User talk:Bbb23/Archive 43

Archive 40

Archive 41

Archive 42

Archive 43

Archive 44

Archive 45

→

Archive 50

Can I informally request a Check User on an SPA for creating a sock impersonating me, which got me blocked?

Hi. Some time ago I was blocked arising out of this SPI filing (incidentally you were the closing admin). Respectfully, the user activity wasn't mine, I think I know whose it was, and I was wondering if it's possible to use CheckUser to show that it was this other user, and not me. The other user is User:GregCollins11, an obvious SPA who additionally appears suspiciously like an employee of the organization that's the subject of the article. I can show circumstantially in several ways that it wasn't me, and I'd like to do anything possible to remove the stain of having been "convicted" of socking, my otherwise "proud" block history containing only rudeness and edit warring, not dishonesty. However if the need to put together diffs to show this crappy editing wasn't mine could be eliminated by IP-based proof that it was somebody else, well, that would be great. More importantly I want blood from the account of User:GregCollins11 for putting me through this crap. Factchecker_atyourservice 02:02, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

A bit aggressive, aren't you? There is no user named GregCollins11.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:19, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Oops. Make that User:Gregcollins11. Those red links are all the same! Factchecker_atyourservice 02:26, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

But Gregcollins11 hasn't edited for eight months. So perhaps he has already been drained of blood. -- Hoary (talk) 02:33, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Ok, the blood is actually the less important part, what I am really interested in is the positive IP comparison between User:Gregcollins11 and User:FactcheckersFactchecker that would show this wasn't me. Factchecker_atyourservice 02:48, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Not possible. I quote Wikipedia:CheckUser: On some Wikimedia projects, an editor's IP addresses may be checked upon their request, typically to prove innocence against a sockpuppet allegation. Such checks are not allowed on the English Wikipedia and such requests will not be granted. -- Hoary (talk) 05:38, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

I would think I'm entitled to accuse another editor of socking the same as anybody else? I'm not asking my own IP to be checked.

Note that besides sock puppet accusations, CU is also intended to "investigate ... or respond to ... legitimate concerns of bad-faith editing". That's a separate basis for using it. Impersonating another editor is bad faith editing in the extreme. Factchecker_atyourservice 01:27, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether I am permitted by policy to check those two accounts. I can't because both accounts are  Stale. It's technically impossible.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:30, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Blah. Ok. Thanks. In theory at least, I could still raise a sock accusation based on diffs, right? Factchecker_atyourservice 03:06, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Filing an SPI based on behavior would be a waste of time. It would be closed out of hand because both accounts haven't edited in so long. Like most noticeboards involving disruption at Wikipedia, we care about ongoing, or at least recent, disruption. I'm not sure why you're pursuing this after so much time has elapsed since your block, but you should let it go and move on.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:48, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

The block log entry will be viewed as evidence of serious misconduct by anyone who looks at it, and will be used to justify subjecting me to further illegitimate CheckUser queries, exposing my personally identifying information, anytime somebody has a content dispute with me. As someone whom people frequently try to get blocked for such evils as quoting the New York Times, I'm not thrilled. Factchecker_atyourservice 16:57, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Applied Research Associates - THANKS

Your assistance in preserving Applied Research Associates (at least for the immediate future) is greatly appreciated! PvOberstein (talk) 18:32, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Apollo

In case you don't see pings, note that an IP-proxy user who I believe is Apollo the Logician pinged you over at User talk:Yamla (my talk page) over my actions. You aren't obligated to weigh in, but I'll accept any decision you make, there. --Yamla (talk) 10:35, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

@Yamla: That was yesterday, and I blocked him then for three months.--Bbb23 (talk) 10:53, 5 April 2018 (UTC)--Bbb23 (talk) 10:53, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Ah ha ha, thank you. I know you are limited in what you can say and I appreciate you looking into this. --Yamla (talk) 11:49, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

De la lombertie

Hello Bbb23, the sock master you blocked here is back and added his (unsourced and non-notable) Sanfourche obsession as his first new edit. SPI opened anew. 'Cheers, Loopy30 (talk) 20:03, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

And now taken care of by Amortias - blocked for a month. He also spammed his 21st wiki (Catalan) today as well. Loopy30 (talk) 21:05, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Bhurit Bhirombhakdi page (Restore)

Hi Bbb23, I have noticed that you deleted Bhurit Bhirombhakdi under A7 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhurit_Bhirombhakdi) ---(04/04/18).

This page is the English version of the original page (https://th.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E0%B8%A0%E0%B8%B9%E0%B8%A3%E0%B8%B4%E0%B8%95_%E0%B8%A0%E0%B8%B4%E0%B8%A3%E0%B8%A1%E0%B8%A2%E0%B9%8C%E0%B8%A0%E0%B8%B1%E0%B8%81%E0%B8%94%E0%B8%B5)

I would like to restore this page and show to public. In addtion, I have found refencences to include, which I could add.

Could you please help to restore this page?

Note: References (Both English & Thai languages - Articles that credibly indicate the real person)

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/sports/Bhurit-and-Kantasak-Won-Back-to-back-GTC-Races-in--30290836.html ,
https://wiki2.org/en/2016_GT_Asia_Series ,
http://www.popflock.com/learn?s=The_Mask_Singer_(season_3) ,
http://www.bangkokbiznews.com/news/detail/776164 ,
https://www.prachachat.net/news_detail.php?newsid=1495081698 ,
https://brandinside.asia/interview-bhurit-singha/ 

Please let me know if you need further information Thanks,--Bananabacon (talk) 09:54, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Seems like you and the other user have been trying to promote that article both here and at the Thai wiki. I should have deleted it per A7 and WP:CSD#G11. My assumption is you have a WP:COI. Nonetheless, I will move it to draft space if you wish, but only if you submit it through WP:AFC so other more experienced users can review it before it is moved into article space. Let me know if that's what you want and if you'll agree to handle it that way.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:13, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

@BBb23 The purpose of the article is to indicate that this person does exist, with reliable sources that I have found. I did not intend to promote the article in terms of marketing purpose. If your assumption is I have a WP:COI, I would submit it through WP:AFC for reviewing process by others. so, please kindly move this article to draft space. Thanks for your support Bananabacon (talk) 08:43, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Bhurit Bhirombhakdi. This is not the first time it's been moved to draft space. If the article is moved to article space without first being approved by AFC, you risk the article being deleted again and possibly salted.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:56, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Suspicious

Hi B, this guy looks suspicious to me and I'm not sure what to do about it. His first edit was to an skeletal article that was 5 days old at the time. His second edit was to welcome Archive to, a user who was named as a potential sock of Shiwam_Kumar_Sriwastaw, although you found no connection. It's very interesting to me that multiple experienced editors are keying in on this Archive to guy, considering he's only made 4 edits here.

Trademark's next two edits: creating a talk page and redirecting his user page to his talk page. Those are both socky and questionable moves for a new user. He's also created new articles that have a lot of IPV6 users swirling around him, which has the stank of coordinated editing. Note: this and this. Anyway, I don't have more information about this guy, I just think something's up. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:01, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

 Confirmed. @Ajraddatz: Please globally lock if appropriate. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:19, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Done. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 15:36, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks!--Bbb23 (talk) 15:38, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

So, after Trademark (2018) is blocked and Yeh Hai Chahatein is deleted, suspicicious user Archive to, who made four edits on 18 March, suddenly shows up and creates Yeh Hai Chahate. This is the same show, he just effed up the title. Weird, right? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 13:55, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)That almost certainly wasn't done by mistake, but to avoid scrutiny from anyone with the old title on their watchlist. Quack quack, block block. SmartSE (talk) 14:06, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

@Smartse: Thanks for the block. I guess I'm curious about the behind-the-scenes of why they didn't show up during the last two CUs. Naturally, I'll never find out. I am amused by the way this played out, though. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:34, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

"show up"? They were explicitly checked and found to be unrelated. That said, they are not the kind of unrelated like editing from a different continent. The technical data doesn't match at all, but it's not impossible that they are indeed a sock.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:39, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

I think Shiwam Kumar Sriwastaw is the one of the most popular user in Wikipedia. I don't know when he will be stop creating sock puppet account? If Wikipedia change security system, Ex. Email (optional) → Email (required), then it will be better for Wikipedia. Thank you, Siddiqsazzad001 (TALK) 14:21, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Deletion of page 'CSN Debating Society'

The page was still under construction when it was deleted. (A variety of placeholder items were used for marking purposes, to be altered in the future.) Also, the A7 marking for speedy deletion gives exemption for academic institutions, of which the mentioned topic is covered under. Furthermore, the covered topic is significant as having won notable and renowned worldwide competitions, in addition to being significant in that it is one of the most established debating societies on the island of Ireland. Theclownfromit (talk) 18:08, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

You're fortunate I haven't blocked you. Part of that article was pure vandalism.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:01, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Yeah, that was bad. This subject does not meet educational institution criterion. --Dlohcierekim (talk) 19:25, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

PS@Theclownfromit: I would recommend running it through the WP:article wizard to help you overcome any and all deficiencies. You will need verifiable information from reliable sources not connected with the subject.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 19:41, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

@Dlohcierekim: Please don't counsel a troll on how to create an article. One more of his disruptive edits and he's gone. Take a look at his contributions. Take a look at the infobox in the deleted article.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:58, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the help

		The Guidance Barnstar
		Thank you for explaining sock puppet investigations to me. AdamF in MO (talk) 21:38, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! Sorry it took a little nudge from you to get me to do it. --Bbb23 (talk) 21:58, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Sajlus

Mike Diamondz, a page I created was deleted, deeming it wasn't relevant. I do not understand what does qualify something to be relevant/worthy to have a page, since I provided additional citations and decent phrasing. A heads up would have been appreciated. (talk) 19:52, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

@Sajlus: The article was deleted per WP:CSD#A7 - not because it was "irrelevant", but because there was no credible claim of significance. Indeed, there was nothing to the article. You said the person was a singer, and that was pretty much it. A heads up isn't required before speedy deleting an article, but it is customary for the nominator, Biruitorul, not the deleting admin, to do so, and in this case, unfortunately, that wasn't done.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:01, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

@Bbb23: There are millions of singer stubs on Wikipedia that have stayed for many years, but mine got deleted. It provided references and had more informational value than many of the other singer stubs. --Sajlus (talk) 18:36, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Douglass Mackey

I'm seeing a connection from this page to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/PerfectlyIrrational. Do you believe the latest account, BustEmDown should be added to the currently open SPI? Home Lander (talk) 19:16, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

No need. Unrelated.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:20, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

You deleted My page "and the kids" the first page i ever posted

The band is on a national tour now and haas two records out and has also toured Europe; will also be opening for Blondy this summer. It wasnt just promotional page. I might agree it didn't show the largness of the band but it was , a page in progress, until l it was deleted with no discussion.

I want to repost a page called "And The kids (band)". Is it going to be speedy deleted again?

Even if it has more required information . Again this was my first post ever and you all deleted it 5 minutes after i posted it. I did get a warning message but almost before i was done reading the warning message, the page was deleted:

I was going to mention the page to some more informed people so that they could add to it, but that didn't get to happen because you and another person deleted it.

Can i repost it with more required information? They have been a band for over 10 years and have numerous writeups in notable publications. Is it going to just be deleted or will it be reassessed?

I am a total newbie...i am just getting a clue, I didn't even know i had to sign things. Davidinkeene (talk) 11:13, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @Davidinkeene: A couple of pages you might want to read before trying to recreate that article are WP:BAND and WP:Your first article. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 11:59, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Can you reconsider your decision?

Hi Bbb23. I'm not forum shopping as I'm not trying to get anyone to make a different decision. I'm just trying to get someone to make a decision in the first place. It's my understanding that requests for closure are to be posted on administrative noticeboards. Since I'm suffering ongoing abuse from a lack of closure, I don't see how it's not reasonable to ask that someone close the SPI one way or another. Can you please reconsider your decision, which strikes me as hasty, to close that ANI section as "forum shopping"? I don't see how it is that. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 14:10, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

You closed one part of the SPI but not the part against me? No one has adduced any evidence at all and now it's just random editors commenting every time I edit an AfD. How is this reasonable? 192.160.216.52 (talk) 14:41, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Requests for closure are generally made at WP:AN, but, even there, it's rare to do so for SPIs. In your case, particularly because your editing pattern is unusual for an IP, I recommend you create an account for yourself. It's up to you, but if you choose to remain as an IP, you're going to be questioned, probably even after the SPI is closed.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:12, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, thanks for answering. Obviously WP policies require IP editors to be treated the same as named accounts and, just as obviously, that's never going to happen. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 15:50, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

That's fair, but it's still a serious matter. How is it that editors are allowed to call me a sockpuppet when no one has even concluded that I am, and also abuse me for notifying them of an ANI discussion as required by the rules of the page? I know you said that I will be questioned if I edit from an IP address, but surely that doesn't extend to actual abuse. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 17:17, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

• Bbb23 when you have time to look, I added some evidence that establishes a behavioral connection between this IP and Unscintillating. I have not even touched on diffs that connect the IP and Unscintillating combative behavior, so more evidence can be provided to strengthen the argument that Unscintillating is indeed evading their t-ban.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:01, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Point taken

However I feel like it's straining at a gnat to admonish me for trying to make sure that people can see clearly which comments were made by whom while at the same time swallowing the camel-like violations of WP:NPA by e.g. Waddie96, who feels free to explicitly call me a sockpuppet even though the investigation's not closed, not to mention the whole crew of editors explicitly telling closing admins to ignore my !votes at AfD for the same non-reason. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 13:18, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Learning experience, and a further question

Apologies for my invalid SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/KDGMusicGroup, this is the first time i've had to deal with such a circumstance, so i will treat this as a learning experience. I would like to ask; do softblocked editors have to disclose on their second account that they are using a sanctioned new account?--SamHolt6 (talk) 13:39, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

No, they don't.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:40, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

How is it OK for you to remove my comment but not OK for me?

If you remove it as a dupe, why is it not OK for me to remove the original as a dupe? How does this make sense? If you admit they're dupes why not at least leave them both in so it's clear I'm not trying to cover up my identity? 192.160.216.52 (talk) 18:23, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Why did you delete the Steven Samblis page?

This page included links to news about the person, movies he produced and starred in and well know companies he started. This page was not an advertisement and a simple google search shows 17,000 searches about him and 16,000 videos with him in them.

I feel you made a mistake in this deletion and it should be put back up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beancake2 (talk • contribs) 22:59, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

I deleted that article almost three years ago. The most recent deletion was done by Explicit because of an expired WP:PROD.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:05, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Numista

Numista yields over 300,000 search results and often Wikipedia uses their images of the coins. I do understand your views on deletion, but can you please explain? I am a bit new here and I believe that Numista reaches enough significance to be mentioned.

Thanks a lot.

BrianTheInternetSurfer (talk) 02:50, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

An A7 speedy deletion tag doesn't require the deleting administrator to do Google searches. The article, as written, has to have a credible claim of significance. All your article did was say this website exists and this is how it works. In fact, it didn't say much more than the Numista website itself might say.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:22, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

BedrockPerson

Oy. I'm trying to help you guys fight vandalism, but I am increasingly tempted to leave you to your own devices. It's fine if you want to archive discussions just a couple days after they're concluded and then make them impossible to edit, even if it seems alien to me. But the proper thing to do would be to provide a response somewhere after you reverted my question. So here it is, repeated:

Could you please clarify what you mean by "too old"? This user tends to have stable IPs and use them to vandalise after extended periods of time. The third one seems to have been globally blocked, but the other two should probably be given long blocks as well as a preventative measure. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 13:30, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

I appreciate your taking the time to come here to report socks, but it would be helpful if you would learn a little about how we do things. Your reopening of the Bedrock SPI was incorrect, and it will require an SPI clerk to fix it, which they shouldn't have to do. All you had to do was to go to WP:SPI and follow the instructions (btw, please don't try to fix the report yourself now). If you didn't know enough to go to that page, you could have asked someone.

As a general rule, we don't edit archives of any type except to create or update them when actual archiving is taking place.

Responding to your specific question, it is standard practice for us not to block IPs in a sock puppetry case once their edits are more than even as little as a couple days old. It's generally a waste of time because the master just goes on to other IPs. What you do at Wiktionary may be different, but the policies and practices of each project vary, and you shouldn't be surprised that ours apparently aren't the same as yours.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:53, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

By "reopening of the Bedrock SPI", do you mean the edits I made to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BedrockPerson or the edit I made to the archive that you reverted? If the former, please explain. If the latter, I really don't have a problem with leaving archives alone; I only had a problem with your lack of response.

I also tend not to block IPs that I think are never coming back. This guy has had some extraordinarily long-term stable IPs, so it tends to be worthwhile to block them for longer (after all, it takes less than a minute). —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 14:17, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

I'll try to take into account your observations about BR's IPs in the future, but I'm not the only one who closes reports in that way. I meant your edits to the case. Next time you want to create or reopen a case here, go to WP:SPI and follow the instructions. In that way, the report will be properly structured. It has to be structured in a certain fashion for it to be archived so that editors like you can then improperly edit the archive. --Bbb23 (talk) 14:49, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry

Hello! I was doing my usual patrolling this afternoon and stumbled upon a few things. Firstly, this message from a blocked user. Second, they left the same message here. I noticed that you closed Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Iniced as them being unrelated, and left User:Cæsey blocked. As all I know is from the aforementioned links; there is probably something I missed, but I just wanted to bring this to your attention. Thanks, _{Vermont | reply here} 00:06, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

The user posted messages to other wikis where they are not blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:12, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes. My question was more along the lines of why they are still blocked, when you closed them as unrelated. Thanks, _{Vermont | reply here} 00:26, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Oh, lots of times a user remains blocked despite my finding. You'd have to talk to the blocking administrator.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:29, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, I'll leave a message on the blocking admin's talk page. _{Vermont | reply here} 00:30, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Deletion of Wu Pei-yi

Hi, I received a notification that Wu Pei-Yi's article has been deleted by you. Can you please explain why? I think I edited it recently and although notability had not been agreed on I thought it had some time to have the notability discussed before deletion. TIA. MurielMary (talk) 01:03, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

It was vandalism created by a sock. Did you happen to notice who the woman's spouse was - according to the creator? Kyrie Irving. This sock had a thing about American basketball players, both real and made-up. If you want to recreate the article, that's up to you, but I can't restore it for you.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:09, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, no I didn't notice that! How odd! Thanks for the explanation. MurielMary (talk) 01:22, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

A question

I've got a question; If B is reported to be a sockpuppet of A, will you search for all accounts possibly related to B when you conduct check user, or you just compare B with A? Thanks. --Mhhossein ^talk 18:12, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

I compare B with A but in doing that check I may see other accounts that relate to A or B. A concrete example might be more illuminating.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:27, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, you know...? I saw a new comer with a more than usual editing skill for new comers, who were reported to be a sockpuppet of another user, but you said they were unrelated, but did not say if the reported user could be related to another unknown account. Is it usual? --Mhhossein ^talk 13:34, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

AGF sock

Hi Bbb23. I left {{uw-agf-sock}} warnings with both Maria Cecilia de la Vega and MCDLV, as they are both new and editing The Rules of the Institution and Other Stories. The latter account confirmed that they are the same person, and that she wants to use an abbreviated username instead of her full WP:REALNAME. There doesn't appear to be any malicious intent here, since the second account's first edit came after the first account's last edit. Would you pre-emptively block the first account in this situation, or just let sleeping dogs lie for now? --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 17:28, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

I blocked Maria Cecilia de la Vega, the one she says she doesn't want to use.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:40, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

More deletions

Could you also delete Template:Taxonomy/Gspsauridae, Template:Taxonomy/Saraikimasoom, and Template:Taxonomy/Saraikimasoominae which were only created to support the Laossaurus pages you've already deleted. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:18, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Those aren't eligible for G5. You'll have to use another deletion process unless there is a speedy tag that is applicable.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:29, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Ok, I've followed the usual strategy with unnecessary taxonomy templates (blanking them and putting them in Category:Unnecessary taxonomy templates); I thought in this case you might be able to delete them because they were only created to stop Laossaurus's unacceptable pages causing other errors. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:34, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm probably just being skittish...

Rassenschande is an article that English Patriot Man often edits. An edit was just made to the article by editor Sergey Romanov. Sergey Romanov is not a new editor, but the vast majority of their edits were made in 2006-2008, with one edit in 2010, and then they popped back up again in mid-March for 5 edits, and then 2 more today, just after you blocked 2 EPM socks. Looking at Sergey Romanov's edits, there isn't a lot of overlap with articles I'm familiar with EPM editing, but there is a concentration on Polish subjects, and Poland was another area that EPM often edits in. And then there's the fact that an old sock of EPM was called "Donald Ivanov".

So, all very circumstantial, nothing very concrete and probably just my antennae being too sensitive, but I wanted to pass it on to you. Not knowing how CU actually works, I have no idea if the editing info from mid-March would have been too stale for you to pick-up on. Or if your CU run is based on a specific IP or what. In short, I don't know if it's even possible that an editor with Sergey Romanov's contributions could have slipped through the net all these years or not, but I figured you would know.

Best,

Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:07, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Seems unlikely to me.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:31, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:15, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Can you help save page "Rick Reinert" from deletion?

My page on Rick Reinert is in trouble because this one person reported it and said "It didn't have a reliable source". Can you help save it before seven day? Kristie Ann Webb (talk) 18:52, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

The 7-day PROD is gone.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:24, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Mitsubishi love

Mitsubishi love (talk · contribs) still violated policy: logging out to evade scrutiny, especially to avoid the appearance of tag-teaming with a user one happens to "like", and repeatedly trolling over several weeks by refusing to disclose the name of one's account until immediately after an SPI is finally opened, is still unacceptable. What should be done now? Is ML going to be blocked? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:17, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Also, the IP blatantly lied when they said The account that I used does not (to my knowledge) have any overlapping edits with the IP that I use to edit: ML was a single-purpose account created to continue the edit-warring on the targeted killing page that the IP had begun.[1] I don't see any evidence that they disclosed that they were the same person editing that article either. ML also has a CU-confirmed sockpuppet, Insect love (talk · contribs) that was created a few days prior but never edited, and it's also wrong to say they were never subject to any sanctions; they abandoned the account immediately on being warned on ANEW, and returned to using disposable IPs to do the edit-warring. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:34, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Hijiri 88 I won't turn someone else's talk page into a battlezone, if you're going to request for me to be blocked, then this discussion should be on an SPI or ANI report, not on a user talk page. 124.106.139.19 (talk) 10:40, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

The SPI was shut down prematurely with "Probably not Spacecowboy420; closing with no action", as would an ANI report be (the owner of this page just closed an ANI thread saying that sockpuppetry reports should not be made anywhere but SPI). What you did was still a violation of the sockpuppetry policy. Anyway, I already asked you to stay off my talk page; please refrain from pinging me on other users' talk page with the ironic statement that you don't want to get into a back-and-forth with me. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:52, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Hijiri 88, I respectfully suggest that you refer to my previous message. 124.106.139.19 (talk) 12:07, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Regarding sock puppetry by "I'm The Invincible Man"

Where should I file this? The sock puppet investigation wizard made the changes which you reverted here. My proofs seem to be correct and the editor under a new guise "Sprocket Crocket" is adding CATs without any source to support just like "I'm The Invincible Man". What to do. Please guide. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 16:07, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

You figured it out. Good for you and thanks!--Bbb23 (talk) 16:42, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

You are welcome sir.. Fylindfotberserk (talk) 16:58, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Sock (again)

Hi Bbb23, Kilebogart31 is a sock of Klbogart55... I've done very little investigation requests so I coming straight to you! Thanks, Corky 21:31, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

It's tough after so much time has elapsed, but I've blocked the account.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:51, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Deletion Of "Achim Reus"

In the deletion of the Achim Reus article, you stated the reason for deletion as follows "Article about a real person, which does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject." However, in the article, I wrote that Mr. Reus was the Principal Horn player in many renowned orchestras, I believe this qualifies as an importance of his character, and should have been enough to qualify for a Wikipedia article. Gerald Hit (talk) 17:14, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

I know what Reus claims to have done. I looked at his website, which is as much an advertisement as it is a bio, but I didn't think it was enough. I know you're a new user, but the article is very poorly crafted per our standards. It has mostly self-serving, self-published sources, including Reus's website and YouTube clips, two of the three published by Reus, no doubt to sell his services. Here's what I propose. You shouldn't be creating articles in main space. So, I can take what you wrote and move it to draft space. Not only will that give you a chance to work on it some more, but you can get feedback from more experienced editors by submitting it through WP:AFC. Let me know if you wish me to do that.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:51, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

I understand your point now, and moving it to a draft space would be greatly appreciatedGerald Hit (talk) 10:26, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Done. See Draft:Achim Reus.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:57, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Deletion of b8ta

Hi Bbb23! I noticed that you deleted B8ta. The article was still under construction at the time of deletion, and will meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines when completed. Can you please move the deleted draft (however small) to the draft namespace (Draft:b8ta) and notify my by pinging me once that has been completed. Thank you! Daylen (talk) 04:25, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

@Daylen: Small is an understatement. See Draft:b8ta.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:00, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Question regarding the page on Tratayenia

I was curious as to why the page regarding the megaraptoran theropod Tratayenia was deleted. Is there any way to restore it and have it cited in a better format? Saberrex-Strongheart (talk) 00:04, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay. It was deleted per WP:CSD#G5 in a "mass deletion", meaning I don't examine every article before deleting. In this case it is appropriate to restore it, and I have.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:00, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. And while you're at it, can you also restore Anomalipes, please? Atlantis536 (talk) 03:01, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't know anything about dinosaurs, but the sock involved has a history of creating dubious articles. Unlike Tratayenia, Anomalipes clearly qualified for deletion. Also, its only source is not something I can easily verify. Is there another editor who has a more extensive history on Wikipedia than you who could corroborate that a restoration is appropriate? Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:38, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

I've followed your advice and talked to User:FunkMonk, an editor with a good editing history on prehistory-related articles. I've showed him that Anomalipes was a real, scientifically-described dinosaur, and said that we can definitely recreate the Anomalipes page. Atlantis536 (talk) 09:37, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

 Done --Bbb23 (talk) 11:48, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. Atlantis536 (talk) 09:31, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Deletion of Schöma

Hello,
Instead of deleting Schöma, you could have called a "stub". Extensive information is available in de: Schöma. The deletion caused a red link in Rail transport in Iceland#Kárahnjúkar light railway. I made a temporary fix. Peter Horn User talk 17:36, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

You're not going about this in the correct way. You shouldn't have created a Talk page of a non-existent article. I don't much care about the redlink in the other article. That has nothing to do with whether the article should be deleted. However, if you wish to work on the article to bring it up to par, I can move it to your userspace or to draft space. Let me know.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:42, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Please move it to draft space and if possible provide me with the deleted text. Peter Horn User talk 18:47, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

 Done --Bbb23 (talk) 19:21, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

(talk page watcher)There's a template, {{ill}}, to use for the temporary fix of making a redlink in English wiki while linking to de wiki. I've used it in the article. PamD 21:42, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

User:ChaoticKappa

Hi Bbb23. Just a courtesy note to let you know I've unblocked this user; their explanation checks out. Additionally, it appears that the en-wiki domain is now barred on Bugmenot, so this issue should not arise again in the future. Yunshui ^雲_水 12:01, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

SPI close

So... that's it? - ^theWOLFchild 21:47, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, but you can refile if the IP resumes editing.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:52, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

This parricular user is using this IP account much like a registered account. In fact several editors have suggested they register. They have used alternate IP addresses before to give the impression of others supporting their edits during disputes. This has also been noticed and commented on by another admin. After this latest instance, along with a 7RR-in-one-hour edit war, with 2 IP addresses, I figured enough was enough. I filed at 3RRNB and it was suggested I file an SPI as well. Kind of frustrating... all that effort for nothing. - ^theWOLFchild 23:23, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Corageon1

I had a feeling this would be the case but you might be interested in this. Perhaps a merge and some denial? :P CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 14:07, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Dunno about the denial, but a merge yes. Good for the IP and for you. I'll request the merge.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:19, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Icandothisonmyown

Hey, I'm just trying to figure out what happened with my SPI regarding User:Icandothisonmyown. It looks like you deleted it, but your deletion message mentioned a merge—did this get merged into another SPI? Thanks, IagoQnsi (talk) 14:55, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

No, the account belongs to a master who already has a case, and I decided that a merge for one blocked account was unnecessary.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:56, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Small request

Hi. Could you please semi-protect User talk:CommotioCerebri for the long-term, so the redirect is not removed by IP's (who I suspect are the user)? I have locked that account, and the one it was renamed to, but I’m not allowed to use my superpowers for this purpose. Cheers. Green Giant (talk) 19:41, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

@Green Giant: Ooh, I get to do something for you for a change. Done for six months. If that's not long enough, let me know.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:25, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Cheers, much obliged. That should dissuade the user. Green Giant (talk) 20:30, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Vidal 1077

Thanks for the help. Is there a SPI report? Vidal 1077 is a very strange account that I've repeatedly encountered while cleaning up poor refs, which I wrote up at ANI. --Ronz (talk) 00:13, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

No report. There's no need to file one unless you want to "for the record".--Bbb23 (talk) 00:15, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

I wanted to know if other editors and ip's were found, or even looked for. --Ronz (talk) 01:38, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Only the two accounts. I can't comment on IPs.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:55, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Very strange. Thanks. --Ronz (talk) 03:05, 21 April 2018 (UTC)