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.

Why?!

There was no reason to delete Jelle Van Vucht 4 times. Bring it back NOW or I'm suing you! User talk:MatthewBriglia2005 19:37, 29 June 2017 (EDT)

July 2017

Hi mate, how do you deal with guys who put Sockpuppet tags [1] [2] on userpages without evidence? --Saqib (talk) 07:28, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't know if Bbb knows this SPI but I'm guessing Ponyo's come across this one before, I just looked at a couple of places and couldn't find the link though. —SpacemanSpiff 07:36, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Which SPI? anyways thanks for removing the tags.. --Saqib (talk) 07:42, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

This SPI, Saqib. Your tagger is most likely from there. I was wrong, Bbb23 has blocked this farm too. —SpacemanSpiff 08:01, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Indeed. Thanks, folks.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:02, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

And just blocked another sock.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:49, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Original Research Query

Hi, can you please provide guidance on the List of countries by median wage page. I am alleging that there is clear OR being done but author disagrees. Lneal001 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:11, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't know why you're asking me (or at least one other administrator).--Bbb23 (talk) 18:17, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi again. The user on the page agreed to delete the content if it was deemed OR. Since it now has been deemed as such (on the No Original Research Noticeboard), Could you please allow me to modify the page and to merge it to a legitimate one? Right now the page is blocked from any modifications. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard Lneal001 (talk) 14:39, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't see one editor's opinion at the noticeboard as "deemed OR". If the other edit warrior, Jeine091, now accepts your wish to modify the article, I will unprotect it.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:32, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

We now have 2 additional editors on the Talk part of the article's page who are saying it is also OR. What more do we need to merge or delete the page? Lneal001 (talk) 16:39, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Your deletion of comments to unblock request

You again deleted my comment about the unblock request for User:Moltenflesh on their talkpage. As WP:BLOCK clearly and simply states that Any user may comment on an unblock request, I believe there was no reason to remove my comment. As the comment I made is allowable under WP:BLOCK (as any user may comment on an unblock request), and was not disruptive, but was in all good faith criticism of the block, then there is no basis for removal. You have mistaken criticism for disruption, however recall that editors are free to criticize administrator action. To try and resolve this though, rather than reverting you deletion (which I believe I have every right to do) can you please explain why you didn't note that it wasn't a slam dunk in either the block log or the user page. Or why you didn't make an entry at all in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Perfect Orange Sphere? Thanks! Nfitz (talk) 15:57, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't normally tutor users on how CheckUsers do their work, but with the hope that you'll understand my actions better and put these issues to rest, I'll make an exception. Generally, when there's a suspected sock, someone opens or reopens an SPI, and the report is evaluated. If I decide a CU is warranted, I run a check and post my findings. Those findings are along a spectrum of more certain to less certain. For example, the most certain is  Technically indistinguishable, then slightly less to  Confirmed, less to  Likely, and so on down to  Unrelated. If I believe a block is warranted, I block and it's my decision whether to make it a checkuseraccount block. The finding doesn't have to be confirmed or even likely for me to do so. If the blocked account is tagged (not all socks should be tagged, but that's a separate topic), the tag would normally reflect my finding. Thus, I wouldn't normally tag a sock as CU-confirmed unless my finding was confirmed or tallyho, although there are occasionally exceptions.

Once a master has a case, not all socks go through the SPI process. I and all CheckUsers can block a sock outside of the SPI and not record it at the SPI. It's standard practice. We do it all the time. We may also choose to tag or not at our discretion. However, because such blocks have no SPI finding, unless the tag is very clear, other editors won't necessarily know the degree of certainty, but no one marks that in the block log.

My comment at Moltenflesh's Talk page was intended to let the user know that they might be unblocked and to let other CheckUsers know that I would like their input before I make a final decision. Although casually couched ("slam dunk"), the purpose was to help the user. It's rare for me to comment on a sock-blocked Talk page, but in this case I thought it would be constructive.

I didn't remove your comment because it was critical of me. I removed it because it betrayed your ignorance (no offense) of how the whole process works and because it distracted from the process of re-evaluating my block. I hope that addresses your concerns.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:48, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation and the transparency. I see now what you were doing, and I apologize for getting in the way of it. I'll try and avoid shooting first in the future. Nfitz (talk) 07:06, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Do you have trouble on Commons?

We have a strange request here. Thanks for taking a peek. --Hedwig in Washington ^(TALK) 00:54, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

@Hedwig in Washington: The IP who posted at Commons is a sock. What they say strikes me as incoherent, but perhaps you understand what they mean by "cyborbot/help".--Bbb23 (talk) 01:17, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

I thought so. But before I block an IP that could be a fellow sysop, I rather ask. Had a feeling you didn't move to Botswana. Thanks for your fast reply! --Hedwig in Washington ^(TALK) 01:20, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Is cyberbot the same as wikibot? —SpacemanSpiff 03:57, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

I think he meant cyborgbot, or there's always the much older bebopbot.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:26, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

User talk:Mattmclaren#Account Blocked

I am inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt but to do that I need your agreement or checkuserblock removed. What are your thoughts, please? Just Chilling (talk) 22:50, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

@Just Chilling: You can see my comments at his Talk page. Sorry.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:37, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

NP and thx for looking at the situation. Just Chilling (talk) 23:17, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Rowingasia

Can I trouble you to have a look at the recent unblock request? Their claims to not have socked at all are a bit humorous if I can say so. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:28, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

@RickinBaltimore: Sure. I revoked Talk page access. We have better ways of spending our time.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:42, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

@RickinBaltimore: He evidently decided to resume socking. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rowingasia. GAB^gab 21:55, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Cooper edits

All the information I cited was from the primary source. You may not have agreed with it but it's indisputible that Fletcher accuses Huff of deliberately sabotaging the hearings, and that Rymer went out of her way to ridicule Fletcher. All the other incidents (The fact that Roger Lang admitted the knife could have been different, the fact that the shoes weren't unique) were all matters of record. Making mention of it is entirely fair; declaring it impermissible seems a bit like a cowardly dodge unless there's something I'm missing — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.75.61.201 (talk) 03:35, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

WP:PRIMARY prohibits an editor from using primary sources that require interpretation. Legal decisions fall into that category. Therefore, a reliable secondary source that interprets the decision must be used.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:33, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Incivility from Freshacconci

Hi. I seem to having some difficulty with a user that I see you have previously dealt with.

My discussion with him is here, though Freshacconci removed the last message, with the edit summary:

"'Please learn these policies if you wish to continue editing here'? Who are you? Fuck you."

If you could inform/remind him of WP:CIV, it would be appreciated. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 23:40, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Blocking a sock in an EW report against Freshacconci is hardly having dealings with them. Unfortunately, too many editors say "fuck you" on Wikipedia with impunity. I'm not going to single this particular one out. Also, I've always interpreted WP:CIRCULAR to apply to references, not wikilinks.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:15, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Just so you know, User:Humanweb is User:Utbindas

You might want to compare Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Humanweb/Archive to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Utbindas/Archive. I was keeping an eye on Humanweb, and it's the same "concerned with images and fashion, Indian topics, nudity or sexual topics, and see alsos" matter. Now, if you want to keep the cases separate because the Utbindas account is stale, that is your decision.

Also pinging Mabalu, Mike V, Vanjagenije, Berean Hunter, DeltaQuad and Grayfell from the previous investigation in case they care. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:34, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping Flyer22 Reborn! On a quick scan through, it does look like the same editing style and patterns. I had actually been wondering about Utbindas because coincidentally, an anonymous ISP popped up on Talk:Miniskirt only yesterday to try and get the lede changed again, with a very Utbindas-esque focus on butt and bottom. Now, I know it could be a random drive-by anonymous comment, I didn't think "oh, that's definitely Utbindas" but it's interesting that you should mention them and that they'd possibly been back to their games again the very next day. Hmm. Probably coincidence, but interesting that this alleged Utbindas reincarnation has largely stayed away from articles I edit after I pretty much nailed him down the last time. Mabalu (talk) 15:29, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

What a SURPRISE. The anonymous ISP is an Indian ISP. The coincidence increases, along with the similarities to Utbindas. Mabalu (talk) 15:49, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

It also seems like another ISP from the same range was just sniffing around the Dress and Miniskirt articles, both articles that Utbindas was very fond of. Thanks for the heads-up. I'll keep an eye out for Utbindas-esque activity now I know they may be back. Mabalu (talk) 16:00, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Declined SPI

Hi there. Can I ask why @Greenbörg: 's SPI request was denied? Given how those accounts are being coordinated right now on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Wise Way and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ehsan Sehgal (3nd nomination), it feels quite pertinent and not 'stale' particularly. Best, Landscape repton (talk) 16:32, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

You're a new user. Do you know what stale means in the context of a CU request?--Bbb23 (talk) 16:53, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

I do not, I had a look around but couldn't see a definition, where should I have been looking?Landscape repton (talk) 16:56, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Somewhere other than Wikipedia. CU data is retained for 90 days. Stale means older than 90 days. Normally, when a check is run, it compares two or more accounts. At least two compared accounts must have data for it to work. Thus, in this instance, one account is not stale, but all others are.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:08, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Ah, I see, thank you for the explanation. And does this mean that anons can't be factored in to the checks? Because the four anons listed have all been operating in the past week (and only the past week, not earlier than that). Landscape repton (talk) 17:11, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

CheckUsers don't publicly disclose the IP(s) of named accounts per policy.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:13, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

I see. Just to be clear that I'm understanding the relevance of that to this case, what you're saying is that SPI can never be used to see if a logged in user is also editing as an un-logged-in anonymous user, because confirming so would publicly confirm their IP address? And SPI is limited in its methods purely to checking IP addresses? Thank you for taking the time to help me understand. Best, Landscape repton (talk) 12:25, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't understand your last question: "And SPI is limited in its methods purely to checking IP addresses?" The preceding part is correct.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:28, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

OK, don't worry about the other question, I figured it out. Thank you again. Landscape repton (talk) 12:30, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Non- technical SPI

I saw your comment at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Perfect Orange Sphere and I appreciate you stepping in to do a checkuser (and find another one). I don't doubt your conclusions wrt Moltenflesh, but I also don't doubt that it is, in fact, the same person. I've seen where IPs from a wide variety of real-world places seem to be making the same exact edits, and I presume this editor is using a selection of devices and proxies to obscure themselves from a technical standpoint. Hell, anyone can buy access to a botnet if they look hard enough. So my question to you is, is the SPI wrt Moltenflesh going to be closed due to the technical evidence, or is there some process for moving forward based on the behavioral evidence? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:16, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

I didn't close the case, allowing another administrator to block the account if they wish, but I'm now out of it.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:06, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Okay. I wasn't sure if it would be archived or not, since you marked the checkuser done. Thanks. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 04:26, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

The block of User:AcademicHistorian

That explains quite a bit. I have a fair bit of experience with User:Ontario Teacher BFA BEd but I didn't twig to this one. Live and learn. Meters (talk) 05:21, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Possible sock

Hi, can you please check if user 122.108.141.214 is a sock of a blocked user. Im suspiscious because over the past 2 months or so they've made gradual requests for about five AFDs to be started on the Articles for Deletion talkpage which they were but they don't want to sign up and do it themselves, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 21:38, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Mandyada Sri Shiradi Sai Baba Mandira

Could I get you to re-evaluate this? It pretty clearly is Mandyadashiradisaibaba (talk · contribs) who has created this article several times under a couple of different titles. (See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mandyadashiradisaibaba/Archive). Thanks. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:55, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

At least you've now identified the master, but it still is ineligible for g5 as the accounts were blocked at the same time.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:00, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't understand. Mandyadashiradisaibaba was blocked at 01:46 on 21 July 2017. Praneethrao12 created the article about a day-and-a-half later at 13:35 on 22 July 2017. That looks like clear cut block evasion to me. What am I missing here? Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:05, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

My fault, I was looking at the wrong puppet. And, actually, the master was blocked even earlier than that on June 16. The June 21 block changed it to a CU block. Deleted. My apologies.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:10, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Oh good, I'm not completely losing it then. Thanks. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:12, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Heh, I know the feeling. I'm tired and going off-wiki to rest before going to bed. G'night.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:18, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:12 Monkeys#"doesn't need refs"

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:12 Monkeys#"doesn't need refs". Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:16, 23 July 2017 (UTC)Template:Z48

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Hidden Tempo (talk) 07:41, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Dan Wagner - Block Evasion

Hi, I believe User: 185.69.145.158 is block evading. It is another Vodafone IP address and has expressed the same POV as those previously blocked on Dan Wagner#Talk. I suspect it's the same as User:85.255.232.175 whom you blocked earlier in the week. 94.193.159.223 (talk) 11:46, 23 July 2017 (UTC)