User talk:Bbb23: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
m Archiving 2 discussion(s) to User talk:Bbb23/Archive 51) (bot
Line 130: Line 130:
Hi there. I [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Alialavi4000 reported] Alialavi4000 as sockpuppeteer of the banned account Survivingparadise. You wrote in response "Waste of time. Closing." Could you please explain why you dismissed this report and why you felt it was a waste of time? I was careful to follow the policies as laid out by Wikipedia and to provide evidence, including four incidents of identical or near-identical edits from both accounts to the same page. I was genuinely surprised by your response and would like to learn so that I can be a more effective editor in the future. Thank you. -[[User:Alexanderj|Alexanderj]] ([[User talk:Alexanderj|talk]]) 00:31, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Hi there. I [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Alialavi4000 reported] Alialavi4000 as sockpuppeteer of the banned account Survivingparadise. You wrote in response "Waste of time. Closing." Could you please explain why you dismissed this report and why you felt it was a waste of time? I was careful to follow the policies as laid out by Wikipedia and to provide evidence, including four incidents of identical or near-identical edits from both accounts to the same page. I was genuinely surprised by your response and would like to learn so that I can be a more effective editor in the future. Thank you. -[[User:Alexanderj|Alexanderj]] ([[User talk:Alexanderj|talk]]) 00:31, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
:The master hasn't edited in over a year and a half, and the puppet was blocked nine years ago. We will not initiate an investigation into such old disruption.--[[User:Bbb23|Bbb23]] ([[User talk:Bbb23#top|talk]]) 01:22, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
:The master hasn't edited in over a year and a half, and the puppet was blocked nine years ago. We will not initiate an investigation into such old disruption.--[[User:Bbb23|Bbb23]] ([[User talk:Bbb23#top|talk]]) 01:22, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

== Disruption Block ==

I don't mean to question your judgement, and I know there's a history here with [[Special:Contributions/2604:6000:130E:49B0:0:0:0:0/64|2604:6000:130E:49B0:0:0:0:0/64]] that I'm not fully familiar with from a quick glance at the block log. That said escalating directly from one week to three months seems a little harsh, considering the apology on the talk page and the promise to stop adding the offending link. I sure an unblock will come if this IP promises to be good in a well written request, but in general blocks are meant to be preventive not punitive, thanks for your consideration. [[Special:Contributions/2604:2000:8FC0:4:617F:E9A7:AF1C:4546|2604:2000:8FC0:4:617F:E9A7:AF1C:4546]] ([[User talk:2604:2000:8FC0:4:617F:E9A7:AF1C:4546|talk]]) 14:48, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Revision as of 14:48, 14 December 2019


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.

Grammeteo818 Sockpuppet questions

Can you please start the Sockpuppet investigations page / SPI of Grammeteo818 since you were the one who blocked the user first? Snyn7 (talk)

More Bothiman crap

Hey man, I just discovered Dindotas who is an obvious Bothiman sock. I don't know why this one didn't show up in recent CU checks, but it's been alive since late November. Could I please ask you to look around for others? I'll block this one. Thank you, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:39, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see any others. CU checks are not foolproof, particularly when socks use different ranges.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:54, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request for temporary protection to my user talk page

Would it be possible to request to have temporary protection to my user talk page? Because I've received quite a few messages recently, and none of them were of any value. (If you check the last ones that I've received, you'll know why I've labelled them as not having any value) I was thinking of requesting that my talk page be temporarily protected so that only users with autoconfirmed status and up can post messages on my user talk page. ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 11:59, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done for one month this time. Happy Holidays!--Bbb23 (talk) 13:52, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Same person?

I was looking at Talk:Inter Milan#THE LOGOOOOOO!!! and for some reason my gut was telling me that Kalabio and Super Mirai Trunks might be the same person. Today, Super Mirai Trunks popped up again asking the same weird question! I don't know what's going on, just thought it was weird and let you know if you wanted to investigate, cheers. Govvy (talk) 12:39, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kalabio hasn't edited since October 15. Super Mirai Trunks didn't start editing until November 7. Other than the intersection on the Talk page, in what other ways have the two users been disruptive? If they were editing at the same time, it would be different.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:17, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's more of what is written and how it's written, "I'm an Italian Inter Milan fan, watch out for trolls!!!" written by Kalabio, and "and since I'm an Inter fan, it really bothers me." written by the other guy. Same type of writing style to me, kinda makes me think it's the same person on two different accounts. That's about all I can say. Govvy (talk) 14:32, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You're not grasping my point. Assuming they are the same person, is what they are doing sufficiently abusive to constitute socking, particularly since the older account stopped editing before the newer account began?--Bbb23 (talk) 14:36, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not much on the English wiki contrib... Okay.. nm then! :/ Govvy (talk) 15:58, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Icewhiz

Hi, I noticed some users claimed I may be a sockmaster of Batbash or JoeZ451. Can I initiate a sockpuppet investigation of myself, and if I can, how can I do that?--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:59, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Who besides My very best wishes is accusing you? You can respond at the SPI if you wish, although that kind of back-and-forth is usually unproductive. You cannot request an investigation of yourself, though. "On some Wikimedia projects, an editor's IP addresses may be checked upon their request, typically to prove innocence against a sockpuppet allegation. Such checks are not allowed on the English Wikipedia and such requests will not be granted." (WP:CHK).--Bbb23 (talk) 14:00, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be surprised if there is a connection, but someone may want to frame you (I don't think MBLV is trying to do this, but maybe someone else has created a sock to make a connection, perhaps just to throw more chaos into this). There is a new account which was discussed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/LoganTheWatermelon/Archive which someone observed may look like someone's attempt to suggest I am socking (a lot of their edits are effectively copying my votes at AfDs with virtually the same rationale). Coincidence? Shrug.
Anyway, I came here to ask Bbb23 about 1) the usefulness of behavioral analysis. In recent SPIs I was involved in it didn't seem to matter; and checkusers don't seem to even comment on whether it is useful or not, it seems simply ignored, with comments limited to 'different IP/proxy=inconclusive'. And if so, 2) what recourse is there when new account that looks behavioraly like an old one to several users use proxies? Are they immune to SPI, despite behavioral evidence? What behavioral evidence is sufficient, outside of the sock plainly saying they are a sock of an old account? And why aren't the proxies they use blocked? TIA. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:52, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Behavioral evidence is mandatory at SPI. The analysis of it vis-a-vis technical evidence varies from report to report, and I cannot give you a one-size-fits-all answer. Proxies are not always blocked; that too varies based on the proxy.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:03, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I only replied with comments to the ping by Piotrus on SPI. This is probably Batbash. If I wanted to submit an SPI request about any user, I would do it. Not at this point. My very best wishes (talk) 16:15, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
But you also accused Paul of violating policy. If you're not prepared to follow through on that, you shouldn't have done so: it constitutes a personal attack.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:19, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I clarified my statement on SPI. I do not accuse Paul of violating the policy, and my comments are mostly related to the Joe (the SPI subject) who I think coordinate his activity with editing by Paul; all my comments were made in proper place and supported by diffs. My very best wishes (talk) 16:35, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted Page

Hello,please you deleted this page (Yve Digital) some months back. Can you please restore it back? You can do your background check on the company again and see. Thanks https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yve_Digital&action=edit&redlink=1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kwamebaahgh (talkcontribs) 16:00, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Amrik Mondal requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. UnitedStatesian (talk) 18:00, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war

Hey there, Bbb23. Thank you again for your response to this report. However, I do have a question on which I'd like to hear your take.

One of the disputed matters was the inclusion of a Hollywood Reporter (THR) citation. As it exists, the article in question, which chronicles the subject's career, contains two citations of two different reviews of two different films from THR–which is a reliable source per WP:RSP. Krimuk2.0 and I could not agree on whether or not another citation from THR that reviews another movie is appropriate. During the discussion, they stated to me: If there are already two THR reviews in the article, find a different one. There are reliable sources apart from Variety and THR, who publish reviews, so I fail to understand this THR obsession other than a need to make a point.

Regardless of whether there are other sources that could verify the disputed information, I'd like to be clear on the topic, thefore, I was wondering whether you could provide guidance regarding whether there could be too many citations from one reliable source in an article. This would clear up a lot of what's being disputed and help our discussion greatly. Thank you again! KyleJoantalk 07:12, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have no interest in getting involved in the content dispute.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:59, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. In that case, I'll see if the other editor would like to request dispute resolution. Thanks again! KyleJoantalk 14:24, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Firdaus Kharas

Hi Bbb23 hope you are well. I am requesting your assistance with this user Special:Contributions/Vinlev since he's an SPA that seems to be creating, editing, and defending articles about himself (Firdaus Kharas), but I have no way to prove that. Can you please have a look at the situation at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Firdaus Kharas? Thank you. Dr42 (talk) 08:59, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how this has anything to do with me.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:00, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sufficient behavioral evidence for SPI

Could you tell me what you'd consider sufficient behavioral evidence for SPI? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:31, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • You recently indeffed this user (and rightfully so), but there is nothing on his/her talk page indicating that s/he is indeffed. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 22:48, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lots of times I put no block notices on sock Talk pages. It's not necessary.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:54, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Michael R. Licona's Birthday

Hi. Why did you revert my recent edit to Michael R. Licona's profile? How exactly was my contribution unsourced when I provided a link to his Facebook profile with proof of the relevant information? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DreamBrother83 (talkcontribs) 00:44, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources must be placed in the article, not in edit summaries, and, generally, Facebook is not a reliable source.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:51, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't his personal Facebook page be sufficient evidence of his birthday? How is that any less reliable than if he were to have said information published on his official website or some other source? If anything, it the former ought to be more trustworthy, as he personally operates his own Facebook page. Can you please incorporate said reference into the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DreamBrother83 (talkcontribs) 06:33, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Accopulocrat

Hello,

I recently received a tip that indeffed sockmaster User:Accopulocrat, who has been evading his ban with a series of IPs, may also be operating the Numerosis account. While I don't currently have the time to file a formal SPI, the behavioral similarities seemed striking enough to justify passing this tip along to you, considering your past experience with this case. Regards,TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 08:37, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're correct. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:03, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lukas Liming - Article of Deletion

Lukas has since became popular and has a Google knowledge panel and has over 12k plays on his new album on Spotify. He has been interviewed and will be getting interviewed by another organization which will have the video posted on YouTube.

-- Do I have permission to post another article under his name?

- Please answer as soon as possible.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davisbro3812712 (talkcontribs) 23:21, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply] 

Proving

Hello, I am (wrongfully this time) accussed of being/or having a puppet account. Can you please confirm that no wikipedia users are associated with any of the ips of my accounts? In total I have 3 accounts; TakisA1, El Vecto and Panageotean Graphics. Thank you in advance.(TakisA1 (talk) 23:34, 12 December 2019 (UTC))[reply]

I allow this investigation and with this comment, I prove I am a second account of the user above(Panageotean Graphics (talk) 23:36, 12 December 2019 (UTC))[reply]
I allow this investigation and with this comment, I prove I am a second account of the user above(El Vecto (talk) 23:36, 12 December 2019 (UTC))[reply]
@TakisA1: Please answer the following: (1) a diff or diffs of the accusation of your having a sock puppet, (2) why you need three accounts, and (3) why you have come to my Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:54, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(1) I donot understand what you mean by diff. If you mean evidence, because I used a puppet before, I am accussed of being related with a puppet master (User:Vlantimir) because an account of him reverted a change I made in the file of the coats of arms of Greece (2) The one was a puppet I created and I regret (it's now blocked) and the other is for me to upload pictures with a better name (3) I came to your talk page because I read you have the capacity to prove if two accounts are or are not related. I think they accuse me of being/having a puppet of Vlantmir and User:Bobbynihi (TakisA1 (talk) 10:47, 13 December 2019 (UTC))[reply]
Vlantmir and Bobbynihi have never edited at en.wiki. I assume you're talking about accusations at el.wiki. I have nothing to do with other projects. You'll have to deal with this at el.wiki.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:50, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok then sorry, I though your abilities were universal.(TakisA1 (talk) 17:51, 12 December 2019 (UTC))[reply]

Simmerdon3448

I feel that Simmerdon3448 should also have been blocked on WP:CIR and WP:IDHT grounds, as he has repeatedly demonstrated a failure or refusal to understand Wikipedia policy, as shown here. The Grand Delusion(Send a message) 23:47, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

UnknownAssassin1819

Thanks. I was tempted but unsure. Guy (help!) 23:57, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It was easier for me because I had the advantage of a more distant perspective, having never even heard of this user until the discussion at ANI.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:26, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigations/Alialavi4000

Hi there. I reported Alialavi4000 as sockpuppeteer of the banned account Survivingparadise. You wrote in response "Waste of time. Closing." Could you please explain why you dismissed this report and why you felt it was a waste of time? I was careful to follow the policies as laid out by Wikipedia and to provide evidence, including four incidents of identical or near-identical edits from both accounts to the same page. I was genuinely surprised by your response and would like to learn so that I can be a more effective editor in the future. Thank you. -Alexanderj (talk) 00:31, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The master hasn't edited in over a year and a half, and the puppet was blocked nine years ago. We will not initiate an investigation into such old disruption.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:22, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disruption Block

I don't mean to question your judgement, and I know there's a history here with 2604:6000:130E:49B0:0:0:0:0/64 that I'm not fully familiar with from a quick glance at the block log. That said escalating directly from one week to three months seems a little harsh, considering the apology on the talk page and the promise to stop adding the offending link. I sure an unblock will come if this IP promises to be good in a well written request, but in general blocks are meant to be preventive not punitive, thanks for your consideration. 2604:2000:8FC0:4:617F:E9A7:AF1C:4546 (talk) 14:48, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]