User talk:Bbb23

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


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.

Demorea[edit]

Your presence has been requested. - NeutralhomerTalk • 00:33 on December 3, 2018 (UTC)

Merry Christmas !!![edit]

Blocks of User:Ng.yisheng, User:Zeekyang, others?[edit]

Would you mind taking a look at the unblock requests for these two? They'd apparently organized a small Wikithon, and it seems like they've made at least some effort to be transparent about their WP:COI in the topics they were editing. Maybe there's more to it than I'm seeing. Thanks, OhNoitsJamie Talk 06:17, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

@Ohnoitsjamie: Sigh. Take a look at the conversation between User talk:Vlorz and me (which occurred before I read the lengthy unblock requests of the two users you noted above). These sorts of things happen with far too much frequency because Wikipedia's procedures are not followed, and seasoned editors have no way of knowing that the multi-user collaboration is due to a wikithon or a school project as opposed to socking. Putting aside these quibbles for a moment, according to to Ng.yisheng, there are ten participants. He names nine but apparently forgets the 10th. Take a look at Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Ng.yisheng. That shows 13 socks of the master, or 14 accounts in total. Should we unblock the nine mentioned by Ng.yisheng? Should we only unblock those of the nine who have requested unblocks? I'm not inclined to unblock users/accounts who have not requested an unblock, but am certainly disinclined to unblock those who aren't part of the group of 10. I would have been much happier if this had been organized by an experienced editor. None of this group is what I would call experienced enough to pull this off. And then there's the matter of the pages created by the users and whether they're sufficiently notable. In any event, I'm open to suggestions. BTW, what these folk say is at least technically plausible.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:34, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
It caught my attention because it was one of the rare unblock requests that seemed pretty reasonable (and friendly) at face value, but I figured there was more to the story. One one hand, I'm fervently opposed to coordinated self-promotion, but on the other hand, I'm aware that there is a Western bias on Wikipedia in terms of coverage, and I don't know enough about Singapore literature to judge the merits of the notability claims.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ohnoitsjamie (talkcontribs) 00:02, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Some of these folks are claiming to be part of a Wikithon. Seems doubtful, but I don't know how to proceed w/ declining their unblocks.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:26, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
  • @Dlohcierekim: I've moved your post to keep it together with Jamie's and my conversation. After you've read my notes here and elsewhere, I'd like to know what you think. Also, please sign your post above (otherwise it won't archive properly). Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:24, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
  • If these edits were promotional, I'd say leave them blocked. If not, then there is the possibility of sincerity. I did not know that people were organizing Wikithons w/o telling Wikipedia. However, this would be a great way to circumvent our anti sock farm procedures. Perhaps if they can make constructive edits through AfC it would work out. We need more eyes.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:31, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
  • My tentative inclination is to unblock any users/accounts who request it and leave the others alone. There's still a discrepancy between what Ng.yisheng says about the number of users (he named 9 but said there were 10 but couldn't remember the 10th) and the number of users/accounts I blocked (14). Pending any unblocks, I agree that more eyes would be useful, but whose?Face-smile.svg --Bbb23 (talk) 18:52, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Some of them have posted unblock requests: Eyeyannuh, JayDubYewHo, Ng.yisheng, and Zeekyang. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:51, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
  • @Anachronist: Thanks. I don't suppose you'd like to offer an opinion about the disposition of these users? I'm still looking for "more eyes".--Bbb23 (talk) 21:02, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
Well, I appreciated the transparency in the unblock requests, and I believe they are editing in good faith. They do need some familiarity with best practices, such as using edit summaries, and they may need more familiarity with notability guidelines. However, I've looked at a couple of drafts they moved to main space and they look fairly well done, though, so I think this group could be good contributors here. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:58, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I've unblocked all the users who have made unblock requests + one other, Vlorz (talk · contribs · count), who implicitly requested an unblock. I have also removed the sock tags from all the users' userpages. If someone else requests an unblock, I hope they ping me. I don't keep every sock I block on my watchlist. Thanks for everyone's help.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:04, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks for this, appreciate you all taking the time and work. We're asking our other wikithon participants to request unblocks. We also note how we fell short of best practices. We hope to continue to build up Wikipedia articles on Singapore Literature; if any editors could point us to Singapore-based ones so we can get in contact, that would be great. Cheers! JayDubYewHo (talk) 01:43, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

SPI[edit]

Hi Bbb23, Could I ask do you deal with SPIs privately ?,
I only ask as the SPI would involve 2 IPs and an account - The first IP reveal was an accident on their part but the other is evading scrutiny so I don't know where this should be done publicly or privately,
Many thanks, –Davey2010Talk 13:53, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

I can't disclose the IP(s) of named accounts. Sorry.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:57, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
Oh no no I didn't want to know the results but I wasn't sure if it could be considered outing if I were to do an SPI,
Would it be best if I just filed an SPI anyway ?, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 15:16, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
Not outing, but if you wish, you can provide me with the diffs so I can see if they should be rev/del'd or suppressed.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:19, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi, This is the logged-out IP of this editor,
I've come across 202.58.170.123, 120.188.65.92 and 2001:8003:2666:F600:64AF:ECB4:B885:EE1 who are all similar but long story short other than edit summaries being similar and the 2001 IPs being close to each other I don't really have any evidence (hence why I'm hesitant with SPI),
Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 16:22, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
I don't think the 202 and 120 IPs are theres but I'm convinced the other is so I'll file an SPI, Sorry to bother you, Thanks for your help, –Davey2010Talk 16:26, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

M-y_R-o-y-a-l_Y-o-u-n-g[edit]

I think I have found an IP that could belong to a LTA, M-y_R-o-y-a-l_Y-o-u-n-g, and I would like to open a SPI case to ask checkusers to investigate him. However, if I am not mistaken, CU Policy does not allow to link IPs to accounts, so the request would be declined. I am asking you, a sysop and checkuser, if you could tell me whether it is as I have said or it is possible to make an exception to this rule. Thanks. (Why does an automated filter has identified this edit as potentially unconstructive just because I wrote the full name of a blocked abuser? Please report or fix this error!) 37.9.169.5 (talk) 09:39, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

If the IP is currently editing, you can file a report. Just do not request a CU. Follow the procedures at WP:SPI for IPs filing new reports. As for the edit filter issue, you need to go to WP:EF/FP/R.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:48, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

MOS:LQ[edit]

RE: this. Per MOS:LQ, the quotation is not presented as a complete sentence, but as a dependent clause introduced with that; this makes the period belong to the containing sentence, rather than the quotation. As the quoted sentence is a complete sentence in the source, the sentence could be recast so that the source sentence is presented as complete, à la:

A 2005 Arbitration Committee decision established: "For the purpose of dispute resolution when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sockpuppets or several users with similar editing habits they may be treated as one user with sockpuppets."

But as currently presented, the text violates the logic of MOS:LQ. I leave it to you to choose which path to fix it, but it can't be left as it is. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:53, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

@EEng: You're an MOS expert, aren't you? I reread the guideline once and decided that CT was wrong. Then I foolishly read it again and decided that CT was probably right. Not to be outdone by myself, I read it a third time and couldn't decide. So? Take me out of my self-imposed misery; you can even use an image to lighten/heighten the blow. I'm betting against myself.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:06, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
For what it's worth, if this was FAC CT would be right. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:15, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Whoever made this sign couldn't decide if the quote mark goes before or after the period, so he hedged his bets by putting it right above.
  • Bbb, I appreciate your compliment in calling on me, and it pains me deeply to disappoint you, but the fact is I can never quite wrap my mind around LQ. It starts with "Include terminal punctuation within the quotation marks only if it was present in the original material, and otherwise place it after the closing quotation mark." So far so good, but it's all downhill from there. By the time we're at "If the quoted sentence is followed by a clause that should be preceded by a comma, omit the full stop", I'm all mixed up. Heads of state and captains of industry seek my counsel on matters big and small, but when it comes to LQ I tell them they're on their own. If an LQ issue arises in article editing I close my eyes and make my best guess.
    I hope this failure won't prevent you from calling on me again. EEng 18:28, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  • @EEng: Even in "failure" you don't disappoint. As long as you're not annoyed with me (join the queue), it's a pleasure to read your comments. That said, you're not going to get off quite that easily. In this instance, what's your "best guess?" or your "best guess"?--Bbb23 (talk) 18:35, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
    My Magic 8-Ball says Ask again later. EEng 02:06, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Party pooper.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:46, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Stale...[edit]

Huh. Thought the pixie dust trails were longer than that. However: four new ones popped up today, I added them at: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lawmander Guy (Help!) 22:00, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, boss. Guy (Help!) 21:33, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Wikieditor600[edit]

If this isn't a sock I will donate my next month's admin salary to the Salvation Army. But I have no clue who they are. Any ideas? -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:40, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

No idea, and there's no technical evidence of socking. I prefer you use a different charity.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:30, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

YGM[edit]

{{YGM}}!

I know you pinged me on SPI: Forgot it till now. Will take a look now. — regards, Revi 13:17, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

SPI clerk[edit]

Hi. There are a few long-standing requests to become an SPI clerk here. You answered the latest request so I thought you should be aware. IWI (chat) 17:40, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

I comment there only if I have something to say, which is rare. AFAIK, I did not respond to the "latest request".--Bbb23 (talk) 17:48, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Sock Investigation Review[edit]

Hi Bbb23, I know you are busy, but could you take a look at a Sock investigation involving me? [1]

I think the finding of sock was a bit hasty given that the evidence was solely duck based (and the language isn't even that similar) and the argument was being used by at least two other users as well. The report was also by a user who disagreed with the positions being offered (and is taking the same position in a follow on merge discussion), so I (perhaps being defensive here) suspect retaliation.

Normally, I wouldn't care because the ban has expired. But once an association of "Sockmaster" has been established on a case that taint is hard to remove. I honestly have no connection to the MarkAGuinn account and would have like the opportunity to remove that association from my record if possible.

Squatch347 (talk) 18:34, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

There's nothing I can do.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:36, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Ok, sorry to bother you. Squatch347 (talk) 19:34, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Squatch347 Bbb23 did not block you. I can see that on your user talk page you were told to ask the blocking admin. In your case that is TheSandDoctor. You should go to their talk page for this.-- 5 albert square (talk) 21:40, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
@5 albert square: I believe the user went to TSD's Talk page first; TSD hasn't yet responded. After that, the user started making the rounds. I might have been #3.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:43, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Number 2 actually 😉. Again, sorry if I've acted inappropriately, I didn't mean to cause a problem. I was probably just a bit butthurt about the accusation and looking for help. Squatch347 (talk) 22:24, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Ah my fault I didn't see that, I think I need new glasses Face-smile.svg. Bbb23 it may also have been because you commented right underneath about an SPI Face-smile.svg. Squatch347 hopefully giving them a prod above will encourage them to look at their talk page for any missed messages Face-smile.svg.-- 5 albert square (talk) 00:29, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
@Bbb23 and 5 albert square: I saw that comment when I got up this morning, but did not have the time to adequately respond and this whole discussion took place while I was at work. I have now responded on my talk page, sorry for the delay. --TheSandDoctor Talk 00:56, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
It's Sunday; why are you at work when you can be here relaxing and having fun?--Bbb23 (talk) 00:58, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Yes, especially when you can hang out at SPI or Bbb23's talk page! I'm thankful my work isn't open on Sundays. Although going by our Facebook page, some customers think we shouldn't even get Sunday off!-- 5 albert square (talk) 01:06, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. The specific link is Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Unban_request_for_Thepoliticsexpert. Yamla (talk) 22:44, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Blocking IPs[edit]

Mind if I ask you something? What has this got to do with anything? I am the only person to edit from this account and I have a reason not to wish to start my own account (it could compromise my father's rectitude as he has an account - we could eventually resolve the issue but it would involve process and some off-Wiki interface). The point is that if a longer block was needed, any admin could have done so. I am not going near the one article that I edited until all is resolved at AN/I, but likewise I fear touching any article as we speak because I have valid reason to suspect that my contributions will be reverted on some invented principle (e.g. sockpuppetry / vandalism) and when I challenge it, it will be WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Just look at every contribution I have made since the lifting of my second block. 81.137.62.113 (talk) 05:43, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Oduduwa[edit]

Pls can you tell me why you had to revert my edits when actually they contain the most accurate account of Oduduwa? Any elementary West African history book can tell you that what I put there is correct and i have provided a verifiable citation. Ppdallo (talk) 08:07, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Hellishscrubber[edit]

Hi, Hellishscrubber is back with a new sockpuppet account making same edit at NYU.

Thank you so much and best regards,216.165.95.144 (talk) 22:12, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

SPI![edit]

Hey!!

If you have a spare hour week or two could you please take a look at this? Not only are the edits similar (disruptively editing) all accounts suddenly issued unblock requests through UTRS today. Just wanting to check there are no sleepers.-- 5 albert square (talk) 00:12, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

@5 albert square: I could pretty much have predicted the result before I started. I'm curious to know the IP at UTRS. Could you e-mail it to me, please? Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:32, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
I don't have this information unfortunately, I'll ping in Just Chilling, they're tool admin on UTRS so I don't know if they can get it.-- 5 albert square (talk) 05:16, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Just so it doesn't get missed, I'll also ping in Ponyo as they're also tool admin. Hopefully they can get it. I can only see the number of requests that the IP made not the actual IP itself. Ponyo, one of the UTRS ticket numbers is 23760.-- 5 albert square (talk) 05:30, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
@5 albert square: I am travelling but will email the IP addresses to you both late tonight. Just Chilling (talk) 19:25, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
@Just Chilling: I emailed it to Bbb23 just now.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:03, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Mark P. Lagon[edit]

I nominated Mark P. Lagon for speedy deletion on A7 and G11 grounds, and you declined the nomination. I agree that he is probably notable but the article remains promotional with much peacocky reference to grandiose organisations that do not have Wikipedia articles. The creator has admitted being a former intern and therefore has a CoI, please see this discussion on the CoI notioceboard. I propose draftifying the article to allow the creator to produce an unpromotional version, but will not do so if you object. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:37, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

I have mixed feelings about it. I don't think it's as promotional as you do, but at the same time I think it would be good for it to go through the AfC process. I'm also reluctant to approve draftifying it as the COI policy has not changed from "should" to "must" yet. I'm going to ask the opinion of two other admins who both have significant experience in CSD (not quite the same but related): @DGG and SoWhy: BTW, Cwmhiraeth, that's an awfully pretty picture you have on your userpage.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:47, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
(pinged) I would cousel against draftifying. There is no policy reason to do so and WP:IMPERFECT explicitly allows such content to exist if the subject is notable. Only if it remains in mainspace can other interested editors find and improve it. Instead, remove the spammy bits as far as needed which might also include WP:STUBIFYing. That way, nothing of importance is lost while the spammy text no longer persists. Regards SoWhy 15:35, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Editing the article to remove the promotional content should not require stubifying.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:52, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
It never was A7, and probably was not promotional enough for G11. There is a choice of two good ways to proceed--either remove the puffery now, or move it to draft and remove the puffery later. What would not be a good idea is to leave it in mainspace in this promotional condition. In principle, the ed who wrote it should do the fixing, but it may be easier for one of us to do it than to explain just why is promotional . DGG ( talk ) 17:58, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Thank you all for your comments. I will do some work on the article andt will not draftify it. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:35, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

User:Jon2021[edit]

You blocked Jon2021 a few days ago - could you remove talk page access, too, please? The fact that he uses his talk page for hoax biographies and other disruption is maybe not going to break Wikipedia, but he clearly has no intention of requesting an unblock. --bonadea contributions talk 11:40, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Need some repairs and maintenance[edit]

Hi, Bbb23 - your decline of Pradeep Chandran was followed by my AfD, but a problem was encountered and the new AfD is written on the old AfD. I suppose the closer didn't do something that was supposed to be done during the former close. Will you please take a look at it? Atsme✍🏻📧 17:22, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

After you nominated it, CAPTAIN RAJU changed the template. The AfD itself doesn't look quite right in the sense that there would normally be a pointer to the first AfD, and there isn't. Perhaps CAPTAIN RAJU can explain. I don't know how all those things interact.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:13, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
I knew something didn't smell quite right - couldn't put my finger on it but here it is. Any suggestions as to what I should have/could have done differently from the beginning to make it easier for all of us? Atsme✍🏻📧 00:00, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
I can't follow what Kudpung did, so I have nothing to suggest.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:22, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
I spent well over an hour looking into that and the AfD was the least of my concerns. What I did is documented on my talk page, but if I missed something crucial and erred, I'd be happy to revert or restore any action I made. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:45, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
On your Talk page it looks like you deleted the article per g5, but when I looked at your log, I thought you deleted it per g4. Hence, my confusion, but maybe I didn't look at it carefully enough. I can be lazy, and I'm more tired at the end of the day (my day). Bottom line: I didn't care all that much because one way or another I figured the article would be deleted, so I certainly wasn't looking for a reason to question your actions.Face-smile.svg --Bbb23 (talk) 01:19, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Apologies - I didn't intend to create an issue or time sink. I originally tagged it A7 (it was previously deleted as non-notable and nothing had changed for the better as far as material, cited RS or N) so I thought an A7 was the safest, least time consuming route but the A7 was declined. I came back here after I read what Kudz did, but since he was going to bed, I didn't want to disturb him further. I'm just looking for ways to improve my tag choices to save us all a bit of time dealing with rather obvious delete candidates (Damn, well over an hour Kudz? Was the info you found available to non-admins to track down?) Atsme✍🏻📧 03:01, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Question[edit]

Hi Bbb23. I have quostion to you (since you are checkuser). Could you tell name of contry this user: Ios2019. I only ask because of he made one edition which has been later delted by Iran Ip (This user has made one voting at vital article project). It seems be strange due to fact this IP delted this edition later nd this user made only one edition. Yours sinceely. Dawid2009 (talk) 20:30, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, policy prohibits me from doing that.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:46, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

SPI[edit]

Hi, I'm sorry you'd "rather not" be challenged, but I feel you're attempting to exceed your authority over at SPI. Where are you getting the notion that patrolling admins can't make uncontentious clerk requests? I have previously been told by a clerk to make a clerk request in this exact situation. At WP:SPI/C#Admin patrollers, one of the roles of admins is to "Draw Clerk or Checkuser attention to incipient problems." Why, exactly, would we be prohibited from making clerk requests, in a situation where we need a clerk? Where does it say patrolling admins can not manage SPI cases? All the SPI guidance and instruction pages I see appear to say the opposite. Granted, clerks and CUs have specialized roles that admins can't fulfill, but according to WP:SPI/AI, "Decisions and case control at SPI are routinely managed by "any admin". While Checkusers add evidence, and Checkusers and Clerks may take action, any admin can make decisions on cases and their management ... within the norms of SPI." These SPI norms are meticulously and repeatedly spelled out on various SPI subpages. I don't think what you are saying is the position of the community. However, if I'm wrong, simply explain to me how, and I will honestly apologize for giving you a hard time.  ~~Swarm~~  {talk}  03:44, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Request to change Block settings of User:Dr Samkiv Kumar[edit]

You recently blocked Dr Samkiv Kumar for socking abuse but you left his talk page in good faith. But now he misuse it for made personal allegations like illiterate. So now I request you to ban him from editing talk page too. I also ready to report user if you suggest.-- Prongs31 09:11, 17 January 2019 (UTC)