct but also accusing Gulbenk of personal attacks. In any event, if that's what you want now, take it to ANI.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:56, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi Bbb23. I've had your block of User talk:Lattha Gang brought to my attention, But User talk:Lattha Gang are constantly wasting. So, what can i do ? Thank you. MT731 (talk) 15:41, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're talking about.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:45, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

I am talking about Vadodara. MT731 talk) 15:51, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Okay, but what does that have to do with me?--Bbb23 (talk) 15:54, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Hey, it looks like him but not sure 78.54.89.75 (talk · contribs). IP is fitting to other ones (per this), just mobile edits but like i said, not 100% sure (just a feeling looking at that ;)). Per this RoBri is the same opinion (the provider is also the same as always), it fits the pattern. Maybe you can have a look and if i/we are wrong, then sorry of course. Kante4 (talk) 10:59, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

And anohter one that looks like the others and fits the pattern. 77.183.13.69 (talk · contribs) if you have time to check if correct. ;) Kante4 (talk) 08:28, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Sorry for the belated response. This kind of IP hopping is hard to do anything about. By the time I look at the contributions, they've gone on to another IP, and blocking them individually is generally too late.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:46, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Ok, thought that was the case. No worries. Kante4 (talk) 18:14, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

hello, we were doing a school project which required creating a wikipedia page. Ours got deleted due to "advertising" however the page was only to remain a draft and not be published. It's for a final exam. Can you please restore our draft page? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shin wan seop (talk • contribs) 13:58, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Please reply quickly. Our presentation is due tomorrow and requires us to be able to show the WIP pages... :( Shin wan seop (talk) 14:05, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Who's User:Cho Joon Young?--Bbb23 (talk) 15:43, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

My classmate. Shin wan seop (talk) 00:01, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Some days ago some socks of Deucalionite were blocked after I filed a report. Now the YLYVE account was just created and immediately nominated an article for GA status. The previous GA nomination of that article was done by a blocked sock of Deucalionite, Theban Halberd [57]. Is this enough to justify a CU, since Deucalionite has a long record of creating multiple socks at the same time? Ktrimi991 (talk) 17:48, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

It seems that YLVYVE opened a GA review to complain about some sources that several socks of Deucalionite tried to remove (that support a non-Greek origin of the subject), and even linked in the GA review a discussion where a sock of Deucalionte took part in [58]. Ktrimi991 (talk) 17:56, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Blocked and tagged - thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:00, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, cheers. Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:01, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I would like to thank you for reverting an edit another editor made on an article of mine, requesting speedy deletion under criterias G11 and G4. I knew the article in question didn't classify for speedy deletion under either criteria, and I'm glad you thought the same way. Once again, thank you so much. Have a nice day! KleinMoretti1 (talk) 18:10, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi Bbb23, hope you're doing well. User Alexander Leone (talk · contribs) was blocked by you for edit-warring back in July 2021. They are back in the same article edit-warring over the same edits which I presume ( [59], [60], [61] ) resulted in their block in the first place, and with extremely misleading edit summaries [62], [63]. I thought to inform you as the enforcing admin. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 15:41, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Indeffed.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:10, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

I think this sock is back as 207.136.8.135 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) based on their WP:AFCRC edits. Could you please take a look? ― Qwerfjkltalk 09:12, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Making me think - and on a Saturday! Blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:06, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

...and 49.186.56.135 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). ― Qwerfjkltalk 07:13, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

hello. please undelete 2022–23 Persian Gulf Pro League on my User subpage (no need for history) that i can improve article for publish (the article is heavy for recreating), Best regards (it was deleted for WP:G5).--Miha2020 (talk) 17:00, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi there. I thought it would be better to respond here. I won't engage in any edit warring with Dentren. Thanks for taking action. Kind regards. --Bedivere (talk) 17:29, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

		Sunshine!
		Hello Bbb23! Interstellarity (talk) has given you a bit of sunshine to brighten your day! Sunshine promotes WikiLove and hopefully it has made your day better. Spread the sunshine by adding {{subst:User:Meaghan/Sunshine}} to someone else's talk page, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. In addition, you can spread the sunshine to anyone who visits your userpage and/or talk page by adding {{User:Meaghan/Sunshine icon}}. Happy editing! Interstellarity (talk) 22:15, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Happy first day of summer (or winter) wherever you live. Interstellarity (talk) 22:15, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi. No it's all right I'm moving away gradually from 24 hours ago. It's not the edit but the summary that I would like to see crossed out if possible. Sportspop (talk) 15:57, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

I've noticed; I'm pleased to see it. Unfortunately, policy prohibits rev-deleting the edit summary. See WP:RVDL#Misuse, e.g., "Especially, RevisionDelete does not exist to remove 'ordinary' offensive comments and incivility ...". Rev-deletion is not intended for incivility or even many personal attacks. I really wouldn't worry about it too much; you've apologized and that's the most important thing.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:32, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Yeah I've got you. So we're all agreed it's new starts all round. Thank you Bbb23. Regards. --Sportspop (talk) 18:16, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi Bbb23! I see you blocked User:Suy_eks_to_a_hi_eu_a_hi_e earlier today. Based on the discussion of the horror film articles at User talk:GoingBatty#Closure, I wonder if this user is yet another sockpuppet of Jinnifer (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Jinnifer/Archive). Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 15:56, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

I assumed they were either a troll or a sock and so blocked, but MrOllie, who is much more familiar with that case, has tagged them as a sock, and in glancing at the behavioral history of other socks, that looks right to me, although, procedurally, non-admins-non-SPI clerks should not be tagging users.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:21, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

I didn't know that - I had assumed that anyone could add the tag, but the confirmed argument was for SPI use. MrOllie (talk) 16:39, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Best practice is to ask the blocking admin.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:53, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

@Bbb23 and MrOllie: Thank you both! I don't know why this person continues to reach out to me. I hope they find something else to do with their time. GoingBatty (talk) 19:38, 23 June 2022 (UTC)