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 Ceejaysteku (talk | contribs) at 18:54, 25 July 2019 (→Catsy page deleted: 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.

Sock?

Hi, new user Gridlust (started — 19:33, 27 June 2019) is probably a sock of a blocked User:Kindlyanswer (blocked — 12:25, 27 June 2019). Here; Gridlust's edits [1], [2] and Kindlyanswer's edit [3]. -- Tobby72 (talk) 09:46, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked and tagged. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:19, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
New sock — [4] -- Tobby72 (talk) 09:59, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Suspicious new user

HeHe8888 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

New user demonstrating a pattern of editing that suggests they have been around before. Also some, though not all, of their edits are borderline disruptive. Their chosen username also looks like a yellow flag to me. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:21, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disregard. User has been indeffed by Canterbury Tail. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:05, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It was blatantly obvious it that IP user that I blocked a while ago. Obsession with tweaking numbers away from referenced sources and the exact same articles. Even used the same wordings. Canterbury Tail talk 19:37, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rodhullandemu SPI

Re closure of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rodhullandemu: now the IP is making fresh edits again (Special:Contributions/62.253.143.3). Besides, he has been using the same IP since April for the same purpose. While I understand CUs aren't eager to block IPs, surely there must be a way to prevent indefinitely blocked users editing as much as they want logged-out. I'm not sure if you are aware of the details, but Rodhullandemu was blocked by the ArbCom for some pretty serious stuff. --Pudeo (talk) 15:27, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've reopened the report.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:30, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not enough evidence

I think that a serial sockpuppeteer you blocked has come back to Wikipedia, but I don't have enough evidence for a SPI case. How do I proceeed? Tgeorgescu (talk) 05:13, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If for some reason you don't want to provide links, then e-mail me with them. Otherwise, your question is useless.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:07, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I saw edits by a "newbie" about Cristina Neagu at Romania. Rings a bell? Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:12, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Tgeorgescu: I'm in the middle of checking and already found several socks. I don't have time to finish now but should be able to later today. In the meantime, could you please reopen Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cristina neagu so I can post my findings when I return? For evidence, you can provide whatever you want plus a link to this discussion. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:34, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, done. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:01, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CheckUser

Thx for letting me know. I've added the nutshell back with an edit summary. GOLDIEM J (talk) 15:13, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Another CU has undone your edit as "not needed", which I agree with. Why are you editing policies at all? For someone with your lack of experience, you shouldn't be.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:18, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry

Thanks for your intervention here. I wanted to let you know that I opened also a sockpuppet investigation that I think it could be closed now since the user has been blocked. --Mazewaxie 18:01, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for filing the report and letting me know. I've posted my findings and closed it.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:06, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also I noticed that you added protection to Mary Jane Watson, but shouldn't be also added the Template:Pp? I would add it myself but I don't know precisely how it works. Thanks for your contributions. --Mazewaxie 18:14, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It should get added by a bot. I never bother adding the templates. Even if it doesn't get added, it's no big deal. The point is to prevent IPs and new accounts from editing it. Most of them won't know what the little icon means anyway.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:16, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks for answering. Happy editing. --Mazewaxie 18:26, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not a report?

Hello! Please explain what you meant here. Thx. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:13, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) You formatted it as a comment, not a 3rr report. - FlightTime (open channel) 23:17, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Come on, you're experienced enough to know how to follow the instructions at the top of the page. If they aren't clear enough for you, then look at some of the other reports. Have you never looked at WP:AN3 before? You've been here 12 years and have over 16K edits. You must lead an incredibly disruption-free life. --Bbb23 (talk) 23:19, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Inquiry

How is this removal of an article that contains some moderate criticism of Wikipedia not censoring? Debresser (talk) 14:49, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bohemiclavulus

Hi, Bohemiclavulus that you deleted was a genuine article, i think it could be recreated. FunkMonk (talk) 20:06, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is a discussion regarding this issue here:[5] FunkMonk (talk) 18:35, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This guy...

Hi B, could I please trouble you to look at this guy. His user page edits have been hilarious.[6][7][8][9] He was basically just trying to rack up enough edits so he could start editing at Vijay (actor), which is a huge sock magnet and has been set to Extended protection. I dunno. I'm kind of amused at that sort of psycho tenacity. Anyway, I'm not exactly sure what master it is. Ponyo last blocked this guy, but that article was usually a Bothiman hotspot. And if you need me to open any SPIs, I'm happy to do that. Gracias, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:10, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Hi Cyphoidbomb. This is a Duck. I'm not sure of the exact species, but it's a duck. I'm curious as to who it is but IMO there is no need to hold off blocking them. And I'd also support reverting all their mainspace edits. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:27, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You can wait. I'm checking, and there's more than one. I'll take care of it.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:28, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Bbb23. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:29, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for checking, B. @Ad Orientem: Thanks for cleaning up. In a case like this, what is your process? I feel weird blocking a suspected sockpuppet unless I know definitively who they are a puppet of, but I'd like to hear your opinions about this. Thanks all, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:52, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Cyphoidbomb. I'm actually pretty restrained when it comes to suspected socks. But as I noted above this was clearly a WP:DUCK. I try to apply the "reasonable doubt" standard. As soon as I saw the editing history you linked, I knew this was someone who had been here before and was trying to game their edits for the sole purpose gaining EC standing. To use the old common law parlance "guilty, beyond reasonable doubt and to a moral certainty." With them engaged in heavy editing I would hit the block button and worry about their identity later on. Even ignoring the socking aspect, running up their edit count in that way has long been regarded as gaming the system and grounds for a block. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:03, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Suspicions

Hello, Bbb23,

I don't think this is a full-blown SPI case but I have suspicions that Emilie2606 and Arnold2705 are related. Besides their similar usernames, Emilie wrote the Michael Charles Rockefeller article which was tagged for deletion and Arnold2705 removed the speedy tag (one of his two edits). I think the article might actually be okay but their behavior looks duckish to me. Just a head's up. Liz Read! Talk! 20:39, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Plus, it might be me but File:MichaelCharlesRockefeller.jpg looks like a completely photoshopped picture and I'm usually not that observant about image quality. What do you think? Does that head belong to that body? Liz Read! Talk! 20:42, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Liz, your question is the first laugh I've had all day. Thanks! Also, I had the same impression as you when I looked at the picture, but if you take a look at some of the citations in the article, you can see other images of Rockefeller, and they look similar although not quite as pronounced. He just has a big head. I think that particular picture, though, may be a copyright violation. The master claims it's their work, but I don't see any data to support that. The two accounts are socks, and based on their location and the expertise, I suspect it's a UPE. They are now blocked and tagged.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:11, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) a black-amd-white version of the image can be found here (Israel Herald), so it's obviously a promotional image provided by MCR himself, and the article about him is self-promotion... - Tom | Thomas.W talk 21:20, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That is a fascinating article, and so poorly copy-edited. Ima keep to myself what I think about that "expert" and philanthropist, and that mug, but I will say that I am very interested in one of the ads on that page: those shoes are bitching, and at only $40 I can buy two pairs to take with me to Nevada in September. Drmies (talk) 21:35, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Drmies: Nevada is a godforsaken wasteland full of weird people, so I don't think it matters what shoes you wear. Or at least it was a godforsaken wasteland when I was there in the 1970s, and I doubt it has improved since then. The only thing that impressed me there, and I visited both Las Vegas and Reno, was Bill Harrah's auto collection, the largest in the world, a collection that is no more since his greedy heirs sold off almost the entire collection as soon as they got their hands on it. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 16:38, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Can you tag the colorized version on Commons as copyright violation? The article has now been deleted per g11, but still...--Bbb23 (talk) 21:24, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 21:30, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Thomas.W: You're an outstanding fellow.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:39, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, I didn't expect this comment to get so much attention. And I guess Rockefeller just has a big head.
And if my naivete provided you with a laugh today, well, that's one accidental good deed I've done today. ;-) Liz Read! Talk! 03:19, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Liz: Nothing to do with naivete. I thought your question "Does that head belong to that body?" was really funny. I mean, even on Wikipedia, how often does anyone ask such a question. In context, it was a perfectly good question, and I don't see how it makes you naive. Now Drmies on the other hand is naive if (a) he thinks he's going to enjoy himself in Nevada and (b) he thinks the final cost of those two pairs of shoes (are they a well-known brand?) will really be $40. And where the hell does that online seller exist? I couldn't find anything on their website about their physical location(s), which is very suspicious.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:51, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page watcher) @Liz: now count it as 2 good deeds. I followed the edit summary looking for some good old 'harassment' and all I got was giggles. Thanks to Thomas.W for sharing the link which allowed me to see the now deleted pic. For what its worth, I can see that the subject is sitting with his neck extended and closer to the camera than his body. This combined with the distortion offered by a wide angle lens (which BTW is infamous for magnifying people's nose) gives us an impression that this head doesn't really belong to that body. regards --DBigXrayᗙ 16:16, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edit wars

Hi. I am encountering a situation similar to that for which you blocked me. Currently at Black Widow (2020 film), a user named Cheesecube30 is repeatedly making the same edit, centered around Rachel Weisz's character. He insists the character is Melina Vostokoff / Iron Maiden, but reliable sources only refer to her as "Melina". I've contacted the user in his talk page, but he won't change his mind. Should I keep reverting him or should I wait until someone else does it? El Millo (talk) 21:25, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're already edit-warring, which you shouldn't be. It's almost never okay to keep reverting. But I've blocked the new user as a sock and reverted their last edit at the article. Please be more careful in the future.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:38, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Admin's Barnstar
For your indefatigable service. Ad Orientem (talk) 21:28, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot, AO.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:46, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of article

Hello, I just saw you delete the article for the Minions sequel Minions: The Rise of Gru claiming G5, however, the film is actually confirmed and currently in production, I don't know if this was a mistake and if there is a process to bring the article back. -Gouleg (Talk • Contribs) 23:13, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oddly enough, I think I did make a mistake, although I can't for the life of me figure out how. In any case, I've restored it.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:31, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! -Gouleg (Talk • Contribs) 03:04, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is it okay to ask here?

I'd wondered if I'd complained about the issue with Kirkland & Ellis to the wrong board? I'm not experienced with this. The issue is adding sensationalist content to the lead paragraph, with an edit war brewing from it. I had asked an Administrator to look into it a few days back, but they happen to be on vacation, so tried to deal with the issue myself. Could you redirect me, perhaps? Lindenfall (talk) 02:03, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything wrong with the other user's edits.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:38, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I'd attempted clarity. They are repetitively adding information to the lead of the article that is not covered in the article, contrary to MOS:LEAD, in a WP:Coatracking manner that sensationalizes it, as seen in the edit history, predating the TALK discussion. Surely, there is some way to correct this to meet policy other than edit-warring? Thank you. Lindenfall (talk) 18:29, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The information added to the lede is in the body of the article, and I don't see it as "sensationalizing". Nonetheless, if you disagree with the edits (or some of the edits), you'll have to go through the usual methods of dispute resolution.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:38, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We must be looking at different pages, because information added to the lead is not in the body of the article. Only Epstein was even mentioned, in one brief sentence. I then added Toys R Us, during the growing edit war (to show where it did belong), in one even briefer sentence; China Fishery was named by the editor in the lead, and there has been restored and remains, but now unnamed (though with unformatted source), and still does not appear in the body. The elusive dispute resolution must be what I was seeking, all along. Lindenfall (talk) 18:55, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Sukavich Rangsitpol

I would be appreciated if you could advise on whether any action should be taken on the talk page of the subject. Although I do aware that the talk page can't generally be protected as it will preclude participation by unregistered user, following the block of Yosakrai (a contributor involved in the edit war who has been blocked for two weeks), an IP attempted to paste the content in a substantially similar manner to Yosakrai's argument. According to the history of that talk page, many of the users are the suspected sock farm and/or meatpuppet, and their repeated attempt to challenge the source do not come up with the better sources that aligned to their view. I consider pursuing semi-protection of talk pages to be the solution that may stop this nonconstructive behavior, but I would like other opinion, particularly from you who has already dealt with the issue at the first instance. Thanks. --G(x) (talk) 06:25, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I removed that section completely. It still leaves the ridiculous section above it. I'm tempted to remove that, too, but I suppose it can remain for "historical" purposes.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:45, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Almond Plate.

Tired of letting people get await with "it". Intolerance to nullcruft. Didn't look beyond making sure he was not very recent SPA. Opportunity to educate. Dreams of being a writer quashed long ago. (Incivil, non AGF, opinions of them dying before they are uttered.)  Dlohcierekim (talk) 16:15, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting my changes to userpages unilaterally

Hi, why are you reverting my good-faith changes to userpages which mark users banned under WP:3X as being banned under WP:3X? They are, in fact, banned under WP:3X as these users engaged in sockpuppetry on at least two occasions after an initial indefinite block that is active and the sockmaster template allows to mark a user for being banned under the rule. Thanks -- Rockstonetalk to me! 21:31, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Your disregard for policy, which was egregiously demonstrated today at ANI, when you closed a community ban discussion, is making me wonder if you are sufficiently competent to edit Wikipedia. Moreover, these kinds of actions on you part are disruptive and blockable. Do you even read the policy you cite? WP:3X says, "Administrators or sockpuppet investigations clerks will normally tag the master account's user page with {{sockpuppeteer|banned}}." Are you an administrator or an SPI clerk? And don't even think of wikilawyering about the policy language. If I see any more of this sort of behavior from you, you risk being blocked. You were let off far too lightly at ANI for your actions.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:38, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) There is no requirement that the template be updated, but if it is added it should be done by an SPI Clerk/Checkuser or an admin versed in WP:SOCK (per the policy you're quoting "Administrators or sockpuppet investigations clerks will normally tag the master account's user page"). There are limited instances where a sock tag placed by a Clerk or CU should be modified by others, and edit warring with a Checkuser regarding the inclusion or display of a checkuser tag is...unwise. -- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:41, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I did read it, it says normally, which means I don't have to be an administrator or SPI clerk,and these actions are not disruptive. I am not trying to Wikilawyer, but that is exactly what it says. I get you're upset at me, but I did not intend to disregard policy. I am trying best to keep my cool. Please stop reverting my changes unilaterally. While I'm at it, please see that Mzmadmike was in fact banned by the community, so marking him as banned is appropriate. -- Rockstonetalk to me! 21:44, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You are misinterpreting the policy. "Normally" in this instance means that Admins and Clerks normally use the tags as part of the SPI process, not that it's normally admins and clerks who use the tags. The normally in this instance applies to use, not who is using them. Please don't continue to modify checkuser tags places by admins and clerks if they have requested you stop. -- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:48, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) One last warning. I reverted your changes to Mzmadmike's userpage because it's not your role to tag any userpage. If the closing administrator wishes to tag the userpage, that's up to them. You have a real problem with WP:IDHT in addition to everything else.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:50, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Look, I'm trying very hard to be polite, and maybe I'm simply misunderstanding something, but I see no policy saying that non-admins cannot mark users banned by the community as banned on their userpage, especially when made in good faith. @Ponyo: is there something I am missing? -- Rockstonetalk to me! 21:58, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page watcher) Rockstone If you take a look at Template:Sockpuppeteer, you will notice that the documentation states "In general, this template should only be used by Administrators or Clerks as part of the Sockpuppet investigations process." - ZLEA T\C 22:06, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@ZLEA: first of all, thank you, that answers one of my questions, although I was thinking more about the banned user template Template:Banned_user, which doesn't say who can or can't apply it to a page. -- Rockstonetalk to me! 22:09, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting my change to NAC

Hi, one other question (sorry for bombarding you with them); why did you revert my change on NAC? It's not clear to me that NAC doesn't allow non-admins to close community sanction discussions. Not saying that I worded it appropriately, but I do think that there should be some type of mention that these rules don't apply to all discussions requiring community consensus. All the best, -- Rockstonetalk to me! 21:36, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Rockstonetalk to me! 22:00, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked IP

Hey! You blocked 2.92.126.42 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) for 1 month after I reported them at WP:AN/EW for edit warring at Napoleon III. A new IP made their first and only edit today by placing a message on my talk page: "Please comment on the topic Napoleon III. Then we will see how to reach consensus. Although - Silentium videtur confessio - silence itself implies consent. Isn't it?". Could you block this IP for block evasion? Thanks, MrClog (talk) 09:13, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User admitted to being the same person: [10] [11]. --MrClog (talk) 13:58, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I was over-extended doing other things. Ohnoitsjamie nicely took care of it.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:14, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A bad block

You do a lot of good editing here, so I was a little surprised to see your indefinite block of new editor Angelarking. The complaint against them was that they were deleting "sourced" material, but most of the sources involved were opinion articles, which as I'm sure your know are frowned on as sources for BLP material... and in some cases, those sources were being used to synthesize more generalized statements. All in all, most of this user's deletions were one that a good user would be apt to do... or, at least, I would like to believe so, as I independently look over the article (after it was raise at BLPN), and found myself deleting much of the same material. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:11, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:59, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Suspected paid editing

Hello. In November of last year you deleted Smartworks for being the creation of a blocked or banned user, but the article has now been recreated by Ganeshvermaofficial, and deleted again, now as G11. Do you remember, or have a note of, who the blocked or banned user was, and could there be a connection between that blocked or banned user and the new account (an account that has done nothing but creating promotional articles...)? Cheers, - Tom | Thomas.W talk 08:57, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please review

Hello, I notice you removed my response to Jmaynard and I respect your decision. I presented evidence to Doug Weller and Koncorde at [12] regarding this situation to ask their opinions on how it should be reported. I would appreciate any recommendation you may make as well. 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 16:12, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're fortunate I haven't blocked you, and not just for the personal attack. Posting to my Talk page isn't a very good idea. And if I ever see you make another personal attack like the last one, I will block you.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:24, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Obsuser

I put my comments back now. I hope there is no problem to have same comments there again after block expired, with new signature (date in the signature). I am sorry if I broke rules when commenting there while blocked but I thought it is not problematic because my page was not locked so I felt it was convenient to answer to the user Mm.srb's statements there put after block. Sorry again. --Obsuser (talk) 14:14, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Catsy page deleted

I created a page about my company, which you deleted for G11. I would appreciate your assistance building a page that does not violate this or any other guidelines. I built my page along the lines of 3 others, which are live, and as such don't understand why mine is being singled out for deletion.

Here are the page URLs:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pimcore https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akeneo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Informatica

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bbb23&oldid=907857206"