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.

Bap Homaker

Given what's on this user's talk page, you should probably revoke their talk page access. Thanks, --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 22:30, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

He kind of repeats himself, doesn't he? Revoked and page deleted. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:43, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 22:51, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

HarveyCarter?

I was about to compile facts for an SPI, but I thought I'd try to check with you first. I believe that User:Sdjkl1 may be LTA banned sockmaster User:HarveyCarter. Their edits to Anthony Eden, Ramsay McDonald, Appeasement and [[German declaration of war against the United States {19431)]] look very much like the editing style of User:Gafbns, User:LanceCaldwell, and User:CharltonChiltern - all sockpuppets of HarveyCarter, and all (I believe) CU blocked by you. These editors add "facts" to the articles, some of which run counter to the normal consensus among historians, but all of which are totally unsourced. They are presented as positive declarative statements, some of which are interpretative, but none of which ever have a source. When one asks for sourcing, the "facts" are repeated ad nauseum on the talk page, often with exactly the same wording, but almost never with a source.

I wondered if you could take a look at least at the behavior and see what you think -- although in looking through the SPI archives, it seems that with HarveryCarter there is almost always more than one sock found when a CU is run. If you think my sketch of the problem here is insufficient, please let me know and I'll work up something more extensive for SPI. Thanks. BMK (talk) 23:57, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

 Confirmed.  No sleepers immediately visible. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:11, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

No, thank you. BMK (talk) 03:21, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Is it just me or...

...is the SPI table failing to update again?--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:45, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Not for me, just its usual lag but it seems to get there.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:46, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I won't switch it to back up. Every time I open a "CU requested" SPI, you've already actioned and closed it. Efficient as usual I see. --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:49, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

My recollection is we should never switch it to backup as it creates a bigger mess than whatever mess the current one might be in. Anyway, unless I do something tomorrow morning, after today you can action as many as you like. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 22:08, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Hasn't the backup remained unupdated since June or something? Remind me to hassle DQ about it next time I speak with her... ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 22:17, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

That's my recollection. I remember your putting in the backup a while ago and then reverting youself once you realized the state of it.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:21, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

I've checked in a different browser and it appears to be a combination of a caching issue on my end combined with a longer than normal lag. On a separate note, I'd invest in these if you don't have a pair already. --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:34, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Your break

I did not see a sitewide notice pointing to a discussion to determine if there was consensus for your break. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:28, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

• Strong oppose. This break is totally against the policies and guidelines. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:57, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

For your return

I altered the block conditions on a CU block you executed to remove talk page access by the user. Is that allowed? See 66.188.93.2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Thanks Tiderolls 12:00, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Hope you don't mind me jumping in here. As a CU, I don't mind if a CU block is changed to disallow talk page access. It only becomes an issue if the duration, autoblock, or anon-only status is altered, as those elements are usually set for a particular reason. Revoking talk page access when it's abused is fine. Just be sure it's easy to note that it's still a CU block. (As you've already done.) Mike V • Talk 06:09, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Mike, that was my operating logic. I just wanted to get a CU's view. Still interested, Bbb23, if you have other points to make when you return. Tiderolls 15:05, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Zenironman

I'm sorry; I know you don't like admins without checkuser ability declining editors with a checkuser block, but this one annoyed me. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 17:58, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Abortion case clarification request

The clarification request is archived at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion#Clarification request: Abortion (November 2015). For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 20:11, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

CU doubts

Hi! I don't quite understand the technicalities related to CU check being performed in SPIs. But I noticed that at the Chander SPI you could fetch out a lot of accounts even though they were not reported as suspects. I think that's possible through whatever tools you guys use. I now have a doubt that while doing such a check, are only non-blocked or active accounts checked? Or are old accounts which are blocked or are not active since ages also get checked?
Why I come here is that the Chander case was a surprise to see many accounts with high number of edit counts. Incidentally, they happened to be editing same genre of articles, of Indian film and television which were favorite with Noormohammed satya socks and also Vibhas Kashyap socks.
The problem here is that this isn't a fanboy editing selective pages but ranges to so many pages and with so many accounts involved its difficult to base any case on behavioural evidence and many well-meaning established editors think that this is all paid editing of PR firms. Hence wanted to check my doubt. I understand you are away now, so maybe some of your tps can help answer. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:45, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I may be able to answer your question but I'm not sure I understand it. With regard to your question "are old accounts which are blocked or are not active since ages also get checked?" The answer is generally no. Per this, the Checkuser tool only provides data on recently active accounts. Checking accounts that haven't edited in recent months yields no data.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:27, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

@Ponyo: Thanks for the reply. Two doubts now; so if the info is not retained for longer time, does it mean that its possible that Chanders who were SPIed last month could very well be Noors (last SPIed in July 2014) or Kashyaps (last SPIed in May 2013)? Also, does it overrule that Noors and Kashyaps are related as both these cases started in July 2012 and had a good amount of overlapping time period? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:09, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Unless there is some technical data regarding the older socks in the checkuser wiki, or retained in the brains of previous checkusers, then the only way to link accounts to a stale sockmaster would be through behavioural data. Is it really important to go back that far though as long as the current disruption is not ongoing? Blocked is blocked no matter which tag is on the sock's user page.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:20, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Unblock request on hold

I wonder if you would be willing to have a look at an unblock request at User talk:Rishika.dhanawade. You placed a CheckUser block on the account on 19 October, on the basis of sockpuppetry with User:Digvijay411. You reported your CU findings at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TekkenJinKazama/Archive, but you did not think that Rishika.dhanawade/Digvijay411 was the same person as TekkenJinKazama.

Rishika.dhanawade now admits to using Digvijay411 as a sockpuppet, but promises not to repeat any of the "mistakes and wrong editing habits". I am inclined to consider giving the editor another chance, and with that view I have invited the editor to give more explanation as to what "mistakes and wrong editing habits" he/she thinks he/she has made and will avoid. However, can you give an opinion on the unblock request? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:21, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Blocked user

This user is back [1]. New account [2] Misdemenor (talk) 23:26, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Got it.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:57, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Possible block evasion

Hi Bbb23. I am wondering if you could take a look at User:Kritksh because I think it might be User:Kritaksh who you blocked back in November for being a sockpuppet of Kartiktiwary. The username is practically identical (only the difference is an "a"), and the edit focusing seems to be Siya Ke Ram and other articles edited by the sockmaster and their socks. It could be just a coincidence of course, but it seems like a duck to me. Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:08, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

This is Krit Krishna from New Delhi. I can't understand what did you say.i will first read more about it then i will give you an appropriate answer. Kritksh (talk) 03:32, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Sockpuppet Radoezikova

Hi.

You were the last admin who dealt with Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Radoezikova/Archive, so I thought I'd come to you with a question. This person made a huge number of fantasy Eurovision and Big Brother pages in their user space, all of which have been deleted for using Wikipedia as a web host. I noticed at Big Brother: The Boss, the user:Radoslav Tsanev account made a bunch of edits. He added hiss fantasy material and then did some edits, and finished by removing the material he added to leave the article looking like it hadn't been really changed. Doing it once can be put down to an accident, but the next day... He added back the fantasy material, along with one day's worth of fantasy game play. After some more of these edity, the material was removed again like before. I just quickly looked at another set of edits in article space from this account, and this shows that this behaviour is not in just one article.

This person is well-versed in editing Wikipedia, and doing multiple times in more than one article shows deliberate intent. I suspect that this person is trying to use the history function of Wikipedia articles to host his fantasy game material.

So at last my question: Is this something that needs to have revisions deleted to remove them? If so, I'm willing to go through the contributions from all the accounts and check them.

Thanks. -- Whpq (talk) 18:29, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

• (talk page stalker)@Whpq: In case you wonder why people do things like that there was an editor a couple of years ago who uploaded tons of copyrighted images (for which they were later indeffed), added the images to articles, along with some reformatting of the articles, and then reverted their own edits again after a few minutes. When asked why the editor said that they "reshaped" the articles to look exactly like they wanted them, and then created pdf-files/books of them (using a built-in function here) before reverting what they had done. Thomas.W ^talk 18:55, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
  • I've seen other editors use the history function as permanent storage for various material that would be otherwise deleted, but that has always been in user space. This is the first time I've seen it in article space. -- Whpq (talk) 19:23, 18 December 2015 (UTC)