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 Serious19 (talk | contribs) at 19:38, 20 August 2019 (→‎Serious19). 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.

Investigation

I have reopened another investigation for RadyoUkay819, do NOT delete the articles of the user created. Thanks Triila73 (talk) 06:10, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, no response from the investigation yet. Triila73 (talk) 04:00, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question about socks

I've come across a user I'm 99% certain is a sock of someone who was previously blocked a couple of years back. But since all their socks were blocked last time, I'm wondering how they managed to create a new ID. That's why I don't have the confidence to report them again. Any advice for me? Deb (talk) 15:16, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I need to know the details. E-mail me if you prefer.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:01, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, have done. Deb (talk) 17:30, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page watcher) Just out of curiosity, Deb is there a technical restriction that prevents someone from making a new account when the block was couple of years back? --DBigXrayᗙ 17:46, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know, that's partly why I'm here. Deb (talk) 17:55, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page watcher) I don't know what block you're referring to, but if "block account creation" was set in the block options (see WP:OPTIONS) then the user will not be able to create an account as long as the block is active (autoblocks follow accounts around). If it's an IP block with account creation disabled, or the block is set to "prevent logged-in users from editing from this IP address" (I think only available to checkusers), then nobody will be able to edit or create an account from that IP. If there are no active blocks then there shouldn't be anything preventing account creation. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:04, 12— August 2019 (UTC)
Ivanvector appreciate your long answer above. If the sock was indeffed, how long does the "block account creation" feature remains active? I doubt it could stay for couple of years. --DBigXrayᗙ 18:19, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think that 'account creation blocked' lasts as long as the original block. When I open the block dialog (as seen by administrators) the 'Account Creation Blocked' is already checked off. Nearly all of my own blocks have this set. One reason not to set ACB is if you are asking somebody to change their user name. ACB only matters if the person tries to create a new account on the same IP they originally used. If years have passed, that might be unlikely. I can also check the box preventing logged-in users from using the IP address, but would hesitate to use that as a non-checkuser, except for proxy blocks or webhost blocks. EdJohnston (talk) 18:50, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • In my view, this is a pointless discussion. I can't prove a negative and I find the technical descriptions as to how some of these options work to be unclear, but the reality is that socks of blocked accounts are created all the time.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:00, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for your assistance, anyhow. Deb (talk) 07:18, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion and Ban on Creation of Nikhil Anand

Hey,

I am writing this as you placed the limitations on the page creation of Nikhil Anand. I will be thankful if you could guide me with the necessary expectations with the article and if you can please remove the limitations on creating the article. Also, if you can share your email I'd please do so that we can communicate easily.

Also, I want to create the page with bigger and better media links which meets wikipedia guidelines.

Thank You — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aayat1998 (talk • contribs) 21:10, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mohamad Barakat

Hello, you had looked into this before.[1] It happened again.[2] What should be done? Omikroergosum (talk) 11:25, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tarantella33

I have reason to believe that User:Tarantella33 is a sockpuppet of the blocked sockpuppeteer User:Emilie2606. The account was created on July 26 (log), and on August 2 they made eleven edits before creating Michael Charles Rockefeller, which was originally created by Emilie2606. Over half of Tarantella33's contributions have been to that page (over 90% since becoming autoconfirmed). - ZLEA T\C 16:42, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The user also uploaded an image of Rockefeller, claiming that it is their own work (and that it was taken the previous day). Emilie2606 had also uploaded an image of Rockefeller and claimed that it was their own work, but it was later found that it was not free. - ZLEA T\C 16:58, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Confirmed + Dionisiosss (talk · contribs · count). Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:05, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
They're at it again, this time User:Sakors (notice where the userpage redirects to) created Michael Charles Rockefeller and a userpage of a nonexistent user with the same name. Once again, a large number of their contributions are to those pages and they uploaded File:Michael Charles Rockefeller.jpg again claiming "own work". - ZLEA T\C 14:56, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That one plus two others.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:25, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but I noticed that you marked these as suspected sockpuppets. Is this a mistake? - ZLEA T\C 23:22, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:39, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How to handle such remarks?

Bbb23, I could use some advice as to how to handle these comments at WP:AN#Saxifrage

  • "There is a hard core of participants here that seem focused on vengeful retaliation on Saxifrage because he actually read the evidence..." To imply that all dissent from your opinion is because we didn't read the evidence or that it's "vengeful retaliation" because we unanimously disagree with his conclusion seems to me to be a personal attack against everyone who disagrees with him as well as being uncivil.
  • "Any perceived incivility seems bought by the aggrieved rather than from Saxifrage (yes, I mean 'bought')." To be blunt, this feels very much like I'm being literally accused of bribery and meatpuppetry...perhaps others too?

How would you recommend handling this? Such behavior seems highly out of line especially for an admin. Buffs (talk) 17:52, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That thread should be closed. I almost did so myself but decided it wasn't worth the grief.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:56, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I suppose I agree with that to an extent, but I'm more concerned with how to handle those remarks. Should I post a warning on the user's page? Ask for them to be blocked? Being accused of criminal activity seems to be WAY out of line for an admin to do without any evidence. Buffs (talk) 18:08, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, I don't understand what Mark means by "bought". Why don't you ask him? You may get an evasive answer, but, if so, you can always say what you think it means and why and ask him if that's what he meant. As long as the thread remains open, I'd keep your remarks there rather than say on Mark's Talk page, but that's up to you.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:16, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Buffs (talk) 19:55, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

could you please take a second look at Al Seckel?

Could you please take a second look at your decision to block Ronz (talk · contribs) for 24 hours? The problem at Al Seckel is more serious than his incivility and WP:OWN attitude. He may be an excellent editor elsewhere on Wikipedia, for all I know, but at Al Seckel he is WP:NOTTHERE to improve the encyclopedia article. HouseOfChange (talk) 20:55, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Thanks for catching this slippery fish.[3] "I've been using Wikipedia for a long time and then familiarised myself with the site's rules and how things are done here before opening an account and starting editing". Lmfao. - LouisAragon (talk) 12:14, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BBC News (TV channel)

Hello Bbb23, Maybe I'm getting a little suspicious, but suddenly another new redlink name MichaelScott9986000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has emerged since the latest round of edits on this page and appears to be edit warring. Also user appears to be interested in other BBC programmes, as per previously blocked 86.9.95.201 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) I just wonder if this is yet another case of socking? Regards, David J Johnson (talk) 13:59, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked by another admin. David J Johnson (talk) 14:40, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I was about to go looking for a CU after reading that unblock request. Thanks Bbb23. – bradv🍁 14:41, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
See, the CU found you.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:05, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sartorialaficionado

Thanks, I was in the process of filling out a request for check user when I went back to the user's contributions to get more diffs and saw you'd already blocked it. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 15:00, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Glad I saved you the trouble.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:05, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

TY

thanks for [4] - I'll try to get it right the next time. Been a while since I was there. — Ched :  ?  — 23:36, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, it'll all come back to you. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 00:07, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Resurrecting a Deleted Pterosaur page

Hey, um do you think we can restore the page Hamipteridae? The page got taken down when the person was banned(?). It would be really appreciated. OviraptorFan (talk) 11:52, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Closing?

I really would like to know why you closed Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gilabrand‎; and please tell me where I can appeal that, Huldra (talk) 20:29, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I already said at the SPI that I would not explain my reasons. There is nowhere to appeal that I'm aware of.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:45, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Huldra:, you might want to ask another Checkuser to see if they agree with not pursuing it. Not an appeal so much as a second opinion. While I guess I can imagine situations where closing with no explanation whatsoever is necessary, the ones I can imagine are pretty rare, and I'm sure getting zero feedback can be frustrating. Maybe another CU who is willing to use email can at least give you an outline of what went wrong without divulging anything private. If not, at least you'll know that two CU's agree. FWIW, Bbb23's bedside manner often sucks, but he's almost always right about the underlying action. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:04, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Floq, if you're going to make cracks like this on my Talk page, then don't post on my Talk page. I may have not answered Huldra's questions, which is my perogative, but I was absolutely polite, both at the SPI where I spent an enormous amount of time evaluating the evidence Huldra e-mailed me and here. So give it a rest.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:39, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Odd; the only thing I criticized was your bedside manner; are you under the impression that it’s good? As I specifically said, you’re usually right, so I personally don’t doubt there’s good reason to close it. But I’m familiar with your abilities in this area. I’m not questioning your CU skills, and I made no comment about the time you spent looking into it. But a good faith editor concerned about socking needs *some* kind of feedback: Would more evidence help? Is it poorly thought out evidence, or just insufficient, or wrong? Does she risk a block if she reports this suspicion with more evidence again? Is the only problem that she didnt post the evidence on-wiki? etc. etc. etc. But OK, if this is a completely criticism-free free zone then I’ll unwatch your page. —Floquenbeam (talk) 22:42, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Floquenbeam:, thanks. The thing is: Gilabrand has a history of socking. Last time a check was conducted, several other (previously unknown) socks came up. And it is frustrating to see that some editors don't think a block is valid for themselves, only for others. Anyway; @Doug Weller:, @PhilKnight:, for a second opinion, Huldra (talk) 21:16, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A few things: Huldra, you emailed the checkuser OTRS queue, which is a bit understaffed and not every CU has access to it. We mainly use it for IPBE requests, to be honest, and I usually try to go through it once a week or so to clear any requests. It really isn't a replacement for SPI and if things are private and you need to share them with a CU, emailing someone directly is better in part because OTRS is clunky and not intuitively designed. That, and you'll usually get a quicker response.
On the merits of the case: while I have not looked at CU, based on the evidence you presented, I think you've shown that two editors are not from North America or the UK and have interest in a country that is not in North America or Europe. That isn't in itself reason to block. Anyway, I don't think this needed a second opinion, but since I had access to the OTRS queue and not everyone does, I looked and that's what I got from what you sent in. In the future, it'd be better to present it in public at an SPI so everyone can see it. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:28, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
TonyBallioni, I used the email given linked from the CU page, if it is not optimal, then that info should be changed.
And the country, even operating hours is not the most important stuff; the important points are the two last ones that I listed. I have many more diffs, if needed, but I thought 5 each would do, Huldra (talk) 20:17, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

'allo

Are you finding any of the continued verbiage at Nzggsvd useful? Or can I yank tpa?-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:57, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please do.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:27, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Atul bahl

Hello. Today, you deleted Atul bahl per CSD A7 (but it was also nominated for G11). Now, a similar page has been created at Draft:Atul Bahl by a new editor (8 minutes after they registered), and since then, User:Atulbahl1986 has not edited. I have noticed the original state of Draft:Atul Bahl is seemingly the same as the final state of Atul bahl (but its creator has now changed it) (seemingly the same as in starts with same db-multiple template). I couldn't find a request for its contents anywhere. Is the new Draft:Atul Bahl the same as Atul bahl used to be? Does this imply a connection between their creators? Edible Melon (talk) 12:15, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked and tagged both accounts. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:33, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

For whatever it's worth (uhh, I guess nothing at all?) Shreyashv26 has cavalierly threatened to evade their block. I'm trying to get them to just go the unblock route, but I thought I'd mention it just for fun. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:15, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The real Italian sockmaster

The real sockmaster of the Italian IPs listed in my ill-conceived Apollo The Logician SPI has been found out to be Davide King (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) per this and this. Just FYI. No further action necessarily required. --Pudeo (talk) 09:15, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Priyanshu dtx

The reason why I wanted action taken on user: Priyanshu dtx is because she tends to disappear for three days and then come back with her vandalism again. She was here in the early morning hours of yesterday. Her statistics suggest she will be back on Tuesday. CLCStudent (talk) 19:46, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User talk pages

don't really understand what your rationale is for removing a comma that provides clarity; sure the sentence isn't wrong, but adding a comma makes it less ambiguous. --SacredDragonX (talk) 21:08, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing ambiguous about the statement. Your change is flat-out wrong.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:17, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
User talk pages and user talk archives created by page move are generally not deleted; the subjects are 'user talk pages' and 'user talk archives created by page move', not 'user talk pages created by page move', how is that not ambiguous --SacredDragonX (talk) 21:24, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You correctly identify the subjects. No one could possibly interpret the first subject to be "user talk pages created by page move". For one thing, they never are. More important, changing the statement to "User talk pages, and user talk archives created by page move are generally not deleted;" fractures the brief sentence and makes it less comprehensible. And I'm through here. I've already spent too much time on this.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:32, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hlevy2 other accounts

Did you ever get a response from Hlevy to your query on their talkpage? I've just asked you this over there, but they reverted very quickly (though in a way that didn't notify me). GoldenRing (talk) 14:13, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Their only "response" was to remove the comment about their other account from their userpage. However, I also ran a check (on July 14) and found no evidence of socking at that time, so I decided not to push it.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:38, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Another potential sock of Joker5122

Hello,

I think User:Deadshot5122 might be another sock of User:Joker5122. Can you help? Cardei012597 (talk) 17:11, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Done.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:25, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

About Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Steven0306/Archive

Hi Bbb23,
I noticed another possible sock puppet of the same editor again StevenZelasoTVFan0306 on A Million Little Things. Please see the history [5]. Can you take a look of that? — YoungForever(talk) 23:18, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

More Bothiman crap

Hi B, if you get a sec, could you please look for other Bothiman accounts? I suspect Gazigor (I blocked them as ducky) and Damberbzn (still active, also ducky). It's the same lickspittle-style editing[6] at the Vijay awards page. Apparently every time he farts out an award, Bothiman is there to reverently catch it before it hits the dais. Thank you, sir. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:05, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The two accounts are  Confirmed along with two others, one who hasn't edited, and one who edited the same article.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:41, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Serious19

Serious19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

New user who has popped up on my radar via the edit filter. Claims they are a new user. I am dubious but who knows. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:35, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Ad Orientem (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Are you claiming that I am lying ?

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bbb23&oldid=911732274"