User talk:Bbb23

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

Yet Another Demorea Sock

Per rules, you can find the SPI discussion here. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 12:07 on April 8, 2019 (UTC)

Demorea CUs

Is there a reason you will not allow a CheckUser to be performed on any Demorea sock? I asked for a CU, you shot it down. I respectfully asked for it again, you archived the page. You have done this in the past with other Demorea SPIs. Why will you not allow other CUs to perform a CU on a Demorea sock? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:46 on April 9, 2019 (UTC)

AN Thread

I'm sorry we couldn't work this out on our own. I've brought the Demorea issue to AN and that thread can be found here. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:06 on April 9, 2019 (UTC)

Template:Deo Block

Hi, would you be able to restore Template:Deo Block? I remember double-checking it, so it should be fine. Thanks! – Uanfala (talk) 11:54, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Bbb23, would you mind restoring this? The template was also being discussed in the meantime at TfD, a discussion which had not yet closed at the time of deletion. – Uanfala (talk) 22:24, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

I've asked for a deletion review, please see Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2019_May_28. I really wish I didn't have to waste everybody's time with this... – Uanfala (talk) 15:52, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

creator of deleted article

Hey Bbb. Long time no see. I hope you are well.
Could you or any admin please tell me who had created Bole India Jai Bhim? Thanks a lot in advance. —usernamekiran(talk) 20:50, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Why do you ask?--Bbb23 (talk) 21:12, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Nothing much special, but this comment got me interested. And I sometimes like to go through SPI cases. —usernamekiran(talk) 22:34, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

• Hi. I sent you an email a few minutes ago from now. It is regarding beans on SPI casepages. —usernamekiran(talk) 05:13, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

  a gentle reminder of the email :) —usernamekiran(talk) 18:08, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

  You should present as much behavioral evidence as you can when filing at SPI. Don't worry about WP:BEANS.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:45, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

  Thanks Triple B. See you around. —usernamekiran(talk) 22:49, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Brian Wong BLP discussion archived without a result or response

Original IP here. Wondering if there would be a result on this or some polling to get a consensus. The discussion on the BLP and other issues was archived with no result and no response since my last reply. Not sure what the general stance on this issue is. Whether or not to include based on things presented on the constructive discussion and if so, how much to include. Or are people taking a wait and see approach to see the final result before adding anything? 2001:569:7E43:7900:91D2:CE89:AD96:A07B (talk) 23:22, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

User:Let There Be Sunshine

Wasn't he formally unblocked? Yet why was he blocked again? --Kailash29792 (talk) 06:21, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Looking at the unblock request, Yunshui granted it and one of the unblock conditions was that they kept to one account which was User:Let There Be Sunshine and if they wanted an alternative account, they needed to ask at WP:ANI. Looking at the SPI, they have been socking again, I've checked their edits for the last month and I cannot see that they raised a request at ANI for any legitimate alternative account. I'm not a CheckUser but I'd guess that as they have not kept to their one account agreement, they have been blocked.-- 5 albert square (talk) 12:03, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Looky

Hi B, any chance you could look into this?. It's clear socking by the reporting party, DivyaSharma3210S. He also acknowledges editing while logged out, which would be at 109.146.229.148. Looking at the rough geolocation, that looks like tons of other socks we've dealt with. I know you can't comment, buuuuuut... Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:28, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Looks like DoRD has taken care of this?--Bbb23 (talk) 17:04, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

PrinceofFrancia logging out to avoid block

Edits by 101.78.77.169, which geolocate back to Singapore, oddly mirror edits by PrinceofFrancia and other IPs from Singapore. I posted a concern earlier on your talk page and DoRD blocked one of the IPs.

On the Toluid Civil War, PrinceofFrancia(in IP form) has once again added their opinion to a referenced sentence.[1] There is nothing in the source that supports the bolded addition; "Berke supported Ariq Böke because he was resentful of Hulagu for the sacking of Baghdad and massacre of the whole population of the city and also had close ties with Kublai".(Rossabi, p54) --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:21, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Please investigate the AN/EW report

Hello, Bb!

Please do not dismiss the [clear evidence of edit warring] with a simple "Stale", it is still ongoing. The last reverts happened just 2 days ago, and the [recent diff] just 4 minutes after my edit, shows that Andrewgprout is still after my edits, he did not stop edit-warring. El_C promised, we will be under close watch. Thank you!

Don't be mistaken, I don't expect that reasoning would help, so also thank you for providing more records. Cheers, and have a nice day! —Aron M🍂 (🛄📤)   15:13, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

The report is stale. It is a continuation of your crusade before and during your recent block for edit-warring. The edit today for which you provided a diff is innocuous. I don't know how El_C feels about your post-block behavior, but as far as I'm concerned, if you don't move on to something else, you risk being reblocked for abuse of process (ANEW and ANI), among other things.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:56, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

I feel the same and already told the user as much. I've reopened their ANI, which I'm now regretting as it clearly has had the opposite effect intended. Enough is enough. El_C 16:02, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for reopening the ANI report, although we know nobody would have ever touched it, no matter how concise I make it. Your opinion weighs a lot.

Please appreciate that I tried to make the reports better based on your "feedback". Imho you should not create barriers for a newcomer to defend himself; if you gave a little guidance to make a good report, that you would have read, then there would be no need for trial-and-error. But that's not how WP works, so no complaints. I'm happy with our previous discussion, that was delightful.

Bb, please don't bite, you can be nice too, I just haven't seen that side yet. We both understand the situation, so there's no need for romantic words like "crusade for justice" and such... I was just looking for a neutral reviewer. You could have been that, that would have saved a lot of time for me and you. Speaking honestly is a form of respect, thus I write this with respect to you: we did not speak the same language in our last discussion, nor in this one, thus I do not intend to "disturb" you in the future: feel free to ignore my posts.

Thank you (both of you) for the discussions, and have a nice day! —Aron M🍂 (🛄📤)   23:08, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

You're a very problematic editor, and unless you change your approach to editing here, I don't see you lasting very long. I never used the phrase "crusade for justice" and my "name" is not "Bb". You weren't looking for a "neutral reviewer"; you were looking for someone who agrees with you. If you want me to ignore your posts here, that's easy: don't post. As for other places, I'm monitoring your edits and intend to do so at least for a while.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:14, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

You give me too much credit. And I did not discourage people from commenting on your Incidents report — I merely intimated that it was too lengthy. You can't lay the blame on me that few expressed interest in it, and that the one who did thought that you should just drop it, which I echo. El_C 23:19, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

This doesn't look like "dropping it". Just sayin'.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:53, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Unblock

So I dunno if you're full back from vacation, but I unblocked this person you blocked and said to do whatever re: the unblock during your vacation.... Obviously feel free to re-block if desired; mainly just going through the unblock backlog :P --slakr^\ talk / 07:26, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

@Slakr: Unfortunately, I am "full back from vacation". Thanks for the heads up.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:56, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

You are the administrator of a Wikipedia page I did not give my permission to create

First, my information is seriously outdated. Second, I have my own webpage and academic sites that I use for people to access updated information about myself. Your Wikipedia page does me no service if it is to be so out of date. I politely ask that you delete it or update it thoroughly.

I will take action with Wikipedia if you do not do as I request. Thank you for your time.

Ryan Maness Rmaness1 (talk) 23:55, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

@Rmaness1: What kind of "action" will you take?--Bbb23 (talk) 23:59, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Will you just delete the page please? Honestly it’s rude and unprofessional to create Wikipedia pages about people who do not give their permission to do so. I haven’t worked at Northeastern for 2 years.

At the very least update it, but I’d rather you delete it. With your comment, I see you will probably not comply. I work for the DoD now and have adjudicators to represent me if I so choose. Let’s not go there please.

Thanks,

Ryan Maness Rmaness1 (talk) 00:09, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Rmaness1, I have proposed the page for deletion under Wikipedia policy since you want it gone, but that can be challenged by anyone. Hopefully it will be gone in a week, however.

At the same time, you need to withdraw your legal threat against Bbb23 with your next edit or I will block you for making legal threats. You do have the legal right to any remedies the law allows, but while such threats are outstanding, you are not welcome to edit Wikipedia. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:13, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

I don’t want to edit Wikipedia, nor do I want anything to do with it. I did not threaten you, so stop assuming I did.

As long as the page is gone, you’ll never hear from me again. You have done me a professional disservice by creating it and I do not appreciate it one bit.

So thank you for deleting the page, and have a great day Rmaness1 (talk) 00:19, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

I apologize for possibly poking the bear here however Maness is a fellow, which, if I'm reading WP:NPROF correctly, puts him over the notability guidelines (#3). I've disputed the PROD tag. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 02:18, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

@Dusti: Honestly, I don't care one way or the other, but I think you're wrong about #3. The associations mentioned in the article are not the kinds of prestigious associations given as examples in the notability guideline. If they were, most professors (he was only a visiting prof, too) would probably be notable.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:25, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

@Bbb23: Hmmm, you're right. I'm not familiar with the whole Fellow thing, so I didn't know there was a difference between someone who's a fellow and a visiting fellow. He does get 45,000 hits on Google and a pretty good number of citations on Google Scholar. *shrugs* It's a shame we'll have to wait a full week for an AFD discussion now if someone else wants to nominate it. In any sense, I left them a note on their talk page and wanted to give you a poke just in case I threw some petrol on the fire. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 02:32, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

A fellow can either be a relatively minor position or a relatively prestigious one. Odd place, academia. I sent it to AfD, but not on notability grounds, as I’d support deletion even if he was notable. Even if his angry threats above weren’t ideal, he’s a private person and we generally delete those when requested if they aren’t trying to white wash their article or something similar. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:36, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Bradv had come to my talk page and asked me if I would consider reverting after being educated on the differences between the fellows and I'd happily do so. I didn't really go through many of the links above as I, along with Bbb23, really don't care one way or the other... it was a well, it appears to meet this moment. AFD may be a better avenue, however, if me agreeing to revert the PROD removal helps, we can ditch the AFD if you want @TonyBallioni:. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 02:44, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Re Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Noormohammed_satya

Hello. Thank you for taking the time to review this. I appreciate that the checkuser did not show anything. However, I was a little surprised that the clear similarity of the two 'keep' votes on the AFD do not seem worthy of any comment. Or is that simply not enough evidence to be able to do anything? I quite understand if so. Hugsyrup (talk) 13:59, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

What accounts have you used before?--Bbb23 (talk) 14:40, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

None. Not that I see the relevance of the question. Hugsyrup (talk) 14:45, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Sorry

Sorry for disrupting one of your checkuser cases. Gun23man (☎) 14:47, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Sasha Geller page hijacking

Hello Bbb, Sasha Geller was originally a template before the page was hijacked and moved into article namespace and subsequently speedied. I hope you don't mind I restored it and moved it back where it belongs. Thanks. Sro23 (talk) 02:25, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

I had this gnawing feeling I had screwed that up. Thanks a lot for fixing it.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:39, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Wrenhaven

Hello, I've created this page Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wrenhaven, could you please help me to investigate. I appreciate your help.--Azerifactory (talk) 20:41, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

I deleted it. If you want to file an SPI report, you must do it properly. Even if you did it correctly procedurally, I doubt you have a meritorious report to file, which may also cause it to be deleted or closed without action. Just giving you a heads up in advance.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:47, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Sockpuppet of DB Dilan Brechero

Hi Bbb23, looks like there's another sock account of DB Dilan Brechero in the form of DSFDSF12345678910. Exact same type of edits and creating a bunch of non-notable articles for Spanish songs in the wrong places. Ss112 00:08, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DilanBrechero.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:49, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Sock

Hi Bbb23. Thank you! I have suspected this for sometime but must admit, was beginning to lose some faith. So just from an academic perspective, what brought this on? Were you also suspicious and were the IP addresses confirmed in a CheckUser search? I guess my suspicions alone would not have qualified in requesting such a check? Asking so I'm better prepared for future cases. Well, thanks again. Robvanvee 12:49, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, but I prefer not to discuss this.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:13, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Oh, I hope I didn't say something inappropriate? I just thought, so as to better understand the inner workings of the encyclopedia, I would ask what I thought was a fairly transparent (and unloaded) question. Robvanvee 15:22, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Nicat49

Hi. I'm not Sock puppetry. This is mistake. All admins of azerbaijani wiki know me, you can ask their opinions about me. Also if you want you can check my account. About - Fuad Alakbarov (2nd nomination). My english is bad, but I read this page in azviki (Fuad Ələkbərov) and I think the article is eating enough sources, maybe I'm wrong but this is my opinion. Regards.--Nicat49 (talk) 02:40, 2 June 2019 (UTC)