| Revision as of 19:27, 15 May 2017 view sourceBbb23 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators271,278 editsm Reverted edits by 2A02:C7D:151D:D100:9C0C:F268:A7C1:CD4B (talk) to last version by Berean Hunter← Previous edit | Revision as of 05:19, 16 May 2017 view source Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,308,054 editsm Archiving 4 discussion(s) to User talk:Bbb23/Archive 40) (botNext edit → | ||
| Line 19: | Line 19: | ||
| </table> | </table> | ||
| {{clear}} | {{clear}} | ||
| == IAKenny == | |||
| You placed a CheckUser block on the editor IAKenny, as recorded at ]. Obviously, not being a CheckUser I can't see the relevant information, but it is clear from what has been said at ] that the account has edited from one or more the same computer as the sockpuppeteer, so you were no doubt perfectly right to block. However, I wonder whether it would now be reasonable to consider unblocking, for the following reasons. | |||
| IAKenny gives an account of how the editing from the same computer could have come about. That reads to me as a perfectly possible explanation. I have checked every edit by IAKenny, and compared them with a fairly large selection of edits by SlitherioFan2016 and known or suspected sockpuppets, and I have also run the interaction analyzer against IAKenny and all of the other accounts. There is no particular similarity in the nature of IAKenny's editing and that of the other accounts, and there is no similarity in topics that have been edited. There is not a single example of the same article being edited by IAKenny and any other account, and the very few talk page edits in common are entirely consistent with the explanation given by IAKenny. The editing on IAKenny's talk page in relation to the block and his unblock request is not similar in character to edits from SlitherioFan2016 and sockpuppets when blocked. | |||
| It seems to me far more likely that what IAKenny says is the truth than that the account is another SlitherioFan2016 sockpuppet, used in a very different way from any of the others, in which case we should unblock. However, even if anyone doesn't agree with my assessment that it is "far more likely", there seems to certainly be enough of a possibility in that direction that we have to assume good faith. <small>''The editor who uses the pseudonym''</small> "]" (]) 11:51, 4 May 2017 (UTC) | |||
| :{{re|JamesBWatson}} I have four unblock requests to review (another one is yours if I recall correctly), and as I told another administrator privately, at the moment I'm not up to it (RL stuff). Hopefully, I'll be able to get to IAKenny by next week. I appreciate your patience.--] (]) 15:29, 4 May 2017 (UTC) | |||
| ::OK, obviously nobody can be expected to always be available to deal with stuff immediately, so that's fine. Thanks for letting me know. <small>''The editor who uses the pseudonym''</small> "]" (]) 15:36, 4 May 2017 (UTC) | |||
| :::Thank you, Bbb23 and JamesBWatson. I realise this unblocking matter has consumed valuable time for both of you. I now have a bit more insight into the trials and patience of the administrators. I am grateful to both of you for the humanity you showed. For Bbb23: I have left a possible solution/wild guess about your remaining unsolved puzzle on my talk page below your unblocking message. I realise you may be too busy to pursue it, but feel free to ask me any questions if you are still curious. ] (]) 11:39, 8 May 2017 (UTC) | |||
| * Thanks for following this up, Bbb23. It looks as though you put a fair bit of work into it. <small>''The editor who uses the pseudonym''</small> "]" (]) 12:05, 8 May 2017 (UTC) | |||
| ==]== | ==]== | ||
| Line 46: | Line 31: | ||
| :::::::: Well not noticing was ''also'' my fault. Thanks for your patience. I reckon they will want it in a hurry soon. Please unblock as they did'nt do anything (in this case a bit to literally :) ... yet) - cheers Roger ] (]) 15:25, 9 May 2017 (UTC) | :::::::: Well not noticing was ''also'' my fault. Thanks for your patience. I reckon they will want it in a hurry soon. Please unblock as they did'nt do anything (in this case a bit to literally :) ... yet) - cheers Roger ] (]) 15:25, 9 May 2017 (UTC) | ||
| :::::::::{{done}}.--] (]) 15:45, 9 May 2017 (UTC) | :::::::::{{done}}.--] (]) 15:45, 9 May 2017 (UTC) | ||
| ==ANEW== | |||
| Sorry about that. ] (]) 16:32, 7 May 2017 (UTC) | |||
| :{{re|Shock Brigade Harvester Boris}} Not a bit of it. Completely understandable.--] (]) 16:53, 7 May 2017 (UTC) | |||
| == IP user Whitewashing and Revisonism == | |||
| This user, ] , continues to make edits to articles in bad faith and undoing edits, despite warnings from multiple users. ] (]) 18:51, 7 May 2017 (UTC) | |||
| == Nationality == | |||
| If the parameter should not be used, then why is it in the template? To date, I have been thanked 7 times for my edits to various pages with these edits using these parameters. The usage of this parameter is obviously subjective. If you have a problem with my usage of an available parameter, then I recommend you talk to the admins about removing the parameter from the Officeholder Infobox. Another point to consider is if you were to look through all of the edits I have made. It has become apparent that there are numerous Congressmen who are foreign born, and therefore their nationality is more ambiguous. You must also consider that information which may be obvious to you and I might not be obvious to someone else. ] (]) 18:06, 8 May 2017 (UTC) | |||
| :Infobox officeholder has no guidance on when to use the field. Just because a field is in a template doesn't mean it has to be used in a particular article. I'm not talking about instances where the nationality is "ambiguous". See Infobox person for some implicit guidance: "May be used instead of citizenship (below) or vice versa in cases where any confusion could result. Should only be used with citizenship when they somehow differ." If someone was born in the U.S. and spent their life in the U.S., it shouldn't be used. I repeat my warning. Go do something else.--] (]) 18:12, 8 May 2017 (UTC) | |||
| == I fail to see the issue here == | == I fail to see the issue here == | ||
Revision as of 05:19, 16 May 2017
|
|
Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Bijun yang
I wanted to let you know only one account was blocked instead of all. SwisterTwister talk 16:26, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks @SwisterTwister: - Can you assist?. I read above that Bbb23 wanted me to unblock the accounts. That is not what (s)he wanted and we seem to have got into a mess. I have a real world appointment in 20 mins and I want to get this resolved. I am concerned that the unblock is being seen as over riding Bbb23 whereas I read it as a request for me to undo it. Victuallers (talk) 16:35, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
- (talk page watcher) @Victuallers: Sorry, me again, not stalking you :) just reblock them, with a note in the block log to say you're restoring a CU block. That should cover you I hope. — O Fortuna 16:44, 5 May 2017 (UTC) Thats helpful, I think Ive just done the same!!! - thanks - although I'm sure we have two very confused newbies. Victuallers (talk) 16:52, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
- No problem. I know I shouldn't try and read Bbb23's muind (but will- sorry!), but I think the communication problem stemmed from misintepreting what was to be 'fixed', that's all- I bet he meant the broken template the editor had used, and you interpreted that as fixing the unblock itself. Well, TGIF eh :) — O Fortuna 17:03, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
- Reading my mind is a dangerous practice, not because you're necessarily wrong, but because you might get stuck in my brain, which is not a pretty place. Hopefully, you use state-of-the-art survival tools. Or maybe you're as crazy as I am in which case you'll be just fine.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:15, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
- Err... I was hoping that leaving a trail of breadcrunbs would get me out OK! ;) — O Fortuna 09:46, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
- Can you take a look at Fakhruddin Patanwalla please. It appears to be still blocked as an innocent sockpuppet suspect. Cheers Victuallers (talk) 12:18, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
- I asked you about this user in the section above, but I guess you didn't notice. The user's last edit was on March 24. I blocked on May 5. Unlike the other two, they didn't complain about the block. Looks to me like they were no longer interested in editing. I'll still unblock if you wish, but we'd only talked about the other two.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:16, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
- Well not noticing was also my fault. Thanks for your patience. I reckon they will want it in a hurry soon. Please unblock as they did'nt do anything (in this case a bit to literally :) ... yet) - cheers Roger Victuallers (talk) 15:25, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Done.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:45, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
- Well not noticing was also my fault. Thanks for your patience. I reckon they will want it in a hurry soon. Please unblock as they did'nt do anything (in this case a bit to literally :) ... yet) - cheers Roger Victuallers (talk) 15:25, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
- I asked you about this user in the section above, but I guess you didn't notice. The user's last edit was on March 24. I blocked on May 5. Unlike the other two, they didn't complain about the block. Looks to me like they were no longer interested in editing. I'll still unblock if you wish, but we'd only talked about the other two.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:16, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
- Can you take a look at Fakhruddin Patanwalla please. It appears to be still blocked as an innocent sockpuppet suspect. Cheers Victuallers (talk) 12:18, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
- Err... I was hoping that leaving a trail of breadcrunbs would get me out OK! ;) — O Fortuna 09:46, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
- Reading my mind is a dangerous practice, not because you're necessarily wrong, but because you might get stuck in my brain, which is not a pretty place. Hopefully, you use state-of-the-art survival tools. Or maybe you're as crazy as I am in which case you'll be just fine.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:15, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
- No problem. I know I shouldn't try and read Bbb23's muind (but will- sorry!), but I think the communication problem stemmed from misintepreting what was to be 'fixed', that's all- I bet he meant the broken template the editor had used, and you interpreted that as fixing the unblock itself. Well, TGIF eh :) — O Fortuna 17:03, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
- (talk page watcher) @Victuallers: Sorry, me again, not stalking you :) just reblock them, with a note in the block log to say you're restoring a CU block. That should cover you I hope. — O Fortuna 16:44, 5 May 2017 (UTC) Thats helpful, I think Ive just done the same!!! - thanks - although I'm sure we have two very confused newbies. Victuallers (talk) 16:52, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
I fail to see the issue here
Since you have not replied to my email I sent you two days ago, I'll ask here. ACC has a backlog of account requests needing CU run on them before continuing the request process. I had posted a message at WP:CU/N hoping that some idle CU's could stop by and help. You reverted the post straight out with an edit summary of "doesn't belong here", My understanding of "WP:CU/N" means Check User Noticeboard, I sent you an email asking why is this venue inappropriate for my post, you have not answered, so I ask again, why is asking for Checkuser help at the Check User Noticeboard inappropriate ? - Mlpearc (open channel) 16:19, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
- You decided that the SPI Talk page was the "Check User Noticeboard". A bit incestuous, don't ya think?--Bbb23 (talk) 16:54, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
- I didn't, the shortcut of WP:CU/N does. - Mlpearc (open channel) 16:56, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
- What's your problem? You created that shortcut. I just deleted it and reverted your edit. Leave it alone. If another CheckUser wants to reinstate your edit, fine.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:00, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
- @Mlpearc:, Misplaced Pages talk:Sockpuppet investigations is not the "CheckUser Noticeboard", it's the discussion board for sockpuppet investigations, and it's unlikely that anyone following that board has any particular interest or expertise in account creation. This is a silly windmill to tilt at. If you want attention to the backlog at ACC, post at WP:AN. Ivanvector (/Edits) 17:06, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
- I'm a CU and I've never looked at that talk page, I think. Sorry, Mlpearc. AN is the right place. Drmies (talk) 17:15, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
- @Mlpearc:, Misplaced Pages talk:Sockpuppet investigations is not the "CheckUser Noticeboard", it's the discussion board for sockpuppet investigations, and it's unlikely that anyone following that board has any particular interest or expertise in account creation. This is a silly windmill to tilt at. If you want attention to the backlog at ACC, post at WP:AN. Ivanvector (/Edits) 17:06, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
- What's your problem? You created that shortcut. I just deleted it and reverted your edit. Leave it alone. If another CheckUser wants to reinstate your edit, fine.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:00, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
- I didn't, the shortcut of WP:CU/N does. - Mlpearc (open channel) 16:56, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
- Bbb23, if I might be so bold as to offer some constructive criticism, is not particularly helpful as a response, perhaps next time point people to the right place as well as saying their first point is the wrong place? I also find somewhat rude, considering at that point from what I can tell you'd still not pointed them to the right place. It's just a thought that might have avoided threats and raised tempers this time around. It's possibly also worth mentioning that the historical Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser and Misplaced Pages:CheckUser both point to Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet_investigations as the place to go - if we're on a cleanup pass it might be worth dealing with those too, again so we can try and avoid this situation in the future?
- While what's done is done, and another experienced editor has been pushed to a wikibreak, can we at least figure out where the right place is, considering @Ivanvector: and @Drmies:'s suggestion of WP:AN doesn't really fit either, considering most administrators don't hold the checkuser bit? Or just screw the bureaucracy of what is or isn't the right place for something that doesn't quite fit anywhere, and just try to deal with the issue?
- Anyway, food for thought. 18:00, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
- @Stwalkerster: please see the discussion to this effect currently ongoing at WP:AN. Ivanvector (/Edits) 18:07, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
- My apologies, I missed that :) 18:17, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
- @Stwalkerster: please see the discussion to this effect currently ongoing at WP:AN. Ivanvector (/Edits) 18:07, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Closing with no action
Closing with no action is that mean you didn't check run the case i presented enlighten me please? Somajeeste (talk) 02:15, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
Harassment through repeating same SPI
Terabar has again filed the same SPI that he did few months ago, and canvassed another editor. I should also note that Terabar has referred me as sock of D4iNA4 recently on other spaces and still keeps calling us a sock of each other despite failed SPI. Now he also calling another person (Rzvas) a sock as well, with whom I may happen to share my IP despite I already declared it. Capitals00 (talk) 12:30, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
- @Capitals00: Looks like Ivanvector dealt with the SPI. However, I do have a question. What is the reason you share an IP with Rzvas (talk · contribs · count), and why did the two of you not declare it before a couple of days ago? If you feel the information is private, please e-mail me. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:35, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks and I mailed. Capitals00 (talk) 14:57, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
Akbaralighazi
Hello. AFAIK Najafalibhayo and Akbaralighazi are two separate cases and should not be merged. Akbar is connected to, or more likely is, Rehmat Aziz Chitrali, and Najaf didn't enter the scene until after User:Rachitrali, the latest editor who undoubtedly is Rehmat Aziz Chitrali, was blocked, i.e. the cases from May of this year. The socks after that, including User:Rehmat Aziz Chitrali, User:Rehmat Aziz Chitrali Gold Medalist and the latest batch of socks, are Najaf though, who for one reason or other is going after Rehmat Aziz Chitrali, i.e. the real life person, on multiple language versions of WP, possibly because of some kind of local rivalry, since both live in the same general area and both have an interest in the Khowar language. Cheers, - Tom | Thomas.W 17:40, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
- I've updated the SPI based on your comments. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:46, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
- Spot on. I tried looking last week but couldn't ascertain the motives here because I think they originate on other language Wikis. They could have had a run in or as Tom suggests, regional differences. I have received more emails from Rachitrali who is understandably upset. As far as I can see, everyone here has done the right things and assessed the situation correctly.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 13:47, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
- Spot on. I tried looking last week but couldn't ascertain the motives here because I think they originate on other language Wikis. They could have had a run in or as Tom suggests, regional differences. I have received more emails from Rachitrali who is understandably upset. As far as I can see, everyone here has done the right things and assessed the situation correctly.
Faizan
- WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Faizan
- Faizan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Hi Bbb23, I saw you indeffed User:Faizan, not without a reason. However, given that he has made thousands of valuable contributions, I think you could have been less harsh on him - esp. that blocks are supposed to be preventive rather than punitive. For a long-term contributor who just once ventured out to prohibited area, I feel a shorter block would be sufficient to prevent reocurrence. Won't it? — kashmiri 01:09, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
- In my opinion WP:OFFER might be considered after a year. But his socking wasted the time of a lot of editors and admins. Even Faizan himself is no angel: just checking his last page of contributions shows a 3RR violation on April 30 at History of Pakistan that may have gone unnoticed at the time. EdJohnston (talk) 01:23, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
- I don't intend to do anything unless the user makes an unblock request.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:08, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
Satisfied customer
Hi, I just wanted to let you know that a user left this complaint about you at Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration/Requests. I doubt he'll get very far with this but I thought you should know nonetheless. Cheers. —KuyaBriBri 07:55, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:27, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
Lauren Harries
Hi Bbb23 just to let you know. I reverted an edit of yours regarding the year. Whilst the date is unrealible, the year is from a reliable source. Thanks, ChocolateCoatedStrawberry —Preceding undated comment added 12:46, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
Advice required, please
Bbb23, I've stumbled upon rather an unusual situation and wondered if I could seek your administrator advice. JohnCD had issued a polite note on 28 June 2016 to a user requesting they remove the fantasy contest from their user page. I was about to contact John, only to find they have sadly passed away. It would appear that User:NAXAlc has still not removed the content from their page. Should I take this matter to WP:AN, or issue a second reminder to the user myself? Wes Wolf 15:55, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
- I just deleted the page. Easiest.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:30, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you, Bbb23. Wes Wolf 17:50, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
Shekar Sega
Not sure what to do here. The user keeps deleting the POV maintenance tag without a discussion on the talkpage, and I think the user has resorted to using an IP rather than their username to make it look like its a third person? Could you take a look and take action/advise? Thanks! Nicnote • ask me a question • contributions 18:54, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
- @Nicnote: There's not much you can do except edit-war, and it's not worth possibly being blocked for that. I don't think the POV template is the appropriate one. I've slapped an advert template on the article, which I think is more accurate. It's also written very badly. If you think the person is not notable, you can take it to AfD, but you'd have to do some homework before doing that. I can't comment on the IPs. I'll keep it on my watchlist for a while.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:37, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
Dear @Nicnote: and @Bbb23: The person related to the article and myself are editing and revising the contents of the page regularly to comply with Misplaced Pages rules. We sincerely apologize for what happened earlier for removing tags without submitting proper edit Summary. We appreciate you both for taking time to help us on the improvement of article. I kindly request you to go through the Article again, We have made numerous changes now in sake of Neutrality and trimmed the contents as much we could. Kindly notify me what we could do on further improvement of the article and kindly remove the advert template and NPOV tags if you feel the article complies with it.--Danielprashaanth (talk) 11:33, 15 May 2017 (UTC)