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 183.171.180.233 (talk) at 05:35, 28 July 2017 (→‎Special:Contributions/Pageturner237: 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)

Rowingasia

Can I trouble you to have a look at the recent unblock request? Their claims to not have socked at all are a bit humorous if I can say so. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:28, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@RickinBaltimore: Sure. I revoked Talk page access. We have better ways of spending our time.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:42, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@RickinBaltimore: He evidently decided to resume socking. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rowingasia. GABgab 21:55, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you know, User:Humanweb is User:Utbindas

You might want to compare Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Humanweb/Archive to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Utbindas/Archive. I was keeping an eye on Humanweb, and it's the same "concerned with images and fashion, Indian topics, nudity or sexual topics, and see alsos" matter. Now, if you want to keep the cases separate because the Utbindas account is stale, that is your decision.

Also pinging Mabalu, Mike V, Vanjagenije, Berean Hunter, DeltaQuad and Grayfell from the previous investigation in case they care. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:34, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping Flyer22 Reborn! On a quick scan through, it does look like the same editing style and patterns. I had actually been wondering about Utbindas because coincidentally, an anonymous ISP popped up on Talk:Miniskirt only yesterday to try and get the lede changed again, with a very Utbindas-esque focus on butt and bottom. Now, I know it could be a random drive-by anonymous comment, I didn't think "oh, that's definitely Utbindas" but it's interesting that you should mention them and that they'd possibly been back to their games again the very next day. Hmm. Probably coincidence, but interesting that this alleged Utbindas reincarnation has largely stayed away from articles I edit after I pretty much nailed him down the last time. Mabalu (talk) 15:29, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What a SURPRISE. The anonymous ISP is an Indian ISP. The coincidence increases, along with the similarities to Utbindas. Mabalu (talk) 15:49, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It also seems like another ISP from the same range was just sniffing around the Dress and Miniskirt articles, both articles that Utbindas was very fond of. Thanks for the heads-up. I'll keep an eye out for Utbindas-esque activity now I know they may be back. Mabalu (talk) 16:00, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Declined SPI

Hi there. Can I ask why @Greenbörg: 's SPI request was denied? Given how those accounts are being coordinated right now on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Wise Way and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ehsan Sehgal (3nd nomination), it feels quite pertinent and not 'stale' particularly. Best, Landscape repton (talk) 16:32, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're a new user. Do you know what stale means in the context of a CU request?--Bbb23 (talk) 16:53, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I do not, I had a look around but couldn't see a definition, where should I have been looking?Landscape repton (talk) 16:56, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Somewhere other than Wikipedia. CU data is retained for 90 days. Stale means older than 90 days. Normally, when a check is run, it compares two or more accounts. At least two compared accounts must have data for it to work. Thus, in this instance, one account is not stale, but all others are.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:08, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see, thank you for the explanation. And does this mean that anons can't be factored in to the checks? Because the four anons listed have all been operating in the past week (and only the past week, not earlier than that). Landscape repton (talk) 17:11, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
CheckUsers don't publicly disclose the IP(s) of named accounts per policy.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:13, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Just to be clear that I'm understanding the relevance of that to this case, what you're saying is that SPI can never be used to see if a logged in user is also editing as an un-logged-in anonymous user, because confirming so would publicly confirm their IP address? And SPI is limited in its methods purely to checking IP addresses? Thank you for taking the time to help me understand. Best, Landscape repton (talk) 12:25, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand your last question: "And SPI is limited in its methods purely to checking IP addresses?" The preceding part is correct.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:28, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK, don't worry about the other question, I figured it out. Thank you again. Landscape repton (talk) 12:30, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Non- technical SPI

I saw your comment at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Perfect Orange Sphere and I appreciate you stepping in to do a checkuser (and find another one). I don't doubt your conclusions wrt Moltenflesh, but I also don't doubt that it is, in fact, the same person. I've seen where IPs from a wide variety of real-world places seem to be making the same exact edits, and I presume this editor is using a selection of devices and proxies to obscure themselves from a technical standpoint. Hell, anyone can buy access to a botnet if they look hard enough. So my question to you is, is the SPI wrt Moltenflesh going to be closed due to the technical evidence, or is there some process for moving forward based on the behavioral evidence? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:16, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't close the case, allowing another administrator to block the account if they wish, but I'm now out of it.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:06, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. I wasn't sure if it would be archived or not, since you marked the checkuser done. Thanks. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 04:26, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The block of User:AcademicHistorian

That explains quite a bit. I have a fair bit of experience with User:Ontario Teacher BFA BEd but I didn't twig to this one. Live and learn. Meters (talk) 05:21, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Possible sock

Hi, can you please check if user 122.108.141.214 is a sock of a blocked user. Im suspiscious because over the past 2 months or so they've made gradual requests for about five AFDs to be started on the Articles for Deletion talkpage which they were but they don't want to sign up and do it themselves, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 21:38, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Mandyada Sri Shiradi Sai Baba Mandira

Could I get you to re-evaluate this? It pretty clearly is Mandyadashiradisaibaba (talk · contribs) who has created this article several times under a couple of different titles. (See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mandyadashiradisaibaba/Archive). Thanks. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:55, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

At least you've now identified the master, but it still is ineligible for g5 as the accounts were blocked at the same time.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:00, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand. Mandyadashiradisaibaba was blocked at 01:46 on 21 July 2017. Praneethrao12 created the article about a day-and-a-half later at 13:35 on 22 July 2017. That looks like clear cut block evasion to me. What am I missing here? Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:05, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My fault, I was looking at the wrong puppet. And, actually, the master was blocked even earlier than that on June 16. The June 21 block changed it to a CU block. Deleted. My apologies.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:10, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh good, I'm not completely losing it then. Thanks. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:12, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, I know the feeling. I'm tired and going off-wiki to rest before going to bed. G'night.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:18, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Talk:12 Monkeys#"doesn't need refs"

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:12 Monkeys#"doesn't need refs". Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:16, 23 July 2017 (UTC)Template:Z48[reply]

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Hidden Tempo (talk) 07:41, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Wagner - Block Evasion

Hi, I believe User: 185.69.145.158 is block evading. It is another Vodafone IP address and has expressed the same POV as those previously blocked on Dan Wagner#Talk. I suspect it's the same as User:85.255.232.175 whom you blocked earlier in the week. 94.193.159.223 (talk) 11:46, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Scalia

Hi, Bbb23. You're a valued colleague and I normally would not have reverted an edit you made, but your edit summary indicated you were unaware that the date change was made without discussion by an anon IP without explanation or consensus, and had gone unnoticed till now. This was at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Antonin_Scalia&diff=779596204&oldid=778513538. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:39, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the official Supreme Court bio had gotten updated in the interim. The anon IP either didn't know or didn't cite that, but after talk-page discussion, I've added that Supreme Court cite for the date of your edit. The cites supporting the date discrepancy have now gone into a footnote. All good! Thanks for your patience. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:06, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The Supreme Court bio says February 13. Not sure what you're looking at.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:27, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigations/Deucalionite

Hi, I opened a sockpuppet investigation [1]. It was my first time to do so and maybe I made an mistake. I wrote the reason why the case needs a Checkuser but I suspect I forgot to change checkuser=no option to checkuser=yes. Ktrimi991 (talk) 13:00, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Done.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:29, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Bbb23, perhaps we could use this as a test case? What did this investigation have that made you to decide to undertake a Checkuser that the one against MjolnirPants lacks? Whatever it is, I'm sure that I could find and add an equivalent to the current case Moltenflesh (talk) 00:50, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Moltenflesh: First, you don't need to ping Bbb23 on his own talk page. Stop that. Second, I'm the one who ran CheckUser in that SPI. Deucalionite is a long-term sockmaster and in my opinion the behavioral evidence was compelling enough to use the tool. I haven't looked into your filing against MjolnirPants but you really need to drop the stick and stop admin shopping. If you don't, I'll block you myself for disruption. Katietalk 00:59, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of page

Hello, why did you delete this page? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treemerge.io Knowledgeorg (talk) 22:35, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) @Knowledgeorg: I recommend you look at our criteria for speedy deletion, particularly the "No indication of importance" criterium. The latter is the reason your page was deleted. For some guidance on article creation, see this. Regards, GABgab 23:04, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Knowledgeorg: It was deleted as noted under the CSD#A7 criteria. I marked it for deletion, and explained why on your talk page, along with instructions about how to proceed past its deletion. I invite you to read those comments. See your talk page. Thanks, --Hammersoft (talk) 23:52, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Trolleybus Museum Solingen

Hello why did you delete the pageTrolleybus Museum Solingen 1832 Heritage (talk) 01:38, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have the section I translated? If so I would like a copy of it so can improve upon it. 1832 Heritage (talk) 03:32, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Translated from what?--Bbb23 (talk) 19:02, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'd expect he'd xlated the German article. Anmccaff (talk) 20:04, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CFC-Youth for Christ

You speedied this yesterday under multiple criteria, and it's back today. I believe the article creator is the same but I see no notices on his page so I can't be certain. Meters (talk) 19:04, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I redirected it to the parent organization. Meters (talk) 19:17, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Page Deletion from 2012

Hello Bbb23,

I've noticed you deleted a page titled "QASymphony" back in 2012. Just wanted to inquiry into why it was deleted and any steps I can take to reinstate.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Southeastwriter (talk • contribs)

I'm not Bbb23 but I fill in when he has more important things to do, like serving as a judge in a hog-warming contest. It's possible to view the deletion log by going to Special:Logs and selecting 'Deletion log' in the pulldown box. Then type QASymphony in the Target box and hit the Show button. The original 2012 deletion was for 'Unambiguous advertising or promotion.' Assuming the version at speedydeletion.wikia.com is faithful to the original we see gems such as 'a software company built to revolutionize how software is tested, adopted, and supported' so, yeah. The log shows a more recent deletion barely a month ago; see discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/QASymphony (2nd nomination). Do what you will, but be advised that re-creating an article shortly after it was deleted in this way is viewed very skeptically indeed. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:14, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New account created by a sock of SpaceInfinite

I had some doubts about user:Ynoss being a sock of user:Space_Infinite but in any case user:BeyonderYnoss4471 is certainly a new account by the same blocked user. Editing by user:BeyonderYnoss4471 in the last 2-3 days is constructive. I'll trust your judgement on what should be done. Lithopsian (talk) 13:10, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:20, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa!

Seriously? We're eligible for these? I'm always last to the party. Tiderolls 17:43, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I got you beat - I don't even go to parties.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:44, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I go to parties, much to the chagrin of other attendees... GABgab 01:41, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just tell him that you are from a higher order of knighthood than those silly little TLAs that he is throwing about.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 10:33, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Questions on global banning "Bambifan101"

Infamous disney vandal Bambifan101™ hasn't show any signs that he'll stop disrupting Wikipedia for good. Given his past history of cross-wiki abuse over 9 years can you please advice on the suitability on placing a global ban against the notorius abuser?

A barnstar for you!

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
For your excellent work on that recent SPI and doing the checks on multiple groups of accounts, even when I unintentionally made the work harder for you. Your tireless efforts at SPI are noticed and appreciated. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:44, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Special:Contributions/Pageturner237

Hi, I have reason to suspect that the user is Hercules123!/Musicalnote1/Bball 123 sock puppet. Before opening an SPI. In the few days since Pageturner237 account was created. The user has repeatedly been making the same reversions: 1, 2, has also made the same reversion as Musicalnote1 (3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9) and Bball 123 (10, 11, 12). 183.171.180.233 (talk) 05:35, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bbb23&oldid=792715833"