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.

Sarkar (soundtrack)

Hi.

Requesting you an explanation for this revision. Please help me understand. Arjann (talk)

Possible sockpuppet

Hi there, you blocked one sockpuppet recently by the handle of User:Milktaco. The same user seems to have another account by the name of User:Dividing. If you check the contribution log for the latter, you'll notice the pattern of dates is rather odd as well; seems like he was saving this up for sporadic or when-needed use. DA1 (talk) 11:30, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure what it is you want, but Dividing hasn't edited in over a year.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:10, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Guest S52pq

Hi,

What I meant by the users edit warring with themselves is that it seemed odd to me that the first IP address was already edit warring with an experienced editor, and then a new registered account shows up out of nowhere and starts engaging in the edit war too. To me, that says that the account and the IP are the same person. — Matthew Wong (at PMA), 12:28, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Special:Contribs/Buddy754

After you blocked them, they started playing around on their talk page constantly – making edit requests, making personal attacks, copying their SPI page, claiming that they've unblocked Brandon somehow, copying Brandon's talk page, saying that they shouldn't be blocked – and keep doing so. Time to revoke talk page access? I think it's clear that they're not going to do anything useful or meaningful with it and most of the other socks have already had TPA revoked for the same reason.--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 15:27, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

 Done --Bbb23 (talk) 15:44, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

CU Request

I noticed Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hellishscrubber after looking at the edit history of New York University. This account seems to me to be Mangoeater1000 to me (see the LTA page too). I can make a formal request at Mango's SPI page if you prefer, but thought I'd ask here first. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:06, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Actually you can't file an SPI to make that kind of request, but it's immaterial as the two masters are not related.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:39, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

@Bbb23: Thank you for looking! EvergreenFir (talk) 19:15, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

UK sock

The recent new user doing similar like this. 2402:1980:8241:25B5:2165:C28C:F9F3:E776 (talk) 14:59, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

SPI question: Zeshan Mahmood

Hi, is there any chance you might be able to answer this question? – Uanfala (talk) 23:11, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Based on the global block, I'd say you can G5 any new pages created by the IP.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:13, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Article restoration

Hi, in Feb 2015 you deleted the article National Forum for Biological Recording - can you restore it to my userspace so I can work on it please. I understand at the time it was probably entirely primary sourced - unfortunately NFBR are a not for profit involved in ecological work, so most of the reliable secondary sourcing is going to be in specialist publications or scientific papers. I've been asked by someone connected to them to look into it as they didn't know what the problem was - which appears to be a combination of role/organisation accounts (they didn't know were a problem) COI (which they didn't understand) and the requirement for secondary sourcing (which afaik never got to be explained to them because of being blocked for being an org account....) regards Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:29, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

@Only in death: Sorry for the late response. I'm afraid I forgot. The article would be four sentences and a link to the organization's website if restored - in other words, a big nothing. Do you still want it?--Bbb23 (talk) 15:38, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

There was no hurry, dont worry about it though. I will start afresh. It looks like from the earlier deletion those 4 sentences may have been copied from the website - which while it would have likely been within the user who created the original article authority to release, it would be better to start from scratch. Cheers for looking. Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:04, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Delta Dawn (murder victim)

About Delta Dawn (murder victim)?

There's some really poor phrasing in this article which at the moment tells the reader that the baby girl was drowned before someone tossed her into the river. Can you re-write it as an I'm an IP? Also the article needs a general proof-read/grammar-check. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.2.163.201 (talk) 09:10, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Quacking

Blocked sockdrawer Poofdragon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) / Paltryforhire (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). New account Leyna010208 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (which was created on June 17, 2018, same day sock Nyaja Aibhlinn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) was indef-blocked). Same rambling posts, obsessing on same points, on same pages: Blocked sock Nyaja, New User along with tendency to delete or move talk page content. Quack. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 20:21, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

New account probably deleted the above talk page comment when they saw they'd interacted with that user before as JDMAVkwd. Nyaja original account: JDMAVkwd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (that she said she'd lost the password to). Pattern of deletion when some degree of overlap user considers too much is noticed is same as shown by other sockdrawer accounts. Confrontative with some of us, while avoiding notice by others is one of patterns. P.S. Seeing that the new account was created on the same day as the indef. makes me think editing pattern might be the main key here. On that front I'm already convinced. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 21:25, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

I've blocked Leyna010208. They are  Confirmed to previous socks. I didn't tag because many behaviorally related accounts were blocked, but the technical data is messy.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:30, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Messy is putting it mildly. Appreciate your work, as always. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 21:34, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Demorea

Your presence has been requested. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:33 on December 3, 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – December 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2018).

Administrator changes

Al Ameer son • Randykitty • Spartaz

Boson • Daniel J. Leivick • Efe • Esanchez7587 • Fred Bauder • Garzo • Martijn Hoekstra • Orangemike

Interface administrator changes

Deryck Chan

Guideline and policy news

• Following a request for comment, the Mediation Committee is now closed and will no longer be accepting case requests.
• A request for comment is in progress to determine whether members of the Bot Approvals Group should satisfy activity requirements in order to remain in that role.
• A request for comment is in progress regarding whether to change the administrator inactivity policy, such that administrators "who have made no logged administrative actions for at least 12 months may be desysopped". Currently, the policy states that administrators "who have made neither edits nor administrative actions for at least 12 months may be desysopped".
• A proposal has been made to temporarily restrict editing of the Main Page to interface administrators in order to mitigate the impact of compromised accounts.

Technical news

• Administrators and bureaucrats can no longer unblock themselves unless they placed the block initially. This change has been implemented globally. See also this ongoing village pump discussion (permalink).
• To complement the aforementioned change, blocked administrators will soon have the ability to block the administrator that placed their block to mitigate the possibility of a compromised administrator account blocking all other active administrators.
• Since deployment of Partial blocks on Test Wikipedia, several bugs were identified. Most of them are now fixed. Administrators are encouraged to test the new deployment and report new bugs on Phabricator or leave feedback on the Project's talk page. You can request administrator access on the Test Wiki here.

Arbitration

• Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee Elections is open to eligible editors until Monday 23:59, 3 December 2018. Please review the candidates and, if you wish to do so, submit your choices on the voting page.

Miscellaneous

• In late November, an attacker compromised multiple accounts, including at least four administrator accounts, and used them to vandalize Wikipedia. If you have ever used your current password on any other website, you should change it immediately. Sharing the same password across multiple websites makes your account vulnerable, especially if your password was used on a website that suffered a data breach. As these incidents have shown, these concerns are not pure fantasies.
• Wikipedia policy requires administrators to have strong passwords. To further reinforce security, administrators should also consider enabling two-factor authentication. A committed identity can be used to verify that you are the true account owner in the event that your account is compromised and/or you are unable to log in.

Obituaries

• Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (Raymond Arritt) passed away on 14 November 2018. Boris joined Wikipedia as Raymond arritt on 8 May 2006 and was an administrator from 30 July 2007 to 2 June 2008.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:36, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Request

Greetings! Please delete the violent edits by an IP user on my talk page. Also delete my reverts of those edits. Thanks. --Binod Basnet (talk) 11:14, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

 Done --Bbb23 (talk) 12:20, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Sharif ud Din

This is an article containing to much history. This person is decendent of legendary Qais Abdur Rashid(he is 37th decendent of king saul of israel) also decendent of to many kings he was also a king and he is also ancestor of to many kings and tribes he .this is a major subject wikipedia need it. Durrani khurasan (talk) 13:07, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Help with Paul Atherton entry

Hi Bbb23 I tried to correct what I thought was blatant vandalism from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/185.24.122.58 on the page of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Atherton as all the edits are in relation to UKIP voting or him being homeless and all are unsubstantiated.

I'm not an experienced editor and you reversed my initial correction.

Would you please either assist or explain what I'm doing wrong please?

176.35.133.132 (talk) 16:41, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

That would have been a good idea, but it's not what you did. You changed the lead sentence to something that was incorrect and ungrammatical. I've now removed what you wanted to remove. Thanks for pointing that out. I've also done a little work on cleaning up the copy errors in the article. It's pretty poorly written, but I don't feel like spending the time to do a good job of it. Maybe someone else will, but I won't hold my breath.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:03, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

I simply removed the word "was" and "which folded in the early 2000's" which were inserted by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/185.24.122.58 and clearly inaccurate (as the company was founded in 2005). That was what you reversed of mine and as you did so literally a minute after I published, I stopped editing in order to discuss it with you. Thanks176.35.133.132 (talk) 17:18, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

After your change, the first sentence read "Paul Atherton (born 20 March 1968) managing director of Simple (TV) Productions." As you can see, there's no verb in that sentence. Putting that aside, does Simple (TV) productions exist? If not, when did it cease to exist? Are there reliable sources for any of this (the archived source in the article is unhelpful)?--Bbb23 (talk) 18:05, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

ClassifEYE: A7 does not apply to a Product or Service/requesting AfD

While researching & writing ClassifEye "Eye" (the software product) I encountered Google hits for "EYE" (Baader's hardware-based product); both involve using cameras for classifications-

• "Eye" for fingerprint authentication
• "EYE" for filtering out damaged chicken wings, bruises, other unfavorable situations.

My original goal was to write "Eye" but I started "EYE" so others could help it along if I didn't do enough to make it Wiki-worthy.

A7= No indication of importance (people, animals, organization, web content, events)

That makes the A7 seem like a mistake.

As for G11 (G11= Unambiguous advertising or promotion), it is not unambiguos, and I'd like to be given an AfD opportunity. Wiki even has WP:HEY to prove the value of AfD.

Speedy, from the little I've read, is for lightening the load at AfD.

I'm aware that each article has to stand on it's own, but I've learned from watching a similar process with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/David_Bashow

which is also about a started on this, also worked on that.

(Bashow is a word, albeit not in standard English) Bashow is just a section in Shidduch, but it's how I came (via Google false "hits") to work on "David Bashow"

AfD? Pi314m (talk) 03:40, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm having great difficulty in understanding what you're saying.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:44, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

I requested an AfD. You tagged the speedy w. "(Multiple reasons: speedy deletion criteria A7, G11)" and (a) it doesn't seem to match A7's criteria list; (b) I tried to explain it not being G11. Sorry if not clear/not to the point, including requesting AfD. Pi314m (talk) 16:58, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

You still make no sense, but I assume you want the article restored so it can go through the AfD process. That's not how things work. You haven't justified restoring the article in the first instance. As for the A7 issue, I construed the article to be in fact an article about the non-notable company that makes the product and that your focus on the product was an attempt to game the A7 issue. Just as your "link" to the company was bogus as there is no article about the company.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:05, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

OK,"guilty until proven innocent." Would |page=5 of https://ecitydoc.com/download/newsletter-newsletter-2_pdf (instead of ISSU.com) have been better? Pi314m (talk) 19:32, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Aussie sock

Can you check the SPI page? 2402:1980:8245:FE33:2CF9:6347:D194:7765 (talk) 17:47, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

GRP

Hi Bbb23 -- saw your post on Bsadowski's page. The answer to the question you seek is here. :) Antandrus (talk) 00:10, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

He's also the same as this guy, if you need a SSP case. There are probably a bunch of others that aren't linked to him, but he has made thousands of socks over the years. He's globally banned here. Antandrus (talk) 00:17, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

@Antandrus: A musical voice from the past! What a pleasure. Thanks for the history lesson, all before my time of course. I followed all the dots you gave me. Is there a user named George Reeves Person on another project? Doesn't exist on en.wiki. Why isn't Projects (talk · contribs · count) the master (it was the oldest account I could find based on what you provided)? Regards.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:50, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

You know -- that's a really long story. I'm not sure why the "GRP" name stuck. One of his idiosyncrasies is that he wants to be perceived as a group of different people, and keeps renaming himself -- "no, I'm named George! No, Goran! No, Gogi! No, Goorge!" etc. One of his early obsessions was with George Reeves and it kind of stuck. "BoxingWear" was the sock that got the most name recognition though. He's still quite active, on various Wikimedia projects, harassing and spamming links to various junk he has splattered around the internet. He was in jail for almost three years (harassment, stalking, threats, etc.) but got out in March, and started right back up here, alas. Antandrus (talk) 04:02, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Close challenge

Bbb23, I object to your close of the WP:ANI#GiantSnowman's voluntary restriction. Serious concerns about GiantSnowman use of mass rollback have been raised and have not been adequately resolved. Contrary to your close statement, he explicitly said that he would continue using it in greyer areas (such as this incident and some others highlighted by other users). I am seeking input from the community about this issue, regardless of whether you think that administration action is going to be taken. This reminds me of the time six years ago when you did the same thing when I reported an admin for edit warring.

Please re-open the discussion and quit being so heavy handed. Thank you.- MrX 🖋 15:07, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

@MrX: (talk page watcher) Bbb23's close is entirely appropriate. GiantSnowman has acknowledged that their use of the mass rollback script was inappropriate and has promised to discontinue using it in light of the complaints. The rollback permission can't be removed from administrators, so keeping the thread open to harp on it more is just harassment at this point. If you want to bring this to Arbcom to pursue having GiantSnowman's admin permissions removed then do so, but I think you know how that's going to go. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:41, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Actually, I said I'd stop in grey areas - my exact words were "I'll continue to use mass rollback against clear vandalism/socks etc. However, I'll be far more careful about using it in greyer areas." Like Ivanvector says this is beginning to feel like harassment now. GiantSnowman 15:44, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

"be far more careful" is not semantically equivalent to "stop". How do you not realize that? And no one is harassing you; they're asking you to use the tools responsibly from now on. You have given flippant responses that don't address the magnitude or seriousness of the concerns. You should only be using mass roll back for unambiguous vandalism or sockpuppetry, and you consult with others otherwise. - MrX 🖋 16:04, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes it does. Numerous editors/admins have closed/said to move on, and the editor in question accepted my apology and explanation hours ago; you're basically just piling on at this stage. GiantSnowman 16:11, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

You're being defensive and avoiding what I actually wrote. You were asked if you would stop using mass rollback, and you answered that you would be far more careful about using it in the gray areas. That's not good enough. - MrX 🖋 16:18, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

If you'd like to propose that GS should be banned from use of the mass rollback tool, you should start a new discussion (below the closed one would be a good place) proposing that as a formal sanction. If you continue going to various places and demanding that GS do what you say, I'm going to block you for harassment. Your choice. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:25, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Ivanvector, I didn't invite you or GS to this discussion and I don't particularly give a shit what you think. Bye. - MrX 🖋 16:34, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I'm going to jump in here. The only reason I didn't respond to MrX was because of their approach, not because of the facts they set forth. MrX is correct that GS did not say he would stop using the script in gray areas, only that he would be more careful. My closure should have been better worded to reflect that, and GS should either acknowledge that's what he'll do henceforth or say, no, he'll stop using the script except for socks and vandalism. From my point of view, I would have closed the discussion anyway because I believe that GS's being more careful in the future is good enough. I see no reason to throttle GS's use of the script as it sounds like he has already taken to heart comments by others.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:38, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

I have nothing against GS but this abuse of rollback and his flipant excuses and offer to be more careful in "grey areas" (this was not a grey area) would be treated much differently if he was a regular user. For example - blocked users have to fully admit wrong doing and promise not to repeat to get an unblock, regardless of the truth of the matter. A non-Admin might have been blocked or at least topic banned - it has happened to me on far less evidence. Another case of Admin privilege, a too quick close and no sanctions to prevent further abuse. Legacypac (talk) 17:07, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Like I said to MrX, the approach here is the same whether admin or not: propose a restriction and have the community debate. There are plenty of administrators who are under editing restrictions imposed by the community because of issues with their editing or their use of this-or-that non-sysop tools (as the massrollback script is - you can use it if you want to), and based on how that discussion was going, if you were to propose that GS should be banned from use of massrollback, you'd find some support. But chasing an editor (admin or otherwise) demanding that their acknowledgement of the issue isn't "good enough", particularly when the user who was actually harmed has already moved on, is just plain harassment, and no editor (admin or otherwise) should have to tolerate it. That's my opinion regardless of whether you invited me to the party. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:20, 5 December 2018 (UTC)