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 203.250.88.126 (talk) at 02:25, 14 July 2017 (→‎Request for protection: 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.

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)

Re: RFA

I appreciate your support regarding a run for adminship; I've outlined my work record, rationale for running, answers to questions, and other pertinent bits on my talkpage. An ORCP a few months ago was favorable, but I wanted to wait a bit longer until my schedule cleared up and I was in the right mindset.

As of now, I'm very grateful for the offers of two admins - Dweller and Ritchie333 - to serve as noms. Admin abilities would remove a layer of bureaucracy by precluding my need of the "requesting admin action" status. This would greatly facilitate my ability to clerk cases.

Since we've worked together extensively at SPI, I was wondering if you might be willing to put in a few good words as a co-nom. If you are cautious about having too many co-noms, I fully understand. I am only asking because I believe that you have been in a unique position to review my SPI work. I would say that my best SPI work has probably been OfficialPankajPatidar/Ashishchopra778, Motivação, and Xdeluna. Please tell me if you disagree - I'd be glad to know.

Thanks again, and I hope you've had a happy 4th.

GABgab 23:17, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That would mean you get two firsts from me. The first clerk I trained, and the first editor I (co)nominated for RfA. You're trying to broaden my horizons. A few questions. Can you link to the ORCP discussion? Are Dweller and Ritchie333 okay with my being a co-nominator (if they are, I'd like to be the third co-nom listed as I assume they will write more comprehensive nominating statements than I)? When are you thinking about doing it (hint: when would I have to write my statement?)? Just so it's clear, I would be pleased to do it if it works out that way.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:52, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, I try. ORCP is here. Dweller has invited me to ask anyone as a co-nom (I had mentioned your name specifically, as I thought asking a CU was vital). The exact timeframe is unclear - I'll have to wait to hear back from Ritchie333 and Dweller. Moreover, as Dweller requested, I have reached out to a couple of editors who had opposed my previous RFA, so I'll want to hear from them, too. My best guess is in a week, +/- 2 days. I wouldn't want to rush this. Once again, thanks for your help. GABgab 00:02, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have created Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/GeneralizationsAreBad 2. I've gone over the content and deletion side of things, and I'm happy with that, but could really do with a co-nominator to talk up the SPI activities, which is something I don't know much about and can only trust what other people tell me. Imagine you're on Dragon's Den, only there are 150 Dragons in front of you and your job is to "sell" GAB as the perfect administrator to all of them - write something like that. The RfA is in "draft" mode at the moment; it'll probably stay there for a week or so while nominations and the standard questions are finalised, so there's no rush. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:22, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like timing was accelerated and it's live. Good luck.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:33, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What happened to Dweller?--Bbb23 (talk) 15:37, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/The Purplebackpack89 UCLA Stanford Terminator

When you said, "not a big deal if it's not moved", where did you want it moved to? pbp 17:10, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't "want" it moved.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:12, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like something is being implied that you're thinking but I'm not getting. Are you saying that because the addresses are all blocked and it's pretty obvious who they are connected to, it's no biggie? Or are you saying something else. pbp 17:31, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – July 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2017).

Administrator changes

added Happyme22 • Dragons flight
removed Zad68

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Miscellaneous

  • A newly revamped database report can help identify users who may be eligible to be autopatrolled.
  • A potentially compromised account from 2001–2002 attempted to request resysop. Please practice appropriate account security by using a unique password for Wikipedia, and consider enabling two-factor authentication. Currently around 17% of admins have enabled 2FA, up from 16% in February 2017.
  • Did you know: On 29 June 2017, there were 1,261 administrators on the English Wikipedia – the exact number of administrators as there were ten years ago on 29 June 2007. Since that time, the English Wikipedia has grown from 1.85 million articles to over 5.43 million.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Jon Kieran page

Hi Reddogsix, A page I created was deleted under A7: Article about a real person, which does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject. The page is Jon Kieran

URL: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jon_Kieran

I don't remember what exactly was written there but likely content was indeed missing with more details that would explain the importance and significance of the subject. Sorry, my mistake. But, that's not to say that the subject is not important - the article certainly belongs on Wikipedia, with some revisions to flush out the importance etc.

Jon Kieran has been nominated as a political candidate in the riding of Don Valley West, in the Province of Ontario, Canada to run against the Premier of Ontario in her own riding. This is significant to many people living in Ontario, and to voters researching the candidates in the upcoming Ontario election.

I would request that you please restore this page, at which point I will make sure to add the required content to indicate "the importance or significance of the subject."

Thanks,

Evank28 (talk) 21:57, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not Reddogsix. They tagged the article. I deleted it. A nominee for a political post, without more, is not normally notable.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:04, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Bbb23. He's not just a nominee for a political post, he's already a candidate and he's running in a highly contested riding. In the same riding as the premier. He's also written numerous articles in the National Post, a major Canadian Newspaper.
He's also the former chair of the board of directors of the Canadian Solar Industry association, http://www.cansia.ca/ And former VP of Development at EDF EN - http://www.edf-en.ca/
More info:
http://www.zoominfo.com/p/Jon-Kieran/1984785941
I urge you to reconsider. Many people, voters in Ontario, would benefit from free, objective information posted on the easy to find Wikipedia.
Evank28 (talk) 00:14, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
User:Evank28, please read WP:NPOLITICIAN. Unelected candidates do not usually get articles unless they were already WP:Notable for some other reason. The additional information you offer - has written articles in the newspaper, chair of the board of directors of an industry association - are not enough to meet the notability standard, which is found at WP:BIO or WP:GNG. --MelanieN (talk) 03:45, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think your closure was wrong.

WP:SOCK states that "If you believe someone is using sock puppets or meat puppets, you should create a report at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations." There is strong evidence that account is a sockpuppet of a master account based on the provided link. There is also ample precedence for WP:SPI investigating instances of paid editing where socks are involved. Just because the master is unknown doesn't mean there aren't two accounts at play here.--v/r - TP 01:55, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@TParis: Your quote is a generalized statement and doesn't envision an SPI being opened with only one puppet in search of a master. "An investigation can only be opened if your evidence clearly shows, from suspicious Wikipedia edits and/or log entries, that two or more accounts (or different IP editors) seem likely to have the same operator and to be breaching our sock-puppetry policy" (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Guide to filing cases). It is standard for single-account SPIs to be rejected. Whether it's allegations of paid editing or other misconduct is irrelevant. I have two related alternatives to suggest. First, you could contact a CheckUser privately, and they might be willing to run a check without an SPI. Second, you could post the problem at WP:ANI, which has the advantage of possibly attracting the attention of more than one CU who might then run a check. (Although I would have rejected the SPI anyway, I don't understand why you didn't request a CU. Did you expect a clerk to find another account based purely on behavior?)--Bbb23 (talk) 11:36, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, I didn't expect a Clerk to find another account, I'm just unfamiliar with the process.--v/r - TP 13:58, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The account was literally created five minutes before the article was created with proper wikitext, infobox, formatted refs, etc. -- this could not scream "sockpuppet to hide paid editing" louder even if it was named User:PaidEditingSock. Violations of the TOU must be investigated. If not at SPI with a CU check, Bbb23, what other venue do you believe the community wants these to be investigated at? Additionally, Noam Javits is the name of a well-known Israeli entrepreneur and online marketer covered by some media articles (TechCrunch news) so I'm worried this could be an impersonation/joe job attempt? ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 02:29, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I very much share the concerns expressed by other editors here. There are so many obvious behavioral clues here that there can be no doubt that we are dealing with a multi-account effort to be seriously disruptive to the project. Nobody is asking clerks to do searches. The request is for a checkuser examination. I think I understand the rules, and if an individual checkuser does not agree with the request, it can still be reasonable for another checkuser to decide otherwise. One way to get to that is to start contacting other checkusers individually, or to post at ANI. But another would simply be to leave the existing SPI for another checkuser to provide a second opinion, and in this specific case that seems to me to be a reasonable approach to adopt. Here is a good example of where judgment trumps strict but superficial adherence to the rules: [1]. I'm hoping that you will reconsider strict rule interpretation here. Thank you. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:19, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I will put this here, because I don't think I would be permitted to put it at the SPI page, but I think that I am seeing a possible sockmaster. Neptune's Trident showed up at the AfD for the Foundr page to argue for keep [2], and has been making many very rapid edits to the page itself to add more sources. That of course doesn't prove anything, but then they also made this edit: [3]. The edit removes a "multiple issues" template from a BLP, without fixing any of those issues, and the BLP is about an entrepreneur, just as the Foundr page is about an entrepreneurial startup. The user's talk page history shows a gigantic number of notifications about pages nominated for deletion, with each notification quickly reverted by the user. Taken together, this looks to me like a pattern that would be consistent with a user who might also be making sock accounts to create pages for undisclosed pay. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:55, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • To be fair, Neptune's Trident has been around for a long time and seems to write mainly on popular culture. It is possible, I imagine. I'm not sure I disagree with BBB23 here, except that the alternatives (privately contacting a checkuser or going to a drama board) don't seem very appealing. It is preferable to allow requests at SPI when a sockpuppet is publicly acknowledged, and I think that perhaps what's needed is to tweak the rules to allow SPI cases to be commenced when there is no obvious sockmaster. However, there would have to be safeguards to prevent "joe jobs" or rivals/competitiors alleging sockpuppeting by third parties, none of which appears to apply here. Also I have seen situations in which SPAs have been blocked for "abusing multiple accounts" based on purely behavioral evidence, without resorting to CU, which does present privacy concerns.Coretheapple (talk) 13:59, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I want also to continue what I said just above – about both the immediate issue with the SPI, but also reminding you of the past incident with Sizeofint – by drawing your attention as well to the discussion that, in part, involves you, at Wikipedia talk:Harassment#Linking to public advertisements to recruit paid Wikipedia editors. I am concerned that there may be a pattern here, and I hope that you will understand my concerns as good-faith. It's important not to regard the use of the checkuser permission as a rigid, algorithmic decision-making process. There are also matters of human judgment and working with a community, including a willingness to listen to community concerns. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:31, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Bbb23 would you please reconsider your close of the SPI? I understand the instinct and Prime Directive to protect privacy, but this is a rare case where we have very clear evidence of a recent throwaway sock account (as noted by Salvidrim -- which should be entered into the SPI case) and this person probably will continue to do the same... and I ~think~ it is recent enough that a CU could find other accounts. If you don't want to use your CU privileges to run the CU that is your judgement, but please do leave it open so that someone else can do. It is best that this is done in public and SPI is the most appropriate venue to protect against wild claims being raised. Please do reconsider. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 01:30, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please advise on the delete of Service-Learning Asia Network (SLAN)

It came to my attention that the article, Service-Learning Asia Network (SLAN) did not "credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject". Please advise, I would like to learn from my mistake. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loststeak (talk • contribs) 14:38, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Asking for insight

Hello Bbb23, long time no talk! I have a bit of an issue that I'm not sure how to handle. For the past couple of weeks a user has been reverting many of my edits (I get the notifications), only to reinstate my changes into their own edits. A good example (there are many more like this) is here: I made this minor edit [4], which was reverted by the user [5]. They then reinstated my change into their very next edit here [6]. I politely asked the user what they were doing and why [7], and they reverted my question with the edit summary "Okay, I'm trying to start all over and see if I can make more improvements than you did" [8]. I have no clue if this is a tacit understanding for them to stop or if they are simply trying to tell me what their (misguided) mission is. I know this user has been editing frequently for some time, and this is the first time I've had any run-ins with them - I'm not sure if this is a regular issue or not, or how to handle this - but it is certainly getting annoying signing on every day to find 3 notifications of reverts only to find that my edits were good and reinstated by the user into the page...seems fishy... Thanks for any comments or help. Garchy (talk) 17:32, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please Un-Delete Album article Relentless Mutation

Hello, Bbb23, I received an alert that you deleted the music album page I'd created for the upcoming Archspire release Relentless Mutation. The following was given as a reason for the speedy deletion: (A9: Article about a musical recording or list of musical recordings where no articles exist for the artists, which does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject) based on Wiki's Criteria for speedy deletion. I can't argue with that reason - Archspire didn't have a wiki page at the time - however, I just created one for them, and it is quite extensive and well sourced. I believe it suits wiki guidelines at the moment and I plan to build it out more. As a result, could you please un-delete my article for Relentless Mutation? Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by EmperorQuingus (talk • contribs) 18:23, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies: I was waiting for you to come back. Could you please look at Archspire, the band article created by EQ, and tell me if you think it's notable? Technically, I should restore the album article as long as the band article exists, but, practically, it'd be nice to know if it's going to stick around. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:02, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • After breakfast, dear Bbb. Drmies (talk) 13:17, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, that's hard to say. Strictly speaking it's a no--the sourcing is all chatty and metalziny, and they have only one album on a notable label. But at AfD you'll have someone argue that Blabbermouth is notable and therefore the press releases issued via Blabbermouth count as reliable secondary sourcing, and blah blah, so there's no telling how that might go; it should go toward delete but you never know. I will go and prune that article of chit chat. Thanks Bbb, and good luck with it, Drmies (talk) 20:56, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, Drmies. I'll probably wait to see if the author asks again for me to restore the album. The fact that it hasn't even been released yet is a factor in my reluctance to restore it, although that's really a reason for AfD, not for A9.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:23, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Bbb23, I would still like the article page restored! I only put it up "too soon" because I wanted to be the one to create the article. I wanted first dibs, if you will. Drmies honest, serious question - is my sourcing too "metalziny"? Those are all (relatively) respected sources in the world of metal music coverage. Unfortunately metal music terminology often references the ripping-off of faces and the crushing of various body parts. It's just industry terminology, I suppose. Also - Archspire are a legitimate band. I'm willing to guess their upcoming album, Relentless Mutation will chart on the Billboard 200, which kind of certifies them as legit, right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by EmperorQuingus (talk • contribs) 13:16, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No request made to delete Roman Catholic Diocese of Highveld

Dear Administrator, please kindly remove the tag placed on the Roman Catholic diocese of Highveld for removal from Wikipedia. No such request was made by the owners of the page nor by its associates.

Thank you for your understanding. Bishopseraphim (talk) 07:08, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page gnome) @Bishopseraphim: Deletion tags can be put by anyone who considers it appropriate according to WP:CSD. In this case the article has no source (WP:RS) to indicate notability or to verify (WP:V) any of the claims. There is also no credible claim of significance (please carefully read the deletion tag message). Thanks, —PaleoNeonate - 07:53, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Acceptable user page?

Hello again. I just fell on Menj's user page and am wondering if it's acceptable, considering that it looks like a linkedin profile with external links, or a WP:FAKEARTICLE? If not, where/how should I report these, should I CSD them and let the processing admin determine? Should I alternatively request on the user's talk page that links be removed or the page blanked? I doubt that this is a case for WikiProject Spam, although interestingly I found one reference to that guy's blog at Uzair, accessed via Google cache, which I just removed. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate - 14:03, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You would normally tag it as WP:CSD#U5, but we'll just say you did. I've deleted it.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:06, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I remember CSDing user pages once or twice although they were not personal profiles but really company promotional tracts; thanks for confirming that promotional personal user bios are also eligible. —PaleoNeonate - 14:11, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a moron

Sigh... just see the Marvello123 SPI. I apologize for accidentally writing over some of your CU blocks. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 17:04, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Query

Hi Bbb23. I currently have the longest-standing open SPI report at WP:SPI, which is coming up on a month since I raised it. Could I have lodged the SPI report incorrectly in any way, or is it just the luck of when someone gets around to it? Just looking to understand whether I need to take any other action. Aspirex (talk) 09:53, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you have one of the oldest, not the oldest, but that's probably little consolation. I don't see that you did anything wrong. I wouldn't call it "luck". It's just whether a clerk decides to take it.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:04, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the assurance. I'll be patient. Aspirex (talk) 06:55, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sock question

Has there been a checkuser involved with this huge array of socks that you've been blocking? [9] Odd to see so many accounts especially when the article wasn't even semi-protected. Enigmamsg 04:03, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's been a long time since I've run checks on these accounts as they are so patently obvious, so I just block them without tags per WP:DENY. I have a reason why I've not semi-protected the article, but I can certainly understand why you or another admin would do so.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:02, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really understand the reason. If some kind of rangeblock is not implemented to prevent this user from continually creating new accounts, the target articles require protection. I'm just surprised there isn't some kind of sockpuppet category considering this user must have created 20+ socks. Enigmamsg 19:26, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read the wikilink on my word "reason"? There is a master, and there is an SPI. I didn't tag the accounts per WP:DENY. I really don't have anything more I want to say about this.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:32, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

JbanksBTM

In answer to your question, "If you think there's sock puppetry, open an SPI. If you don't, then what is the purpose of a CU?", there's no time overlap in editing so no SPI offence.

PayTechGuy created the material in his sandbox, User:PayTechGuy/sandbox. JbanksBTM copied it to live, PayTech of Things.

Either PayTechGuy saw the COI/UAA problems with his username, switched to the JbanksBTM account and moved his own material to mainspace, which merits a {{uw-agf-sock}} caution, and a gentle admonishment not to use his old account again;

or they're two different people, in which case JbanksBTM is robbing PayTechGuy of credit for his work, which merits a whole different set of c&p responses.

I thought that was a sufficient reason to ask if they were the same person - obviously I was wrong. I'll leave the whole issue in your hands to deal with as you will. Cabayi (talk) 14:42, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IP block exemption check

Hi Bbb23! I was wondering if you could help me out with something - I have a student with WikiEd (Umbereenbmirza) who is editing out of Turkey via a VPN. I helped her set up an account, but she hasn't been able to edit since her IP address is blocked. It wasn't for anything that she did, it just happens to be part of Redstation Limited, a web host provider or colocation provider. (If I understand all of that correctly.) She needs to have an IP block exemption, but I've never done one of those before and since I work with WikiEd (as Shalor (Wiki Ed)), I didn't know if it would be inappropriate for me to do this myself. I saw that one of the things that is recommended is to get a CheckUser to verify the need, so I thought I'd ask if you could help with this.

I didn't know if I would be able to do the IP block exemption thing myself since I work with WikiEd, as I wasn't sure if that would be a conflict of interest here. I don't think it would be super common and WikiEd deals predominantly with students located in the United States. We do have some students outside of the US, but they're in the minority for the most part so it wouldn't be something I would do more than a couple times a year, if that. My inclination is to allow others to do it, though - just so it's all on the up and up. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 21:45, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • I figured that you'd be a good person to ask since you're an admin and a checkuser. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 21:47, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Tokyogirl79: If I understand properly what I'm looking at, Umbereenbmirza, Shalor, and a large number of students are all using the same webhost (not Redstation Limited). They're using one IP in a range that is indeed blocked (globally by a steward), but it is soft-blocked, meaning she has been able to edit through it. So, I'm assuming it's a different IP she's talking about. Has she told you the address? It's not going to pop up on my check because attempts to use a hard-blocked IP aren't displayed unless she edits her own Talk page. Indeed, if you ask her to make a test edit to her Talk page, I should be able to see it.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:38, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was able to get her an IP exemption, so hopefully it won't affect her too much. I'm not sure if she's editing under any other IP - she sent us an image and that IP was the one that came up. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:58, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Accopulocrat sock

I found a static IPsock of this guy that has edited since July 4 without a block - what general block duration would you advise? Thanks! GABgab 21:41, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@GeneralizationsAreBad: A week or 10 days, whichever you prefer.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:43, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Done - thanks. GABgab 21:46, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request for protection

Recently concluded TV series with persistent removal of reliably sourced content by IPs and newly-created accounts. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Emperor:_Owner_of_the_Mask&action=history 203.250.88.126 (talk) 02:25, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bbb23&oldid=790491350"