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.

Thank you

You sorted out my somewhat inept posting that became Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rajesh-barclays, made sense of it and took entirely appropriate action. Fiddle Faddle 15:46, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I wonder if something more is going in here than sock puppetry. I am starting to smell the "Paid editing scam" here, with no evidence except my nose hairs twitching. A new editor popped up almost at once and started again with the Jains. Then the editor saying she is Abigail Jan has left an impassioned plea on her talk page (I suspect this may be genuine, but again that is nose hairs).

The scam I am thinking of is the old "We will get your poor article accepted if you pay us money" scam. It smells like preparatory work, but I do not have sufficient experience in this area to look at this more deeply.

You are someone I trust to make a reasoned assessment and to take further whatever needs to be taken further. Fiddle Faddle 16:44, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I think I've seen these accounts before or variants of them, there were three accounts, one of which said that they were editing together at an airport and they work at Barclays. I can't seem to place my finger on where that sighting was, perhaps on an unblock request or something, but it's something over the last couple of weeks and I was thinking Paid COI too. —SpacemanSpiff 16:53, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for staying on top of the Jain Sock Farm proactively. Do you have an opinion on Abigail Jain as an article, and sorting out the reality from the manure? Fiddle Faddle 15:18, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Not really. Too much work, not to mention that the only thing you could do would be to send it to AfD (a second time), and one major area of the encyclopedia I dislike is AfD and it's almost invariably contentious discussions.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:45, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

I took the view that a radical revert was a decent step. I've left a note on the talk page about it. I don't feel desperately strongly either way, just feel in my water that something there is wrong. I suspect it will attract a whole drawer more of socks. Understand your feelings about AfD. I see it as the other side of the AfC pancake and a necessary evil, often populated by forces from that realm. Fiddle Faddle 20:24, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Contributor suspected to be invovled in reputation management

Hello. As Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Scholarscentral/Archive details OMICS Publishing Group have been editing WP for their own advantage for at least three years. Things have been rather quiet recently, but a user proposed changes as they claim the article is outdated and that it is unfair to label them as a predatory publisher, despite no RS saying otherwise. They made several edits yesterday such as removing 'predatory' from the lead and adding false balance by attempting to dispute the predatory label without producing any sources which actually discuss the company. That in itself isn't so suspicious and could easily be in good faith, but looking through their other contribs I noticed that their previous edits wreak of undisclosed paid editing, most damningly this photograph of Hannes Þór Smárason which they claimed as their own work but is clearly a PR shot as evidenced by the EXIF data. The subject was involved in allegations of embezzlement at the time and I strongly suspect that the article was written as reputation management. Combined, I wonder if this is sufficient justification for a CU? There's no non-stale accounts at Scholarscentral to check against and they are clearly a different entity anyway but it seems fairly likely to me that they will have been editing other articles with other accounts. Thanks for reading and for all the other checks you've recently done on my behalf as well! SmartSE (talk) 20:25, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

@SmartSE: Unlikely. No other accounts, and CheckUser logs from 2012-14 do not match this user's location, not even close.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:54, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks for taking a look. SmartSE (talk) 20:15, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Abuse of administrative powers

I was user 81.135.76.255. I've registered an account today because of your misconduct. Earlier today I changed an article on Melanie Philips. It was a reasonable change based on undisputed consensus. My change was reverted and the article locked. Your justification for this was an accusation of 'socking'. This is a false accusation. You've failed to assume good faith. I'm giving you this opportunity to explain your actions before I take this further. Thank youRob789 (talk) 00:04, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

• Yeah, Bbb. Abusive admin. Boo! Drmies (talk) 04:04, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Why?

Why did you revert my closure? Supdiop (T🔹C) 17:31, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

At this point only a bureaucrat can close the discussion.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:43, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

It was a partial closure, general discussion was not closed. I closed it and said it was awaiting bureaucrat closure, so that, people don't vote after time for voting is over. Supdiop (T🔹C) 17:48, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Editors may continue to vote until the RfA is closed by a bureaucrat.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:50, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Ok, what happened to this page? Can you see anything on this page? It just weirdly blanked without anyone blanking it. Supdiop (T🔹C) 18:07, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

What page?--Bbb23 (talk) 18:09, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Many pages were temporarily blanked because of database lag. Thomas.W ^talk 18:10, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

That's what happened. I had just posted to a USER talk page and after the edit was complete the page was blank. When I went to my contributions page there was the statement about the database lag....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:53, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)This page. Now it came back to normal state but for almost 5 minutes, it was just blank. So, database lag is the culprit. Supdiop (T🔹C) 18:15, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Fleetwood Joiner (request for copy of speedied article)

Hello Bbb23, I've been asked to take a look at an article that was recently speedied with you listed as the closing editor on the PROD Fleetwood Joiner an architect. Would you be so kind as to provide me with a copy? Thanks in advance, -- 009o9 (talk) 21:56, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Who is Elaine Newcomer?--Bbb23 (talk) 22:15, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Elaine Newcomer is the moniker for the woman I met today, she is a professional who has taken some workshops at the Getty for Wikipedia editing, expressly for this article. The subject, Fleetwood Joiner, is an award winning architect for extremely high end homes, but also developed sustainable home-building methods while in the Peace Corps. (This is a tough subject for notability issues because of (billionaire) client confidentiality issues) She (Elaine) is very devoted to the subject and his wife, Joiner is in failing health. Elaine has done deep research, but she has concluded that she is too close to the subject to do the article.

I personally, don't want to see her research yet, I want to give her an evaluation on what she did write and the references that are readily available before I evaluate her research. I will be a paid writer on this subject, there is no expectation that my work will be published in the Wikipedia, much like a paralegal, I am only paid to create the document in a format that complies with the policies and guidelines. Thanks for your quick response. 009o9 (talk) 23:01, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) My recommendation would be to restore to draftspace, tag the talk page with {{connected contributor}} for Elaine and {{Connected contributor (paid)}} for 009o9 (along with relevant WikiProject banners), and let them work on it and submit to AfC whenever ready. Paid work (as long as it is diclosed) such as this is IMO desirable and often produces quality articles we might not get otherwise. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 23:11, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

 Done.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:20, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! !!!!! 009o9 (talk) 23:44, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

• Question(s) I've copied the declarations to the talk page, do they need to remain in the article header? Also, I generally like to use the noindex template for articles in progress, would this be problematic in the Draft-space? (I've only worked in User-space until now.) Thanks! -- 009o9 (talk) 23:44, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I've removed the templates from the draft themselves and touched up on the ones on the talk page. I also added an "unsubmitted draft" template to the draft itself. I'm fairly confident draft-space is noindex'ed as a whole, but there's likely no harm in adding the noindex magic word to it. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 00:05, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks!, I read somewhere that the User-space is no-indexed, but I have seen my work mirrored while in progress. I was actually accused of plagiarism at one point, when an editor found my writing mirrored elsewhere and did not bother to further check what kind of content the website offered. 009o9 (talk) 00:35, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

HarveyCarter SPI

Good to see I'm not the only one have finger trouble today ;-) Nthep (talk) 18:07, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

@Nthep: Yeah, all to get your *@#$ signature restored properly. BTW, in the future if you make a mistake in the spelling of the master, don't correct it in the SPI. Contact a clerk and let them know. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:12, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Article title of Bad (tour)

About two years ago, you blocked EscapeX (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) related to edit warring, particularly around the title of the tour related to Michael Jackson's Bad album, whose article is currently at Bad (tour).

Dash9Z (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has taken an interest in making the same change. I don't think there's an overlap, but...something feels wrong. Could you take a look at the situation and see if it's just coincidental interests? Thank you. —C.Fred (talk) 20:31, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

@C.Fred: Not much I can do in my capacity as CheckUser. If you believe the behavioral evidence is there, you can block as a suspected puppet, or if for some reason you believe you can't take action, you can open an SPI and present evidence there.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:21, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't asking for a CU on him; I was more looking if a second set of eyes saw the behaviour. I'm not convinced, so I'll see what happens over time. —C.Fred (talk) 00:35, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

@C.Fred: I actually didn't think you were. I was trying to find a softer way of saying I didn't want to do it. :-) As it turns out, though, I did end up looking at it. I'm not convinced, either. EscapeX was a SPA, whereas Dash9Z has much broader interests. In particular, he seems to be interested in superhero-related articles (and so many drafts). That piqued my interest a bit because there are, unfortunately, a bunch of superhero sockmasters out there. I started looking at one in particular, but I got bleary-eyed and stopped. If I find anything out, though, I'll let you know. Silence means a dead end, at least for me.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:54, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

And that's part of what I was thinking: there are a lot of sockmasters and long-term abusers out there. Just because it wasn't one I recognized, I wanted to make sure his actions weren't a tell to somebody else. No worries. —C.Fred (talk) 01:13, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Just curious

Why did you delete the talk page for Wikipedia:2015 administrator election reform/Phase I/RfC (on 15 Oct., 14:09)? Was there anything of significance on the page? --Biblioworm 05:44, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

No.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:50, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Reminder: Please sign new Wikimedia confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information by 15 December

This is a message from the Wikimedia Foundation. Translations are available.

I wanted to follow-up on an message I sent you in September regarding the need for you to sign a confidentiality agreement by 15 December 2015 (OTRS users have until 31 December 2015) in order to maintain your access from Wikimedia to nonpublic information.

As you may know, the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees approved a new "Access to nonpublic information policy" on 25 April 2014 after a community consultation. The former policy has remained in place until the new policy could be implemented. That implementation work is now being done, and we are transitioning to the new policy.

An important part of that transition is helping volunteers like you sign the required confidentiality agreement. All Wikimedia volunteers with access to nonpublic information are required to sign this new agreement, and we have prepared some documentation to help you do so.

The Wikimedia Foundation is requiring that anyone with access to nonpublic information sign the new confidentiality agreement by 15 December 2015 (OTRS users have until 31 December 2015) to retain their access. You are receiving this message because you have access to nonpublic information and are required to sign the confidentiality agreement under the new policy. If you do not sign the new confidentiality agreement by 15 December 2015, you will lose your access to nonpublic information.

Signing the confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information is conducted and tracked using Legalpad on Phabricator. We have prepared a guide on Meta-Wiki to help you create your Phabricator account and sign the new agreement: Confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information/How to sign

If you have any questions or experience any problems while signing the new agreement, please visit this talk page or email me (gvarnumwikimedia.org). Again, please sign this confidentiality agreement by 15 December 2015 (OTRS users have until 31 December 2015) to retain your access to nonpublic information. If you do not wish to retain this access, please let me know and we will forward your request to the appropriate individuals.

Thank you,
Gregory Varnum (User:GVarnum-WMF), Wikimedia Foundation

Posted by the MediaWiki message delivery 08:11, 16 October 2015 (UTC) • Translate • Get help

CU question

Hello Bbb23, question about CU, if an account last edited on December 5, 2014... is it too old for CU? The reason I ask is I listed VictorSport (talk · contribs) in a SPI that I re-opened Newestcastleman SPI, which I think is linked to the current FCFanclub1 (talk · contribs) sock (and 121.6.121.204 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). I see in the past they had sleeper accounts discovered by CU, so I think there is a strong possibility of other sleepers. Is this enoiugh for a CU check? Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 11:52, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Yes, December 2014 is too old for CU, but if there are logs of CU on that account, we can get some information. Supdiop (T🔹C) 11:59, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Sleeping socks?

Per this exchange, Murrayturtle who has just been blocked by NeilN is almost certainly a sock from this farm, do you think it's worth doing a checkuser to look for sleepers? Voceditenore (talk) 14:47, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

@Voceditenore: Don't know. I'm not familiar with that case. You or NeilN can always reopen the case if you want a sleeper check. You'd have to explain why, though.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:36, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Bbb23. I asked because you blocked Rortosthanos 5 days ago and in the exchange I linked above Murrayturtle admitted to being a sock of Rortosthanos and several others in the same farm. Is it OK for me to re-open Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Yashas T to ask for a sleeper check and to link other recently blocked users to the farm, i.e. Murrayturtle and Magicsan who have exactly the same MO? Or do they only want "new" suspects? Voceditenore (talk) 14:37, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. I am obviously familiar with the case. I'm not fully awake. It seems like the first thing I do when I go en-wiki is get sucked into socks, CUs, etc. Not blaming you, of course, just part of the job. Give me a bit to think what's best. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:43, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

@Voceditenore: I'll run a check on my own later. No need to reopen the SPI. Thanks for your patience.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:47, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Murrayturtle is  Confirmed.  No sleepers immediately visible.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:08, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! I doubt it's the last we'll see of this particular pest, but their MO is so obvious that any new incarnations will be easily spotted. If you ever get tired of CUs and socks, I have dozens of articles on opera singers that could use some serious depufferization. I do quite a bit of it, but it's a lonely job . Best, Voceditenore (talk) 07:50, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for the pointers, I'll go educate myself.  :) valereee (talk) 11:48, 17 October 2015 (UTC) Edit to add: found exactly what I was looking for here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/SPI/Guide_to_filing_cases#What_happens_in_the_case Thanks again! valereee (talk) 12:01, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

@Valereee: Great. Believe it or not, I'd never read that guide. Most of what I do is almost second-nature, so I never hunted it down, but it's a wonderful guide (I just finished reading the whole thing, not just the one section), and it'll be a handy link if someone like you asks a similar question in the future. So we both learned something. :-)--Bbb23 (talk) 13:24, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

This makes me so happy!  :) I'm always amazed at how much more I can still learn about WP after nearly ten years' editing.  :) valereee (talk) 13:29, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Return of the reference-converting sockpuppeter

Hello Bbb23. You may remember me; I basically needed your help well over a year ago with a troublesome user who was using multiple IPs and his own named account (see User talk:Lgfcd) to repeatedly force through changes; ultimately you temporarily and then permanently banned him when he continued using IPs to circumvent the ban and be disruptive. I just noticed a new named user account ([|User talk:Dutral|User:Dutral]])whom I highly suspect is yet another sockpuppet of his, apparently even after a year and half he's still at this. Would you have the time to look into this matter? Kyteto (talk) 14:25, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Re: Karaka Bays

Hi Bbb23 - just a slight comment on this... just because an article is originally created by a banned user doesn't automatically make it a bad article - especially if experienced editors like myself and Gadfium have later edited it into something more encyclopaedic. Policy does allow the deletion of articles created by banned users in violation of their ban, but it does not require it - and actually advises against it if other editors have added to the articles. Karaka Bays does exist as a suburb (and now again has a stub article). Grutness...wha? 10:50, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you

I appreciate the block evasion reversion. I think the original comment of thanks could have been left though. I certainly agree evasion shouldn't be abetted as I have strong feelings that way but I also see no reason to be completely rude by not acknowledging thanks. Not a biggie though, those articles you declined by the way are completely unsourced and are well worth CSD albeit with a shake or two of IAR. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 14:58, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't use IAR at CSD. There are other deletion processes.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:01, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

On another note that I hadn't noticed until just now [[1]] is a fairly caustic and bad faith assumption. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 02:33, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Reporting Aubmn's new sock... multiplying

Hello Bbb23 - As you requested at the Alwaysgreen's case, [2], I am reporting directly to you a new Aubmn's sock, who signed in as Nbnnbnl[3] at the Marie Antoinette article, the very article that caused Aubmn to be banned.

I just undid his edits & am requesting article to be protected.

Best regards, --Blue Indigo (talk) 18:28, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

This time at my talk page [4] under name Justicebm

--Blue Indigo (talk) 19:15, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Prior CU at Commons

• Update: Iggy488 (talk · contribs) is confirmed to be violating block evasion per commons:Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Iggy488 -- see blocks on accounts DoDung2001 (talk · contribs)}, LovelyMemory2001 (talk · contribs)}, by Courcelles, and Lorde1995 (talk · contribs)} by Materialscientist. — Cirt (talk) 16:05, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Should I file a new SPI casepage, with Iggy488 (talk · contribs) as the sockmaster, and above evidence?— Cirt (talk) 16:05, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

It appears admins above have labeled Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of DoDung2001 as the sockmaster for that set, should I file an SPI with that one as the sockmaster? — Cirt (talk) 16:07, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

What you're saying is not quite accurate, but it's not material. Yes, you can file a new case with DoDung2001 as the master. Please don't use CheckUser signals, e.g., confirmed. They are reserved for CheckUsers. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:49, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Okay, no worries, will do. — Cirt (talk) 19:22, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Now at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DoDung2001. — Cirt (talk) 19:32, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

thanks :)

thank you for dealing with those sock puppets (peacebigline etc) so quickly. I get the feeling they will create more socks, but for today it might be a little more peaceful. thanks again Spacecowboy420 (talk) 14:58, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry

Hello, could u please check why my ARV about User:Black Kite, which I am more than sure is sockpuppeter behind User:Zebras234 is mysteriously disseapared?--Azerifactory (talk) 15:11, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

You're very close to being blocked for disruption. I deleted two of your SPIs. The one against Black Kite canot be filed that way because it's against an administrator. You must contact the Arbitration Committee by e-mailing arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org. I seriously doubt that the SPI has any merit. It sounds like you don't like some of Black Kite's actions. That SPI listed Zebras234 as the alleged puppet.

You filed a separate SPI against Zebras234, which makes no sense, where that account was listed as the master. There were no puppets listed and the evidence was again, "I don't like him". You have some serious judgment issues at best.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:19, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Declined CheckUser

Hi, you declined my CheckUser request on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/I B Wright due to insufficient evidence. I don't mean to to argue with you, but could you please clarify what would constitute sufficient evidence? I read the help pages and thought I'd checked all the boxes, in fact personally I would have thought the User Compare Report alone would be enough to justify suspicions, so if that's wrong, what should I have been looking for? Thanks. Uk55 (talk) 17:03, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Something more than just evidence of a recent content dispute. Being UK-based doesn't say much (do you know how many editors are based in the UK?). Your examples of tag-teaming reverts looks more like they were right to revert, and at least in one other editors agreed with them and also reverted. Also, only in one of the sequences did all three users revert. Maybe a better characterization of the the SPI is that the evidence is very weak, rather than "insufficient" because you did, as you say, present evidence.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:40, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for replying, I understand what you mean, but when you say 'something more', what specifically? Maybe you could point me to an example of a similar case that was strong enough? Sorry to keep bugging you, I'm just struggling to make sense of it all. Uk55 (talk) 18:10, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Hopefully my explanation at the SPI has cleared up my thinking for you. I'm sorry I suspected your motives, but given the background, it was understandable. Take care.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:25, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for doing this, I agree it was perfectly understandable, I'm just glad to have this sewn up. Uk55 (talk) 18:34, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Bbb23, and well done for toughing this one out, Uk55. It hasn't been the easiest introduction to Wikipedia for you. I can assure you that editing here isn't always this challenging! Cordless Larry (talk) 18:49, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

There's not much that surprises me these days, but the Tally-ho connection at this SPI definitely gave me pause.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:38, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Overwhelmingly tallyho - if there is such a thing.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:41, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

That's either incredibly ballsy or incredibly stupid.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:31, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Could be both.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:55, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

"Blocked and tagged"

If you want to avoid typing it out, {{bnt}} produced  Blocked and tagged, which I use frequently. :D ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 20:29, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Huh. But wouldn't it look funny (colorful but funny):  Confirmed,  Blocked and tagged, closing. Maybe we could have yet another colored template for "closing".--Bbb23 (talk) 20:33, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

• {{homerun}} could produce: Confirmed, blocked, tagged, and closed. ;) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 21:05, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

• I knew I could count on you.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:57, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I wish there was an icon for INNOCENT. It's not good news when an editor is blocked. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:02, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Only babies are innocent for about the first few days of their lives. You wouldn't like being a CheckUser, or even an SPI clerk.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:05, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Not to mention that Checkuser cannot prove innocence, there's just too many ways to circumvent the underwhelming tools we have at our disposal. The closest is  Unrelated, but even that can be trumped by strong behavioural evidence.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:10, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

No, I would not be a good checkuser. I assume good faith and I know there are editors who once vandalized who turned into decent editors. I think we should celebrate when a SPI shows that accounts are unrelated (no sockpuppeting!), and not when we nab one of those bastards! Editors who are obsessed with sock hunting just baffle and bewilder me completely. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:22, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I should add that my background is in teaching where you never give up hope that a disinterested student can turn around. Anyone can change. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:24, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Many former socks probably have changed, we just never know because the successful ones go undetected. It's those that can't help lingering around the same articles and topics and causing the same disruption that led to the block who end up at SPI.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:33, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) People say this, but I've never seen stats on how many vandals, when given a second chance, turn themselves around, and I'm not talking about disruptive users, but vandals. Also, although anyone can theoretically change, most people don't, although the younger they are the more likely they can change. Finally, even when a vandal is unblocked and doesn't vandalize again - do they turn out to be good editor? These issues are complex, and I doubt that you and I will ever agree on the approach that should be taken. I don't personally have a one-size-fits-all approach. My approach varies depending on the case, but I think it's safe to say that I reject the idea of change more often than you do. There's a bright side, though. Administrators shouldn't be fungible, so having administrators with different approaches is healthy.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:36, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm a big proponent of rehabilism, and more than once have I worked in tandem with editors to get them back to editing after they were "caught" at SPI with a new account evading a years old block. Most of the SPI cases that get thrown our way are not about such editors though, but about people who've been creating sock-after-sock-after-sock for longer than I care to think about. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 23:20, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, Bbb23, notice that I didn't say how frequently people changed. That's where you and I differ, you probably believe a low percentage of disruptive editors change while my guess is that it is higher. I'm also influenced by knowing several adults (some in my family) who were absolute terrors when they were teenagers (drugs, illegal behavior, belligerent) who went through changes and are now quite caring, supportive, positive and generous adults. It's really hard to believe they are the same person.

And I think you're right, Ponyo, no doubt that a fair number of editors who socked or vandalized, maybe as IP editors, return a few years later to Wikipedia, create an account and behave so differently that no connection is made between the former accounts and the current account. This is especially likely if the editor has, in the meantime, relocated to a different area of the state or country. How often this happens though is a question can never be answered given the nature of anonymous editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:52, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Someone is impersonating you

Hello again, someone (I wonder who) has appeared on my talk page today using your signature. The actual edit was made by a mobile IP address. Any ideas how we should deal with this? Uk55 (talk) 12:03, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I blocked the IP for one month. They've been blocked before in August. FWIW, it's fairly clear that it's not I B Wright.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:07, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, but what makes you say that? Uk55 (talk) 12:13, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Not editing from the same part of the world.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:18, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Strange... so I B Wright wasn't from Britain after all? Uk55 (talk) 12:27, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I've struck my comment above. However, I'd prefer not to explain why. Thanks for your understanding.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:32, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Alright, think I understand. Uk55 (talk) 12:41, 21 October 2015 (UTC)