Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:41, 30 April 2018

I will be unavailable for a few days.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:40, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Archives

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

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

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.

User:De la lombertie

Hello Bbb23, thank you again for your continuing work at SPI, it is appreciated. Could you re-look at the accounts in your close of Raymondskie99? While the IPs were indeed stale, the sock-puppets User:Loopy30isgay and User:Delanlay 69 should actually be associated with a different sock master, De la lombertie. Thanks, Loopy30 (talk) 21:21, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

There is no relationship between De la lombertie and Raymondskie99, and the two accounts I blocked were without question operated by Raymondskie99. The reason Loopy30isgay attacked the De la lombertie SPI was because of you.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:07, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Littlemixfan! IPsock

IPsock Special:Contributions/59.100.215.150 geolocated to Australia. Continuing edit after August 2017 block. See here and here. Soft pop (talk) 16:09, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

The IP is remains possibly inactive. Soft pop (talk) 05:00, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)Hi Soft_pop

Just FYI in future I would raise this as a WP:SPI rather than leaving a message on a CheckUser's talk page. Talk pages can get so busy sometimes messages can get missed and not every CheckUser is fortunate like Bbb23 to have a nosy Misplaced Pages administrator watching their talk page! :D

Also, filing an SPI means that you're not relying on one CheckUser, all CheckUsers would then see it and it's likely to be dealt with quicker.

In this case I've raised the SPI for you and I've requested CheckUser evidence as I'm assuming that's what you would have done if you had raised the SPI yourself. I've also blocked the IP you mentioned above. I've also tagged you in the SPI that I raised so you can see what happens with it, add any additional evidence you might have etc, but just in case the tag doesn't work, you can find it here--5 albert square (talk) 22:27, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Lokesh1699

Looks like a checkuser comment may be needed at User talk:Lokesh1699. The blocked editor is claiming that there is no relationship with two other accounts that have made substantially the same edits. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:46, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Mike Pompeo

Hi Bbb23 I was trying to make it like this https://en.wikipedia.org/Rex_Tillerson#Nomination_and_confirmation If you know how to do it that would be great. Thanks:96.36.68.29 (talk) 22:54, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

I think it's premature to add it until there's something to put in it.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:15, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

I did put it. the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations Voted 10-996.36.68.29 (talk) 23:25, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Hehe, with the mess you made of it (no offense), I couldn't tell. I actually didn't know the Committee voted until just a moment ago. I think the vote, though, was 11-10, although it unfolded procedurally in a rather unusual way. In any case, if an editor wants to put it in and properly source it, fine. I don't feel like doing it, honestly.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:31, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) According to this, it was 11-9 (with one Democrat voting "present"). --MelanieN (talk) 00:23, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi Bbb23 some users are saying we are in an edit war I watch C-SPAN every day here is what it say and you can read it and watch the whole video to your self

Senate Foreign Relations Committee Meeting on Mike Pompeo Nomination The Senate Foreign Relations Committee held a meeting to vote on the president’s secretary of State nominee, current CIA Director Mike Pompeo. The Committee initially voted 11-10 to support the nomination. However, Senator Isakson’s (R-GA) vote was by proxy and by Senate rules could not be used to move a nomination to the floor. After some discussion, Senator Coons (D-DE), who opposed the nomination was recorded as voting no, voted present to allow the nomination to go forward by a vote of 10-9.

Video: https://www.c-span.org/video/?444353-1/committee-votes-send-pompeo-nomination-senate-floor

Thanks:96.36.68.29 (talk) 02:17, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

The vote was 11-9. Senator Isakson's proxy vote did count. But per Senate rules, a proxy vote can't be THE vote that makes the difference. Once it was no longer the deciding vote, it counted. BTW it's interesting to see all the amazement in Washington that a senator would do something nice for a fellow senator as Coons did. The nomination was going to be approved anyhow, but it would have required Isakson to jump on a plane and fly to Washington that night. And yet in today's partisan atmosphere, it seems to be astonishing to the PTB to see a courteous gesture like this to a member of the other party. --MelanieN (talk) 03:27, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Lord & Taylor

As you are most familiar with the activity of LTA / sockpuppetry on this page, I would appreciate if you would look at recent history. It looks like the same old stuff here, and I know what I am seeing, but I don't want to get myself into trouble here. Many thanks in advance! Scr★pIron 13:11, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

I can't comment on IPs. If you think the IPs (the range) is a sock, please take it to SPI.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:50, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you; I have done so. Have a great day! Scr★pIron 14:32, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Deletion of Paani Foundation

Hey, Why did you delete the page I created about the NGO Paani Foundation. It is important to convey about this organization as it is involved in public outreach to a huge audience across a big state in India. Please reinstate the page - by Paradoxs (talk) 16:38, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

@Paradoxs: I restored the article and re-deleted it based on g7, g11, and g12 (copyright violation). It's nothing but an ad for a non-notable organization. Copyright is taken seriously at Misplaced Pages, and if you violate copyright again, you risk being blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:49, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Adjustments were made

I did make adjustments to my comment. It seems you did not even read what you were reverting and just acted upon Capital00's orders. What attack did you see in the following text? Don't you think you are overreacting?

As for Mblaze Lightning's supportive comment is concerned, there is no substance in it, saying "Yeah it's him" and putting a megaphone next to it does not make him, him. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 18:37, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

It's unnecessary to make the comment regarding the other editor. So, don't.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:41, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Read it again, it’s not about the other editor, it’s about his supportive comment. Who is talking about the editor? All I am saying is that there is no substance in his comment. I never said there is no substance in him. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 18:47, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Draft: Bhurit Bhirombhakdi

Bananabacon (talk) 02:55, 25 April 2018 (UTC) Hi Bbb23, I need help about submitting for reviewing AFC process. At the moment, I have a draft version of https://en.wikipedia.org/Draft:Bhurit_Bhirombhakdi and I would like to send this draft to review by AFC process before the article publish. So, How can I submit this article?

Thank you

Belligerence

Hey, you asked me not to use the word "belligerence" , can you cite a policy or point me to the list of prohibited words which contains "belligerence" as one of them?

You are kind of putting curbs on my freedom of expression by these maneuvers. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 15:17, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, and I'm going to put a further "curb". I'm reverting your last edit and I don't want to see you post any more to that SPI. You've made a few good points despite some of the language, but at this point you're being disruptive.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:42, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

That is just insane, Bbb23. What did I ever do to you? How can I earn your trust? I know you have all the power here being an admin and all but I always thought I have been sticking to the policies. Can you please let me know what policy you are following removing my comments and putting further curbs on my freedom of expression? Also, is there a list of words not to use and belligerence being one of them? Do admins follow any policies or they are above the law here? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 15:58, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

WP:DE.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:01, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

I thought this through and thus acknowledge that I have been too blunt and overboard with my latest comments and would like to request you to allow me to post to that SPI while I promise that I will stick to responding to the latest evidence added by the filer and not deviate from it. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 14:46, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Okay, but three things: First, comment factually on the evidence. You don't have to describe it as "frivolous" or "worthless" or other similar adjectives. Second, make sure that what you have to say is helpful to the clerk(s) who will evaluate the behavior. Remember that the clerks are experienced at this sort of thing. Finally, the more additions and rebuttals added to the report the more cluttered it becomes and the more difficult it is for the clerks.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:59, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, I appreciate your kindness. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 15:09, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet_investigations/Wildberryemk

Thank you for your cooperation in this case. Although it has been closed, this vandal has been making very similar edits to the ones shown in the case. See these. (1, 2). I highly suspect that the vandal is creating multiple accounts to vandalize Misplaced Pages to evade their block. BAPreme _{(T / C)} 04:42, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

New sock of VJ-Yugo

Hi Bbb23. Agin Neva was created less than 24 hours ago, and is editing exactly the same articles edited by some of latest socks of VJ-Yugo, making the same changes. For example vs and vs vs . His first edit was on an article related to the war in Syria, a preferred topic of VJ-Yugo. Ktrimi991 (talk) 09:10, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) blocked. Note I blocked Neva Agin (talk · contribs) yesterday. Ivanvector (/_Edits) 11:02, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: Thanks. The case of the account you blocked yesterday is interesting, VJ-Yugo was following me around a year or so ago. He might try to follow you around now. Ktrimi991 (talk) 12:23, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

@Ktrimi991: yeah, he has been. He's not very good at it. Ivanvector (/_Edits) 16:25, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your help on the Marvinfos75 SPI. That was great cross-wiki cooperation, if I do say so myself. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 16:17, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Sock Puppet

I think it's important that I tell an administrator this, a sock puppet is vandalizing pages simply because I or another user undo there edits and now they want to get back at that person. I believe this is the same person who kept vandalizing the Virtua Fighter 5 ‎page from 2017 and did so recently.

I think this is all the same person or has a friend helping.

• 24.24.216.163
• 107.77.228.202
• 172.85.180.114
• 2605:E000:2E54:800:5CA2:D188:52AC:B45E
• 107.77.228.232
• 2605:E000:2E54:8F0:F021:D7FD:C273:F305

108.82.12.122 (talk) 21:50, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

You picked the wrong administrator.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:15, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Couple of comments

Hi Bbb23 and thanks for taking the trouble to comment on Ivanvector's Arbitration request. I thought I would give you the opportunity to review a couple of things you said there. Firstly, I believe the only reason John objects to the reinstated material was because it cited The Daily Mirror is puzzling; the material in question was sourced to the Daily Mail, not the Mirror. Secondly, the part John decided a long time ago that citations to the Mirror are not permitted under any circumstances in a BLP article. is not just factually incorrect (you again name the wrong tabloid newspaper) but by making a statement about what you think my motivations are, I think you are getting towards WP:ASPERSIONS territory. I would be grateful if you would restrict yourself in future to describing (accurately, if possible) my behaviour which you find objectionable, which is objectively observable, rather than your ideas about my motives, which are perhaps more a matter for me. Additionally, while I have a fairly thick skin for personal insults, I'd ask you to review your choice of words here. I'm sure, like all human beings, I have my jerk moments, but I honestly don't think this was one of them. In any case, I've found that using language like this will often raise the temperature of a discussion without producing a corresponding increase in light or solubility. All the best, --John (talk) 12:46, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your in retrospect I probably shouldn't have either, that was decent of you. If I may, I'd like to challenge you also on John decided a long time ago that citations to the Mirror Daily Mail are not permitted under any circumstances in a BLP article. His rigid view has not been accepted by many editors. I certainly do not think my view on this is in any way exceptional; a well-participated RfC concluded a year ago that Consensus has determined that the Daily Mail (including its online version, dailymail.co.uk) is generally unreliable, and its use as a reference is to be generally prohibited, especially when other more reliable sources exist. As a result, the Daily Mail should not be used for determining notability, nor should it be used as a source in articles.... There are multiple thousands of existing citations to the Daily Mail. Volunteers are encouraged to review them, and remove/replace them as appropriate. (my emphasis) We also have a core policy, WP:BLP, which states This policy extends that principle, adding that contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion. This applies whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable, and whether it is in a biography or in some other article. Material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism. When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources. (my emphasis) If I am out of line in reading these two very firm longstanding consensuses and concluding that this was a terrible edit, even with WP:EVADE arguably behind it, then I still do not see it. I am perfectly ready to accept critique on the way I delivered the message, but I stand utterly by my judgement that the edit was unacceptable. Thoughts? --John (talk) 16:14, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Still waiting. --John (talk) 06:14, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

You what?

You deleted the page "You what?", citing G3. I looked into G3, and it describes:

"pages that are blatant and obvious misinformation, blatant hoaxes (including images intended to misinform), and redirects created by cleanup from page-move vandalism"

My page did not contain vandalism, or hoaxes. The phrase "you what?" is not a hoax. It is frequently used in a similar way to pardon. --Macaroniking (talk) 17:10, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Spot on

is a perfect summary. Guy (Help!) 22:35, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Evangeline Paterson

Hello. Why is Evangeline Paterson not a credible author? It seems silly to keep removing good articles from Misplaced Pages. Deleting, is unnecessary pruning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Now3d (talk • contribs) 22:54, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)Articles about living persons must have reliable sources, for which Amazon notoriously does not quality, not even as an assertion that such a person exists. Having something nominally available on Amazon, like having a song available on iTunes, does not constitute a claim to anything, least of all notability. See WP:AUTHOR for guidance as to what is a notable writer. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:04, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

I can't agree with your opinion or that link. Excluding non-mainstream authors is a terrible policy because it only focuses attention on market leading authors. Why not take up the cause to correct the mistakes of this at Misplaced Pages? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Now3d (talk • contribs) 23:46, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Just look up the ISBNs

Paperback: 59 pages Publisher: Dedalus Press (22 Jun. 1998) Language: English ISBN-10: 1873790643 ISBN-13: 978-1873790649

Paperback: 47 pages Publisher: Other Poetry; First Edition edition (1991) Language: English ISBN-10: 090714909X ISBN-13: 978-0907149095 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Now3d (talk • contribs) 23:48, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Sockpuppet confirmed?

Hello, I'm Horus from Thai Misplaced Pages. I'm currently summarizing Long term abuse of a puppeteer, and evidently his actions can be found in English Misplaced Pages as well. I've seen that many accounts were blocked with Checkuser template on but I can't found the investigation anywhere. So I would like to have a confirmation that:

1. Choccobkk (talk · contribs)
2. Anybodyfitfit (talk · contribs)
3. Phudthammai (talk · contribs)
4. Happynaturist (talk · contribs)
5. Humhom (talk · contribs)
6. Khalummoi (talk · contribs)
7. Golf-ben1010 (talk · contribs)
8. Alexioo (talk · contribs)
9. Itipisox (talk · contribs)

are the same person. Thanks. --Horus (talk) 08:18, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

See Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Golf-ben10.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:33, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Sorry to ask again, but I saw en:Category:Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of Choccobkk and en:Category:Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of Golf-ben10. I can't found any pages that are specific and the blocking reason given by various admin also not helping much. So all of these are the related, yes? --Horus (talk) 18:02, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Heh, you're more on top of this than I am. The Choccobkk socks were blocked by me in the summer of 2017 without an SPI ever being filed. Many of the Golf-ben10 socks are also blocked without being noted at the SPI. In any event, all the socks I've blocked are related. I can't speak for ones I haven't confirmed. The Golf-ben10 case should probably be moved to Choccobkk because that account is older.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:53, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks --Horus (talk) 19:30, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Help

Can you take a look into this account: Tustrazara? It was registered today and immediately made two controversial edits in two articles with long-standing disputes. It is unusual for new editor. Vanjagenije (talk) 11:07, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Based on the limited technical data, there is no evidence of socking.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:04, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Olonia sockpuppets

This guy (Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Olonia) is persisting in vandalizing the same page - Italian destroyer Espero (1927). He continues to use different accounts, most recently User:SoccoPuppetto and User:BismaBarabba. This clearly qualifies for WP:3STRIKES and WP:NOTHERE. Not sure what can be done, can you at least protect the page for extended period of time perhaps? maybe he'll come to his senses and gets on with his life? Can you also revert to previous edit, or should I do this? Thanks. Crook1 (talk) 22:13, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Account blocked, article semi-protected three months, sock reverted.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:02, 29 April 2018 (UTC)