Open main menu

Rupert DegasEdit

Do you have any reason for declining speedy? The article in the form to which you restored it contains no evidence or even assertion of notability. DuncanHill (talk) 18:06, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

He's done enough acting to get past an a7.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:23, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
I must have missed the bit in a7 that says "does not apply if subject has done some acting". DuncanHill (talk) 18:27, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
No doubt. No more snark please.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:28, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Then can you please explain to me, in a manner that actually takes account of what a7 says, why you declined the speedy? The article very clearly "does not indicate why its subject is important or significant", and is not about an educational institution. DuncanHill (talk) 18:32, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
  • The original article Special:Diff/87343114 made credible claims of a lot of stuff, and the speedy deletion criterion is for articles with no credible claims.

    Looking through the edit history at Special:Diff/188592939, Special:Diff/578250849, Special:Diff/558491313, and a lot of others, it seems to me that sourcing has been substandard here for 13 years, with people adding stuff that they cannot back up if pressed. But the article has been through the BLP Sources process, twice, and Speedy Deletion evaluated by one person on sight is clearly the wrong route to take.

    Have you tried looking this person up in books?

    Uncle G (talk) 08:52, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

    • It's an autobiography, pretty much all the IPs have been the subject. Valid tags about sourcing get removed by him willy nilly. Have only found puff pieces on Google. If you think he's notable enough for an article then fix it. DuncanHill (talk) 09:06, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
      • So that's no, you haven't tried looking up in books. That's an important next step. Uncle G (talk) 08:29, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
        • He is not mentioned in any of the 2,500+ non-fiction books I have to hand, and looking things up in books is not mentioned anywhere in your own personal essay to which you linked. But there you go. Have you tried looking him up? You want to keep the article. You are making the baseless claim of notability without bothering to produce any evidence. DuncanHill (talk) 09:02, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
    • And that second diff is breathtaking. The article was not well referenced at that or any point. DuncanHill (talk) 09:09, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Madhesi peopleEdit

@Bbb23, Kautilya3, Utcursch, and Ponyo: Could you please take a look at the Madhesi people page (with special job of checking the contents with cited sources) and recent talk page discussion. Thanks. — Jakichandan (talk) 00:13, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

  • I have no idea why you're talking to me about this. Also, there is no need to ping me on my Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:10, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
    • I thought you would be interested as you have helped in various investigations against socks who have shown interest in the concerned article and related stuff. As for ping, I would take care. Thanks. —Jakichandan (talk) 02:19, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Potential sock puppet of User:Joker5122Edit


I believe User:Arrow5122 may be a sock puppet of User:Joker5122. Can you help? Cardei012597 (talk) 18:11, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Who dat?Edit

It was a couple of years ago, but whoever you checkuser blocked here is still in control of the IP. Not sure if it's evasion, but giving you a heads up in case you're interested. -- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:50, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Now blocked for two years. Look at the CU log and you'll see who it is, not that I think you'll know the master.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:05, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
adjusts checkuser goggles Ah yes, I see now.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 22:09, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Rev DeleteEdit

Hey, wondering if it would be possible to have this rev deleted? [1]. Thanks! Garchy (talk) 04:41, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

  Done. I got this. El_C 04:43, 12 September 2019 (UTC)


what is happening here?! Praxidicae (talk) 15:47, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Michepman closed a discussion without including the closing template, so I reverted. They reclosed using the closing template, and Bradv reverted because Michepman was "involved". I haven't paid any attention to the merits.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:51, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, I saw that but just the whole thing is strange with a random account of 340 edits suddenly closing an ANI report with seemingly no resolution, giving a vandalism account a barnstar...just very, very strange. Praxidicae (talk) 15:52, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Ah, that's another story. I've been aware of Michepman for a long time.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:55, 12 September 2019 (UTC)


I noticed you deleted the article and wondered if you noticed the AfD, regards Govvy (talk) 18:21, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Of course.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:45, 13 September 2019 (UTC)


Hi, you just closed Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Shingling334 - I don't understand the comment, "One edit two days ago". There are more than 50 edits, going back to 1 September, and I'm quite sure they're all his...? --IamNotU (talk) 21:28, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

The last edit was two days ago and the only one for that day. We rarely block IPs unless the disruption is very recent.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:39, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Anatoly GeleskulEdit

Hey there. You deleted this article a little over a month ago for being created by a banned/blocked user. But you didn't put the editor's name in the summary, so I'm not sure. But it was just recreated by a new editor, who started editing on 9/11/2019. Methinks this might be another sock, but I can't report it, since I don't know the other editor's name. Could you help me out? Thanks.Onel5969 TT me 22:36, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

The user has already been reported at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Кориоланыч.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:37, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Zombie gunnerEdit

Does Zombie gunner (talk · contribs) seem like Hammy0007 (talk · contribs), now banned? Their behavior, respectively, on Architecture of India and History of domes in South Asia—creating content forks, changing halfway through the talk page discussions from an IP to a user name, editing (as IPs) pages earlier edited by Highpeaks35 (talk · contribs), now topic banned from India-related pages—seem similar. Also pinging @Johnbod:, @RegentsPark:, @Abecedare: and @Vanamonde93: Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:47, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

A report has been filed by another editor.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:22, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

JR Ewing (band)Edit

I'd like to expand the JR Ewing (band) page as it currently contains next to no information. Was it the Facebook post citation you saw as unreliable? It came officially from the band. Thanks. NaiveSuper (talk) 18:13, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Both sources were not reliable, particularly in support of the material.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:15, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Conflict of InterestsEdit

Just in case you don't remember, you once threatened to ban block me in order maintain incorrect content on a biography of a living person. You repeated your desire to ban block me here in order to push your fringe view that facilitated communication is legitimate, even there was already strong consensus at that time that it is pseudoscience. These actions were an abuse of admin tools, and your statements indicate that you are unable to remain impartial in your interactions with me. As such, you have a conflict of interests in disputes in which I am a party. I would appreciate if you would refrain from involving yourself in such disputes, as you did here. I would would also like you to acknowledge that you have the aforementioned conflict of interests for future reference. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 00:28, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

I acted only in my capacity as an administrator.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:59, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Abusing admin privileges by threatening to ban block me for opposing a fringe view that you favor may technically be acting in the capacity of an administrator, but this shits all over violates the spirit of the rule. A content dispute is still a content dispute even if you try to force your view with admin tools. After reading these diffs, can you really say with a straight face that you have the ability to moderate discussions in which I am involved without bias? I'm not asking you to admit to abusing admin privileges, I just don't want you to moderate discussions in which I am involved. If you agree to that, we can settle this now. Otherwise I will have to take this to dispute resolution. --Wikiman2718 (talk)
For the record: Here is another post in which you say you want to see me blocked. If my memory serves me right there may have been more to that effect on the talk page of Amy Sequenzia, but I can no longer access that page because it has been deleted. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 02:14, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
I don't mean to be rude, but I would like to hear your reply so that I know whether or not to proceed with dispute resolution. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 22:26, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
It is difficult to accept that somebody who wrote, this shits all over the spirit of the rule, didn't mean to be rude. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:37, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
@RoySmith: Fixed it. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 00:55, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

IP sock

Hi Bbb23, about a week ago, you CU blocked IP (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Immediately upon the release of that block, the user went back to causing disruption. Would you mind taking a look at their contributions? I believe a further block is necessary. Thanks, Aoi (青い) (talk) 05:15, 16 September 2019 (UTC)


Hey, thanks for somehow nabbing and cleaning up after this guy. I had an internal debate about whether or not I should mention him to you. His edits stank so much of undisclosed paid editing. Brand new user, multiple articles created, zipping through talk pages and re-grading the article assessment scores... I was sure he had to be a sock of SOMEONE, but even before adminship, that's always been such an unpleasant thing to say to CUs, especially without any corroborating information. I went through all his new articles and couldn't find anything to tie him to a past sock. It all just feels like a bad (or very gooooood?) 1980s police drama. "I'm tellin' ya chief, I got a hunch!" Anyway, thank you. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:00, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Potential sock of Joker5122Edit


I believe that User:Deadpool5122 is a sock puppet of User:Joker5122. This user contacted me, asking me to create drafts for him. Can you please investigate this issue? Cardei012597 (talk) 18:05, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Restore the articlesEdit

Hello, It's me again. Can you restore the following articles as you did last time regarding the Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/RadyoUkay819, these articles are

I didn't delete those articles. If you want them restored, you'll have to request the deleting admins.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:48, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "Bbb23".