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 61.224.12.136 (talk) at 15:27, 15 May 2019 (→‎Submit some information about socks: 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.

Yet Another Demorea Sock

Per rules, you can find the SPI discussion here. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 12:07 on April 8, 2019 (UTC)

Demorea CUs

Is there a reason you will not allow a CheckUser to be performed on any Demorea sock? I asked for a CU, you shot it down. I respectfully asked for it again, you archived the page. You have done this in the past with other Demorea SPIs. Why will you not allow other CUs to perform a CU on a Demorea sock? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:46 on April 9, 2019 (UTC)

AN Thread

I'm sorry we couldn't work this out on our own. I've brought the Demorea issue to AN and that thread can be found here. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:06 on April 9, 2019 (UTC)

Brian Wong page

Hi. I gave a detailed reply to you on the Brian Wong talk page since all my edits were removed with potential negative allegations at least one of the other users. The relevant things are at the bottom. I narrowed the criteria down to whether or not Brian Wong should include the allegation whether or not he is a public figure and provided some evidence both qualitative and quantitative evidence. If he is considered to be a public figure then BLP: CRIME would not apply. Also, it would be great if you can clarify the definition of a public figure both qualitative and quantitative evidence needed beyond wikipedia public figure definition. In law, some of this qualification is based on quantitative evidence which people on both sides can agree on and if it meets an agreed upon threshold. Also replied as defense as a user on the talk page described it as possible vandalism. I spent a lot of time writing a response and would appreciate the talk. Thanks. the original IP 2001:569:7E43:7900:ECD7:A8E8:296E:351C (talk) 08:50, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can see you took a lot of time to write your comments at BLPN, but I can't promise anyone will read it because it's what we call WP:TLDR. If no one responds, perhaps you can go back and shorten it significantly (you can't revise it once it's been responded to).--Bbb23 (talk) 15:08, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the response. I went back and shortened it by about half as well as added more information in addition to organizing it via bold titles. If you have time please read the bottom starting with the bold headings. Part of the reply is relevant to what you said and I have made my case on the main points. If it is not enough, I can always provide more information. Whatever way this goes, this is significant because:

The second reason is that it allows Wikipedia to actually build a case law type definition of how to measure if someone is a public figure and this would act as precedent case law for future similar scenario disputes on the issue whether or not someone is a public figure. Think of it like justification and evidence in the insurance industry and can act as defense if someone tries to challenge it. If you deem that he is a public figure based on Wikipedia definition supplemented with my provided qualitative and quantitative information, then your mention of BLP:Crime would not apply as it does not apply to public figures which allow allegations to be included. The third reason is that I wanted to show I'm a reasonable person and can provide valid justification for why it is included vs. being falsely accused in a absence of a response that what people assume is true and spent a few hours putting together a response. 2001:569:7E43:7900:443E:87E7:5889:412A (talk) 07:56, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your reply to the Brian Wong page. I was away past few days so only was able to join in the discussion today. I added Brian Wong's public facebook page as source as evidence which has over 10k followers which he uses to promote his book and other activities which he personally controls and listed himself as a public figure. This is in response to user Collect challenging that blue check mark for instagram does not indicate public figure. If someone lists themselves as a public figure, does that help to indicate he is a public figure. Thank you. 2001:569:7E43:7900:1D50:E8D7:9B40:7034 (talk) 00:50, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sock-puppet IP 109.255.33.206

@Bbb23: I saw you'd blocked this IP as a sockpuppet last month. It's linked to controversial user Britishfinance. Lots of examples of continuing the same work/articles, edits, times etc. as that account, but no point to show as its already been blocked. They sometimes use the sock puppet to talk to themselves (for others benefit presumably). Various other socks in use, such as the (31.187's etc.) IP's seem to belong to them too, popping up continuously through most of their editing when not logged in or main Articles. They used these Here and Here(talking to themselves again) to stop the AFD on their own leprechaun Economics talk page with 3 out 4 of the "Keep" votes. This is another example of two separate disputes (the top two) where they responded logged in first and then lots of use of their sock-puppets (31.187 etc.) in creating a fake consensus, typically after their logged in response. Same thing Here. They frequently pop up on talk pages of their articles, as an "outsider" to complement the value of the work to try and legitimise it. An example is the FYI comment at the bottom of the leprechaun economics talk page, but I've seen this type of thing on many of their articles talk pages, coming from their own IP's pretending to be outside observers making favorable comments and adding credibility. Anyway, just letting you know you definitely got it right this time. @Huon: You too. Looks like a good decision. Renmap0o talk 06:24, 07 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mass deletion

Why did you mass delete pages added by Faromics? ARZ100 (talk) 01:23, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bring back Daz Sampson

Hi Bbb23 (also pinging Ivanvector). You unblocked Bring back Daz Sampson back in May 2017 which I've got no problem with at all. Anyone can screw up, but they also can be given a second chance if the community deems they deserve it. In this post here, Bring back Daz Sampson even indicates that they will not repeat the behavior which led to their original block. So, I'm not sure why they thought this post at WT:FOOTY was necessary. Not only is it really close to if not WP:ASPERSION/WP:NPA, but none what was posted is even remotely true. The ping of me to get my attention seems like an attempt to get a rise out of me, perhaps in the hope that I will lose my cool and also as a way to rehash some previous disputes this editor had with me over the non-free use of certain files; files which were removed by an administrator (not me) per a consensus established at NFCR/FFD. I have no problem with anyone participating in the discussion and have no problem with a re-assessment of any previously held FFD discussion; none of that, however, seems to have been the point of their post. I didn't block this editor, I didn't make them create multiple socks to try and influence certain discussions or to use to make personal attacks against others. I've had no interaction made only one attempt at interacting with this editor (at least none that I'm aware of) since they were unblocked; prior to their WT:FOOTY post: a request for some clarification of the licensing of some files. There was nothing accusatory or uncivil about the request and it made no mention of any past issues they may have had with me or anyone else. I didn't even remember there had been any such issues between us at the time I made the request. A response, however, was never received and I didn't follow up even though I think the licensing issues still remain. Anyway, if they've been editing without incident since their unblock, then that's a great thing; their post, however, is completely out of place with the civil discussion that was taking place and does nothing to further that discussion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:29, 11 May 2019 (UTC); [Note: Post edited by me (Marchjuly) to correct error; there's was one prior attempt to interact with the other editor after they were blocked. -- 03:16, 12 May 2019 (UTC)][reply]

Checkuser request

Hi, could you glance at 24.34.85.169? You CU-blocked this IP back in October, at which time the person using it was editing on topics like bridges and rivers and highways in the southeastern United States. I've just blocked it again for general disruption, repeatedly marking a southeastern US river article as a hoax despite everything being backed up by solid sources. In January, the IP did a batch of editing on US highways, and in the last couple of weeks, the IP's edited a lot of US bridge articles, as well as the article that led me to block it. As the WHOIS geolocates to the far northeastern US, the focus on transportation elsewhere in the country in October and May is unusual, and I suspect it's the same person. Thus my request — could you see if there's behavior comparable to whatever prompted you to CU-block this address before. Nyttend (talk) 02:10, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

IP

Sadly the IP that you blocked over at Wikipedia talk:Administrator intervention against vandalism, is at it again with the harrassment[1]. Using IP 51.7.229.160. He is currently edit warring with user Materialscientist.--BabbaQ (talk) 05:58, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft Rewrite for Hasley Minor

I’ve shared a draft rewrite of the Halsey Minor page at the bottom of Talk:Halsey Minor. I work under Halsey Minor at Live Planet and thus am asking for independent feedback per WP:COI. I noticed that you're involved with biographical pages about live people and was hoping you might have an interest in taking a look. Jasonliveplanet (talk) 20:27, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
[reply]

@Jasonliveplanet: It's generally not a good idea to post these kinds of invitations on individual editor Talk pages. In this instance, given that so few editors "watch" the Halsey Minor article and therefore wouldn't be aware of your rewrite, I suggest you post something similar at WP:BLPN.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:12, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail!

Hello, Bbb23. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 13:35, 15 May 2019 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

qedk (t 桜 c) 13:35, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@QEDK: As you can see from the top of this page, I'm out of here, so I won't be able to respond to your e-mail. Take care.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:42, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Missed that, welp. No worries, enjoy your time away! --qedk (t 桜 c) 13:45, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Submit some information about socks

We can suspect that this IP is used by User-4488. (The possibility is very high) We noticed these and then compared the other parts.


1.42.202.247 act in https://vi.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Xung_%C4%91%E1%BB%99t_Vi%E1%BB%87t%E2%80%93Trung_1979%E2%80%931991&action=history
This page has 1.43.153.248. I think 1.42.202.247 & 1.43.153.248 should be proxy IP. I think so because they have other connections.
In Sino-Vietnamese_conflicts,_1979 , they edit on this page. Please also pay attention to DemPon.


DemPon, this account has some interesting points. If we track his sandbox at zh.wikipedia.org,the editing content of DemPon, Widgetsz89 and Pipcai is exactly the same. These accounts are also used by User-4488.
If you don't believe we can watch the link below.
https://zh.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Widgetsz89/%E6%B2%99%E7%9B%92&oldid=52370262
https://zh.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Pipcai/%E6%B2%99%E7%9B%92&oldid=52332037
https://zh.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:DemPon/%E6%B2%99%E7%9B%92&oldid=53958154
From the above clues, we can find that he seems to be happy to fight with himself. One person plays multiple people. He seems to want to be an outstanding actor, but I don't think it is a place for performing stage plays.
I think he is having a good time at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sino-Vietnamese_conflicts,_1979%E2%80%931991&action=history and can argue or quarrel with himself.
I think he should have a good time too. I mean 67.188.179.66. If he didn't edit the page edited by 1.42.202.247, I think he can still hide for a long time.
Because he is a highly skilled actor, I should not catch all his socks. Based on his habit of quarreling or arguing with himself, I think Heathen100 is also suspicious because his habit is to fight with himself.
  • Organize suspicious lists
Heathen100
67.188.179.66
1.42.202.247 & 1.43.153.248
DemPon
I am not very clear about whether his editor is harmful or beneficial, but I am sure that more than half of the people who have recently edited Incorporation of Tibet into the People's Republic of China are socks or new account.Maybe socks like that page especially?

--61.224.12.136 (talk) 15:27, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bbb23&oldid=897219017"