Jump to content

User talk:Bbb23

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 115.164.216.90 (talk) at 15:08, 4 January 2016 (→‎MariaJaydHicky: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Caution
  • 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.

Your block of Alwayssmileguys

It might be worth removing talk page access to go with your CheckUser block. This edit added a claim that admins have ganged up to crucify him, a crucified Christ image, and what appears to be a a threat to continue socking. He also insists on blanking the sock block notice and unblock requests. Meters (talk) 05:44, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The threat and crucifixion can remain, but the declines had to be restored per policy. I did that and revoked talk page access. I only came back on-wiki for a moment. Thanks for the heads up.--Bbb23 (talk) 06:13, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. The only change I made was to restore the declines. The rest was just fodder. I see someone else has reverted the whole page now. Meters (talk) 06:16, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, in this case it's not terribly important. The user's talk page access was revoked twice. The other administrator and I did it at almost the same time.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:49, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask are u the page admin??

Who are u?? The page. Admin ?? The person who owns this page or someone who thinks he owns my identity .. Bcos .. FYI .. I am Andria D'souza .. The Vj , Rj and actress Andria D'souza And If I see rubbish or wrong articles written about me I have the right to speak .. Or else .. I would claim a defamation case against you and Wikipedia for making my account without my knowledge or consent and for tampering or defaming me by writing n conveying wrong information to people reading about me

I have the right to speak about my image don't I?? Officialandria (talk) 10:11, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Please do not make legal threats on Wikipedia, as this is against policy. Thank you -- samtar whisper 10:34, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Holidays

And thanks for all the good work you do here, Bbb. Best wishes from 99, 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:49, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, right back at you. And can you please tell me why it's in the high 30s here? That kind of cold belongs somewhere else in the country. Regards.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:41, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I can shed no light on the whimsies of nature. After a run of ridiculously mild days here, we're at last getting something a bit more seasonable. But still it's remarkably nice--no snow on the ground, little in the forecast, and flowers have begun to pop. After last winter you can almost hear a collective sigh. Only four more months to go. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 17:00, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanx!

For [1]. Kept several people busy :-) And Happy Holidays to you.Poepkop (talk) 15:58, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PS And we have a follow up of the blocked one (same pages, similar pattern): [2]. Poepkop (talk) 15:58, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto on the message, Bbb23. Thank you! Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 16:06, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Another portion of Thanx for you! Poepkop (talk) 16:15, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome everyone. I have a headache. I feel like I'm swimming in weird edit patterns lately. Here's hoping things improve.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:39, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Swimming in weird edit patterns" sound cool ;-) I hope your will feell better soon, the vandals "know" it is Holiday season. And actually also a portion of Thank you to User:Callmemirela and User:Dat GuyWiki being busy working against that persistent guy/girl IP (Hope I am not forgetting someone?). So, would anyone care for mayonaise or ketchup with that? Poepkop (talk) 17:42, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A previous sockpuppet block and a request.

A while ago, you indef blocked User:Peacebigline and User:Wikedpluri for using multiple accounts on Lee Man-hee and Shincheonji Church of Jesus the Temple of the Tabernacle of the Testimony - there is another account there now Special:Contributions/Robertseo, making the same edits. I was just going to file a sock puppet report, but I'm sure that even if they get blocked, they will come back with a string of new accounts, so I have a request. Could you put some form of protection on those articles, please? Even semi protected would help. Socks are less effective on articles that require confirmed accounts. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:22, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I blocked Robertseo (talk · contribs · count). The account is not confirmed to the master but to one of the other accounts involved in the original SPI. I don't see how I can justify semi-protecting Lee Man-hee (the new account didn't edit the other article at all). There's been very little disruptive activity on the article. Roberseo's first edit was on December 16 after a gap of no edits by anyone since November 12. And then Robertseo made only two edits, the last of which was on December 20. I'm pretty liberal when it comes to semi-protecting articles that are being attacked by socks, but this one doesn't even meet my threshold.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:03, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the block, it's appreciated. (but probably not by Robertseo) I will keep an eye on the articles in question and revert when needed. There is another editor who drew my attention to the most recent edits, so there are more than just my eyes on the articles. Thanks again. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:34, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Simple wiki

Hi Bbb23, I wondered if you had seen this [3] on the simple wikipedia, I cannot rollback on the simple wiki (no meta rights). Maybe I could just delete but I do not know what you'd want (and if you actually created that page yourself or if IP did so for this purpose). Poepkop (talk) 15:07, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was aware of it but never looked at it. I rarely pay attention to my Talk pages on other wikis. Not to worry about it, but thanks for your concern.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:16, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Poepkop (talk) 15:31, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Benn Jordan sock

I don't really touch sock investigations but thought you might want to see Special:Contributions/88.194.149.117 in relation to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Musicchief007/Archive. I am no longer watching this page—ping if you'd like a response czar 22:14, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Boy, they were on a tear. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:33, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SPI

I normally have a huge admiration for the work you do but this kind of comment in answer to a perfectly reasonable technical question does not encourage me at all to report or block any future socks when when I come across them. I can understand now why so many people describe the SPI cabal as a Walled Garden. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:15, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Kudpung: I tried very hard to lighten the revert with that edit summary. Apparently I failed, at least with you. My revert had nothing to do with the discussion itself. It was purely a procedural revert. Generally, whenever you substantially alter the structure of an SPI, you make it difficult for the future of the case, including archiving the SPI, which is done by script. Sometimes, the script simply won't work. Many times I have had to fix the structure so the script will archive it properly. Perhaps I should have followed up with you on your Talk page. You had other options to achieve the same end. One was to reopen the SPI with the account you mentioned as the suspected puppet. You could then say in your comments anything you thought was pertinent, and clerks and administrators could respond normally. Another would be to initiate the discussion at the Talk page of someone familiar with the case (clerk or other administrator). I apologize for not explaining that to you.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:29, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year!

Happy New Year!
Best wishes for a wonderful 2016!---- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:42, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year Bbb23!

Happy New Year!

Bbb23,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Poepkop (talk) 13:54, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2016}} to user talk pages.

.

Thanks, and clarification request

I appreciate you closing the EW report against me as 'no violation', as well as semi-protecting the page. Do you think it would be appropriate for me to undo my precautionary self revert at this point?

I also want to question your statements that such reverts of IPs, while exempt from 1RR, are still subject to 3RR. This seems to contradict a recent ArbCom ruling that followed the block and subsequent unblock of Huldra for making 10 (!!) such reverts on As'ad AbuKhalil - see the ANI report and follow-on Request for clarification where the drafting arbitrator of the 30/500 restriction stated "As for how to enforce the new GP, I think, as the drafter who voted against it, that This prohibition may be enforced by reverts, page protections, blocks, the use of Pending Changes, and appropriate edit filters. pretty much gives any use a unlimited authority to revert someone who is violating it", and another arbitrator stated "Huldra's actions "" (she reverted 10 times in rapid succession - see [4]) When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 00:34, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The request for clarification is still in progress, so in terms of what exists now, except in cases of vandalism, 3RR still applies. As for whether a revert by you would be "appropriate", I have no comment.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:33, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So why was Huldra unblocked ?!? When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 01:46, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you simply pay attention to your own conduct in this area. Don't wikilawyer the rules to death. Just use some common sense and err on the side of caution when it comes to reverting. Not to be rude, but I have nothing more to say on this issue.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:13, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
it would help if admins are consistent about the rules. Can you explain why an editor that reverted 10 times in a few hours was deemed "not in violation of the restriction " ?When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 02:45, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year, Bbb23!

Happy New Year!

Bbb23,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. –Davey2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 11:21, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Unconstructive opinionated edit

I recently undid an unconstructive edit of an opinion on List of Sweden international footballers. Do you think a warning is necessary in this case, and if so what level as the editor has received two warnings (in July and August 2015)? Thanks. Leeds United FC fan (talk) 20:21, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why you're asking me, but I'd definitely leave a warning and I'd do third level. The IP should have been warned for other edits they made. They haven't made a single constructive edit at Wikipedia.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:07, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I asked you because I look at the delete and block logs to find active admins. Should I leave the warning or are you going to do so? Leeds United FC fan (talk) 21:27, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You should do it as you undid the edit.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:31, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The two warnings given were Level 1, and the user hasn't made any unconstructive edits for a long period of time, therefore do you think I should still do it as a third level warning? Furthermore, the unconstructive edit on the List of Sweden international footballers page was made in November. Thanks for your help and quick responses. Leeds United FC fan (talk) 21:38, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I understand you're trying to do the "right" thing, but I already stated my reasoning earlier in this conversation. Sometimes, it's not just a procedural thing but a commonsense thing, and that's something you may learn as you gain experience. I issued the warning. You've been sprung. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 21:41, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks for your assistance. Leeds United FC fan (talk) 21:47, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Egaplaicesp is Tirgil34

Due to the futility of mentioning this fact at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tirgil34, i'm posting the evidence here to get your direct attention. MagnificentMehmet inserts at Urheimat[5] the same content as an IP at Proto-Turkic language.[6] BronzeAgeYeniseian marks his edit at Karasuk culture[7] exactly like an IP at Bey.[8] Both of these IP's belonge to the range which was blocked as belonging to Tirgil34 in May 2015.[9] Egaplaicesp restores[10] Tirgil34 sock Weftsbuddy[11] at Haplogroup R1b, and Swathmafia creates the article Pazyryk rug[12] based on content added at Pazyryk burials by Tirgil34 sock Osgoem.[13] It's about time that the Egaplaicesp socks are tagged as belonging to Tirgil34 so that their edits can be removed as per WP:EVASION. On a sidenote, Happy New Year! Krakkos (talk) 00:02, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year, Bbb23!

Bbb23, I wish you and those dear to you
golden days of love and joy in a

Happy New Year 2016!

Best regards,
Sam Sailor Talk! 00:08, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pass on!
Send this greeting by adding {{subst:User:Sam Sailor/Templates/HappyNewYear}} to user talk pages.
Information icon Automatic level-2 heading and auto-signing included.
(Unknown artist, Norway, 1916)

Another sock

Hey Bbb23. That guy with that mixed-up SPI case whom you blocked today, just created another sock and started editing.[14] 110% duck. Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 08:17, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

120% blocked. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:51, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, thanks. Here are two more accounts (one is already blocked, just needs the according tag), as well as an obvious IP used by the master. [15]-[16]-[17]. Also I'm pretty sure this is another account for it instantly started editing back when Zarahus was blocked with a very similar editorial pattern. [18] - LouisAragon (talk) 19:25, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What a pain in the butt. Several blocks. I'm intentionally not tagging any of these accounts.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:49, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, he's sticky. Oh well... a happy belated New Year btw! Hope you had a good one. - LouisAragon (talk) 23:57, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(tps butting in) -- A lot of the time tagging them just encourages them. I wish we had a way to tag a sock in a way only an "established" editor/patroller can see. Antandrus (talk) 00:27, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Antandrus: Ahh, my favorite music administrator. Good to know you stalk my Talk page. Tagging is a mixed bag. Some CheckUsers almost never tag, but many of those tend not to work SPIs. Others tag except in the most egregious cases when it's clear that tagging encourages the master. Being a documentarian by temperament, I tag more often than not. In this particular case, the masters haven't been worked out, so tagging would be problematic. Anyway, a very happy new year to you and to LouisAragon, a skilled sock-identifier.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:46, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I got your reasonings and they're quite logical and right I admit to both of you. Yeah some mechanism like that would be great, who knows, maybe in the future. Time will show, as with everything. Thanks for your wishes Bbb23! ;-) Take care - LouisAragon (talk) 10:39, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alwayssmileguys & Patrick Patterson

Re: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Alwayssmileguys/Archive, the sockmaster's original draft of Patrick Scott Patterson (now salted) has showed up at Patrick S Patterson by the new user Kaleshkalu1. Duck? czar 05:11, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Patterson himself apparently has had some issues with WP recently ([19]). And this post references Special:Contributions/SuperPacMan, if there is any relation to the case. czar 05:58, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A bowl of strawberries for you (and those watchers!)

I hope you all have a great year, despite all the recent SPI stuff (which is depressing). Tropicalkitty (talk) 09:35, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MariaJaydHicky

New sock ‎Special:Contributions/82.53.179.230 as a return to contributing. Can you block him/her? (also reverted edit as well). 115.164.216.90 (talk) 15:08, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bbb23&oldid=698187946"