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 Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) at 05:10, 11 December 2017 (Archiving 2 discussion(s) to User talk:Bbb23/Archive 41) (bot). 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.

Winner winner chicken dinner!

I knew you couldn't break up with us forever . --Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 22:36, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Too many of my recent edits to talk pages have been "welcome back" or similar - can people please stop taking these breaks but indeed, good to see you're back -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 22:39, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah good to see you back :)--5 albert square (talk) 22:41, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Very happy to see you back :) TonyBallioni (talk) 00:31, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks folks. How are you cooking the chicken, Ponyo?--Bbb23 (talk) 01:37, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I left the chicken for another night and whipped up a lovely baked gnocchi with kale, mushrooms and tomatoes. It was divine! --Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 16:49, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm now confused. Did I win the dinner or did you? Although I do like chicken, the gnocchi sound really great. And I wasn't invited because ...?--Bbb23 (talk) 19:01, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There's a water-sealed package of leftovers merrily floating its way to you as we speak.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 22:44, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Better than a sealed package of leftover water, one supposes. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:13, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm hardly the first to say it, but it's great to see you around again. GABgab 17:09, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@GeneralizationsAreBad: My former trainee who became a big shot about two weeks before I went on break. You were great at SPI as a non-admin clerk. Your work there since becoming an admin has been even better. It's not just because you can take administrative actions on your own. You seem to have gained a greater degree of confidence and become more assertive. Sure helps out the lowly CUs like me and Miss Chicken Dinner.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:01, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
↑Truth↑ --Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 22:45, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm

You say technically Unlikely. Fair enough, but reading the edit summaries I find the quacking near-deafening. What do you think? Guy (Help!) 19:52, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No way of knowing, but my instincts in this case are they are separate people. Of course, they might know each other or know the professor. Is the guy really notable? It's a pretty nothing article.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:57, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's only a nothing article after the puffery was removed, but yes, I agree. Guy (Help!) 22:07, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ANI Experiences survey

The Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative (led by the Safety and Support and Anti-Harassment Tools team) is conducting a survey for en.wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with the Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works - which problems it deals with well, and which problems it struggles with.

The survey should take 10-20 minutes to answer, and your individual responses will not be made public. The survey is delivered through Google Forms. The privacy policy for the survey describes how and when Wikimedia collects, uses, and shares the information we receive from survey participants and can be found here:

If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be mailed to you via Special:Emailuser.

Thank you on behalf of the Support & Safety and Anti-Harassment Tools Teams, Patrick Earley (WMF) talk 18:24, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – December 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2017).

Administrator changes

added Joe Roe
readded JzG
removed Ericorbit • Perceval • Thingg • Tristanb • Violetriga

Guideline and policy news

  • Following a request for comment, a new section has been added to the username policy which disallows usernames containing emoji, emoticons or otherwise "decorative" usernames, and usernames that use any non-language symbols. Administrators should discuss issues related to these types of usernames before blocking.

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • Over the last few months, several users have reported backlogs that require administrator attention at WP:ANI, with the most common backlogs showing up on WP:SPI, WP:AIV and WP:RFPP. It is requested that all administrators take some time during this month to help clear backlogs wherever possible. It should be noted that AIV reports are not always valid; however, they still need to be cleared, which may include needing to remind users on what qualifies as vandalism.
  • The Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative is conducting a survey for English Wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works (i.e. which problems it deals with well and which problems it struggles with). If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be emailed to you via Special:EmailUser.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:57, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Bbb23. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry/Rochelimit

Thanks for letting me now of this--Rochelimit (talk) 00:13, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Bbb23 this accusation is a new territory for me. Normally I edit slowly, but during the 2017 Wikipedia Asian Month challenge, my talk page began to receive spams and accusations, perhaps because I am one of the highest contributors in the score. I ignored the spams, keeping them as a history on my talk page as I normally would do, but some accusation is a bit too much for me. I actually don't feel very comfortable editing in Wikipedia because of these. Unfortunately, this continues after the event, hence I'm kinda worried about what will happen after this one. Is it normal to be worried? Please help me on how to deal with this, if I need help I will ask your guidance, if it's okay.--Rochelimit (talk) 11:46, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, the above is at least as disturbing to me as the SPI should be to Rochelimit, especially now that I have directly stated that I think a joe-job (which still merits a check, given that multiple accounts are apparently being operated by the same user). Bbb23, I'm pretty sure you can still see the deleted version of this page, so ... well, I know what I'm talking about.
RL, please do not make bogus conflations (my talk page began to receive spams and accusations) of my "ask_someone_else_to_do_it" telling you that you should not remove maintenance templates without fixing the problems with this kind of remark. Heck, even if you don't like the SPI, you should not equate a normal Wikipedia process (which was endorsed by a clerk, who had nothing whatsoever to do with WAM) to blatant racist trolling, as you did above with I ignored the spams, keeping them as a history on my talk page as I normally would do, (diff) and this continues after the event (which could only refer to the current SPI). It's not clear why you are badmouthing me like this on an admin's talk page, but you really should stop it. (And while it's completely unrelated, normally if someone blanks an outrageously offensive remark that has no place anywhere on Wikipedia, even on your talk page, you should not reinstate it even if you want to "keep a record". I'm reiterating this here because you appear to have ignored my previous message on the topic.)
Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:33, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
ok ok I delete the black part, sheesh.--Rochelimit (talk) 13:13, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Now I'm receiving legal threats

Bbb23, you may not be willing to perform a CU to find out who this guy is. I have legitimately never heard of Wikipedia "invit[ing people] to edit ... article[s] with possible typographical errors"; it may refer to the text of the template message I added, but that but that is only visible to people who happen to be reading the article, which is on an obscure enough topic that we didn't have an article on it until last month, and the editor claims not to be Indonesian themselves.

But would you mind blocking the account until it retracts the bit about how I ... feel that [the SPI] goes against my first amendment rights against libel (which is a legit crime) and have grounds for a suit. I've really had enough of this whole mess; I don't even feel comfortable blanking the offending message because I suspect (per the above) that Rochelimit will just restore it without explanation.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:59, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The inviting language was bizarre. As for the libel stuff, it's borderline. I would probably just chalk it up to being angry because he was "unjustly" accused, sort of the way editors sometimes rant when they're blocked. However, I have no problem with your bringing it to ANI to see what other administrators think. In the meantime, I'll try to find out what he means by the inviting, but I have a feeling he won't answer.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:25, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, if I open an ANI thread in the near future it'll be about yet another string of weird SPAs at showed up after I tagged some articles on Indian topics that had nothing to do with Rochelimit.[1] At this point it's almost enough to make me think someone is specifically trolling me, rather than trying to set Rochelimit or whoever up... Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:46, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Removal

What did I do that was such a mess? Were they technical errors? I put a lot of work into finding all those diffs and would like to at least copy them. Atsme📞📧 14:51, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You never open an SPI with an IP as the master if there are named accounts. You open it with the oldest-created named account and list the IP "master" as one of the suspected puppets. In this instance, Kingshowman (talk · contribs · count) is a notorious sockmaster, and you should have reopened his case with your report. Also, on all the named accounts, you included "User" in the checkuser template, which screws it up; you should just use the username. You also listed a named account twice. All the named accounts were already blocked anyway, so your only real complaint was about the IP whom you named as the master as all the other IP edits were too old. So, in essence it was a simple reopen of Kingshowman listing one IP only and NOT requesting a CU because we don't publicly disclose the IP(s) of named accounts.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:58, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, ok - pardon me, I'm new to the sock game so please try to exercise a little patience. Where are the instructions for reopening a case, and is there a way I can simply recover the diffs I provided? Atsme📞📧 15:04, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Atsme: You asked what you did that was wrong. I listed everything. It wasn't meant to be offensive, just a factual response. Even my speedy delete was polite - at least I thought so. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 15:53, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
;-) - thank you for helping. It is much appreciated. Atsme📞📧 16:02, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:User409220

This user, subject of this SPI, is continuing to create TV episode lists in their user space. Since you closed the SPI I thought you might want to know. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 18:36, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]


I'm an idiot. This is actually another user (User409229) that I should add to that SPI. Sorry. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 18:41, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Uncle Milty: You don't have to reopen the SPI. I've taken care of the new account. Wonder why they skipped 26-28.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:19, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SPI questions

Could you explain in a little more detail what gave you pause here? To me this looks really obvious. This editor had no fewer than eight similarly named accounts on the go at once a few months ago, so I figured there's probably more of them out there now. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:48, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, I almost never perform a one-account "sleeper" check, and this one didn't justify an exception. The ones blocked in July were ones Katie blocked on her own and were then reported for the record. Not the same as, for example, when someone reopens the SPI with two accounts, and a check turns up several more than just the two listed.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:01, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I guess my question then is why do you not perform one-account sleeper checks? Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:17, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Sir Sputnik: If you want an answer to your last question, please sign your question properly. I'm a bit neurotic about such things; unless comments are correctly signed, the archive bot won't archive threads.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:49, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry. I didn't realize I hadn't. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:17, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's okay - just one of my pet peeves. One-account sleeper checks are generally a waste of time as they rarely produce any other accounts. I also don't like the word "sleeper". Most editors use "sleeper" as shorthand for accounts that have no edits (true sleepers) and accounts that have edits but weren't uncovered. I'm much more comfortable blocking the latter than the former because, depending on the circumstances, blocking a true sleeper risks blocking an innocent account as you have no behavior to support the technical data. In this case, I didn't think a "sleeper" check was justified and normally would have declined it. (There's also a third category of sleeper, i.e., an account that edited a long time ago, stopped editing, and then started editing again during the CU data retention period; they slept for a while. Those sleepers, who I think are the rarest, are also easier to block than the no-edit accounts because you have behavior.)--Bbb23 (talk) 18:40, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. It surprises that checking a single account would be so ineffective, but not checking them makes sense since that's case. For what it's worth, I don't much care the word sleeper myself, but it seems to be the widely accepted term, so I go with it in the interest being understood. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:20, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Help me, I don't know what to do!

Dear Bbb23.

I don't know what to do. It began with an accusation of sock/meat/joe-job to me during the WAM 2017 in which the accuser believed that I was helped by family or friends. I explained that I don't know anything about strange users who appear out of nowhere and have no interest in investigating, but the accuser does not believe in my explanation (he said it quite explicitly that he doesn't believe me), so I chose to remain silent and let the case go.--Rochelimit (talk) 12:13, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Then I think I incited anger to the accuser when I tag one of his article with this request for translate tag. The tagging has a guideline which requires me to place another tag on the user's talk page [>subst:uw-notenglish |1=Template:TranslatePassage<]. This tag automatically produces a "text" whose language turns out to be quite extreme in my opinion, it said something about "your article is going to be deleted, etc.". I think this automated tag angered him, and so after reverting all the tags, he began to tag the articles I introduced during the WAM 2017 month for bad grammar and copyright violations. I quickly check and try to reduce perceived plagiarism if apparent, but then he began to ask questions and demand answers from me from something I have no idea what. He even raises the previous sock/meat/joe-job issue again. I felt like being investigated by a police tbh.

Then as I edit the naga morsarang following his remarks and save it, he decided to delete the entire section of the article.

I'm confused and felt quite scared because I try to do whatever he told me to as close as possible to his remarks, but he kept reverting and demanding me to answer questions, and now he deletes a section (for the first time) plus demanding me to answer questions. To be honest, I don't know what to do, because everything that I do or explain seems to be wrong in front of him. I'm very sorry, this is the first time I encounter such conflict after years of peaceful edit with a variety of wiki users that help, teach, and encourage to post lists, etc. I'm not very fluent in Wikipedia guideline. Please guide me through this :(.

(talk page watcher)--@Rochelimit:-Whilst you have done a commendable job at WAM, your's usage of the translate-tag was definitely non-optimal esp. given that you and Hijri were already involved in a SPI and were not getting along very well.We use such tags in specific cases where the entire article or a considerable chunk of it is written in a language other than English.Also, in many of your articles, you seem to have straight-away copied and pasted certain statements from different sources.WP takes copyvio/plagiarism issues very seriously and IMO, it would be highly prudential to re-check all of your articles for such errors and fix them accordingly.Also, I would advise you to double-verify whether your sources support the cited statements, for anything to the contrary even executed with a deluge of good-faith often leads to a lot of problems, given WP's integral dependence on sources. Cheers ! :) Winged Blades Godric 13:12, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Winged Blades of Godric: Yes, sorry for not being able to reword the sentences good enough during the WAM sprint/marathon. I guess the intensity of the event makes me careless, to the point that when I thought I already reword the sentences to avoid copyvio, turns out it is not enough. I have to fix this bit by bit. I also try to avoid over-referencing articles with ref tags, but this probably come up as referencing the paragraph wrongly. I have to check this also. btw I already fix some articles as remarked by the accuser, but then as I edit the naga morsarang and save it, the accuser decided to delete the entire section titled "form" out of the article, including parts that have no issue. This left me to this point that I don't know what to do and I don't want to do anything to the naga morsarang article because I'm worried I would start edit-war of reverting, deleting, reverting, deleting, with the accuser. That's why now I'm confused and kinda scared of editing tbh {:( --Rochelimit (talk) 14:47, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Winged Blades of Godric: oh yeah, for the translation, I followed the guideline in here Wikipedia:Template_messages/Translation which mentioned that the Template:TranslatePassage is used to ask translation for a specific passage. That is why I placed a label {{subst:Needtrans |pg=Template:Not English |Language=unknown |Comments= }} to the bottom of the section that needs translation, as provided by the guideline, and only that part.--Rochelimit (talk) 14:59, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I posted a couple of responses to both RL and WBOG here, but honestly I'd just prefer to see how this played out. I would, however, much prefer that RL reply to my questions (even just one of them) than go around clumsily attempting to "fix" his plagiarized articles, much of which comes across as his simply trying to cover his tracks. (See, for example this, where he fixed the text I happened to have already tagged, but either didn't understand that he needed to fix everything or was hoping no one would notice that he didn't.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:21, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bbb23&oldid=814832430"