Jump to content

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 William JJ (talk | contribs) at 20:13, 2 October 2013 (→ANI: new section). 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.

Advice on possible sockpuppet

I'm not linking names as I don't want them to come and infest your page. At the end of the DR case he filed, Sarower Sigh Bhati stated he was leaving Wikipedia. Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Hridayeshwar_Singh_Bhati Yesterday, a new editor showed up at Talk:Hridayeshwar Singh Bhati, Dr Meenakshi Kanwar, exhibiting the same sort of behavior.

  1. Rapid, consecutive posts saying the same thing over and over
  2. Same habit of using other editors' entire sig (including talk page link) when replying
  3. Same need to puff up subject (youngest patent holder, "deserves" child prodigy)
  4. Same habit of placing critical importance on what is basically a regurgitation of a primary source (announcement of patent publication)

I can provide diffs for all these. Bhati's contributions can be seen starting here. He has been involved in a SPI here. Is this enough for a CU on Kanwar? If not, what do you recommend? BTW, Bhati is still editing. --NeilN talk to me 15:37, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That new editor is frustratingly dense. The old one said he was leaving but today he has logged in to talk to TransporterMan, sign a DRN thread entry by IP, and make a plea to ArbCom. So far, the two accounts have not both chimed in on the same thread. Binksternet (talk) 16:07, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Finally looked at this. I'm including three accounts in this mess. It's not clear to me how much of this is sock puppetry and how much of it is meat puppetry, but both are sanctionable. I almost blocked all three, but after thinking about it some more, I'd prefer that one of you open a report at SPI. Make sure you explain that meat puppetry might be involved. Also, Sarower Sigh Bhati is the oldest account and therefore should be named as the master. I may yet block them on my own. If you file a report, please let me know that you've done so. Also, if there is continuing disruption, please give me a heads up. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:48, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, be aware of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sudeepgangal/Archive.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:52, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I linked to it up above. But your advice is to open a new SPI with Sarower Sigh Bhati as the master and ask for CU, correct? --NeilN talk to me 23:56, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, sorry, missed the link. Yes, that's my advice. I don't know whether the CU will be performed, though. I'm an SPI clerk (trainee), and I still haven't gotten the hang of when to endorse a CU and when not to. In this instance, my inexpert opinion is it's questionable whether a CU is warranted, but, hey, you're not a clerk, ask for it. If it's declined, so be it. Another option is not to request a CU and let a clerk request it or a CU make a decision to do it. Your choice. There are a lot of competing issues here, not the least of which is just the plain disruption caused by the editors, regardless of whether there's any sock or meat puppetry.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:05, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Sarower_Sigh_Bhati. I didn't ask for a CU as Kanwar self-declared she was the mother. --NeilN talk to me 14:49, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking care of this. Kanwar is trying to appeal her block with the usual regard for directions. --NeilN talk to me 02:34, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see this is keeping you busy. Thanks for being on top of it. --NeilN talk to me 18:19, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Django unchained edit

You said you needed more sources for the Cosplay sections for Django Unchained. http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Django_Unchained&action=history

What would you consider 'reliable' secondary sources? There wont be many articles about it, but there are plenty of pictures available. Would links to some taken from comic con work? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.89.60.29 (talk) 15:04, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Look at WP:RS. Pictures are almost never reliable sources. You'd need something from a major newspaper or magazine that comments on the issue.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:09, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IP sock

Hi, I just noticed that this user who you blocked the other day is now evading his block and making contentious edits with a new IP. Both IPs can be traced to Denver, Colorado, and in both cases the IP user is edit warring on the NRA and Gun politics articles. ROG5728 (talk) 19:21, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SPI advice needed

Hi Bbb23. I hope everything is well with you and yours. Sorry for the trouble, but since you are an SPI clerk I would like to ask your opinion about IP sock tagging. Please see: Mass reverting of IP sock tags of K-pop articles and associated discussion at Please do not mass-revert IP sock tags. Whenever you have the time, please let me know your opinion regarding the best way forward in this case. Thank you. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 01:58, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Dr.K., I'm kind of worn out from Wikipedia today, and, thankfully, I'm going to get off in a moment. I'll try to take a look tomorrow. Regards.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:08, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, Bbb23. No obligation or rush at all. Thank you very much for considering this. Take care. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 02:14, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In my short time as an SPI trainee clerk, I've learned that the issue of tagging is a contentious one. Policies and templates contradict each other, not to mention the practices of individual administrators and editors in this area. If I had my way, I'd make it simple. Only administrators would be able to add tags or remove them, and there'd be a thorough discussion to make the tagging consistent. In terms of this individual crusade by Greg, I'd bring up the issue at the talk page of WP:SOCK and see if you get any reactions there. My guess is no one will be bothered that much by the removal of tags from unblocked IPs. I sampled a few of Greg's edits, and given that the tags were added by non-admins, it doesn't bother me all that much for them to be removed. Just as an aside, some administrators believe that IPs should never be tagged. One more thing. WP:HSOCK doesn't apply to IPs but to all users.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:31, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
IMHO, tagging of IPs should be restricted only to cases where a significant number of "sock edits" are traceable to the specific IP, and where there is no possibility of having an "innocent bystander" be faced with that tag -- especially for such cases as IP addresses linked to schools where it is likely that new students will be faced with the detritus from previous students, etc. Indeed, I would suggest this is an extension of how we deal with "living persons" - that is, contentious claims about a person who was quite likely not involved in socking as a "sock" should be removed. There are, indeed, some IPs which are tagged, and properly so, but cases where single edits are found should generally not be so tagged. All IMHO, of course. Collect (talk) 14:45, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much Bbb23 for the information. I agree also with Collect's points. The problem is, according to my experience with K-pop articles, there are certain geolocations which chronically edit-war unsourced BLP information about birthdays and positions into these articles. Many of these IP addresses strongly indicate they are from a rather narrow IP range. This information could be useful in case a range-block was ever necessary. I remember one instance where one IP was blocked as a sock through checkuser. But as Drmies mentioned we could go the other way and semi the articles involved. In any case thank you both for your feedback. Best regards. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 01:28, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nom nom nom

Jezebel'sPonyobons mots has given you a Cheeseburger! Cheeseburgers promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a Cheeseburger, whether it be someone you've had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy eating!

We can't have you starving now can we?

Spread the goodness of Cheeseburgers by adding {{subst:Cheeseburger}} to their talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cheeseburger on the giver's talk page with {{subst:burger-munch}}!

Oh, I dunno, I kinda liked playing Camille. Thanks, Ponyo. Best.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:36, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit issue

[1] User Farolif on the Hun Sen article is reverting me. I am thinking it is o.k. to use what I have used on the article page and he is saying no, that it is not neutral. Its a legit news source and they say it, and it updates the situation of that particular person in that particular place [2] so I paraphrased it and used it. I noticed a previous action you made with that person and am wondering if what he is doing now constitutes a kind of creeping edit war. I asked him to talk page the issue but no luck on that. Earl King Jr. (talk) 06:18, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't look like an edit war to me at this point. Don't let it become one. As for your edit, you may think you paraphrased it, but if I saw it, I'd remove it as a copyright violation without regard to any other problems it may have.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:21, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Good information. Earl King Jr. (talk) 22:17, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Abusive IP socks

Hi, Bbb23. You blocked the dynamic 201.215.187.159 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) for three months on 13 August; mainly, as you said, because of their sock puppetry threat. Yeah... I think 200.73.232.97 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is the same person, per WP:DUCK: same ISP, same city, same charm. See their talkpage. Unfortunately, those two can't be blocked as a "range", it would be massive. How are you on range blocks? Is there anything we can do, other than blocking 200.73.232.97 as well? (I'm holding off on that until they respond to me, but considering their reception of User:Thomas.W, I'm not expecting a very warm welcome.) What annoys me is that 201.215.187.159 stopped editing on 13 August (obviously) and 200.73.232.97 didn't start until 26 September. I just bet there were some little duckies in between, and will be more. Bishonen | talk 20:30, 28 September 2013 (UTC).[reply]

I'm just slightly better on range blocks than I used to be, which isn't saying much. I ususally go to User:Kww when I have these kinds of questions. I believe User:Diannaa is knowledgeable as well. If there's a pattern to the edits, sometimes a filter can eliminate the disruption, but there has to be enough evidence to justify the filter. Sorry I can't be of more help.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:39, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Range block looks out of the question: too wide, and no convenient subnets are apparent, either.—Kww(talk) 20:56, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Everything I know about range blocks I learned from Bish's talk page -- Diannaa (talk) 22:44, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And here I thought you knew what you were doing. I'm still working on "convenient subnets".--Bbb23 (talk) 22:51, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've blocked 200.73.232.97 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) per self-confessed block evasion, and I guess they fully intend to return with another IP.[3] I'm actually a little torn on this: they have a bad temper, but make useful edits. I've offered them a deal, to which I hope you don't object, Bbb. But as for NuclearWarfare's famous words-of-one-syllable range block instructions in my archive, they don't work no more, because the link is dead. :-( Bishonen | talk 10:02, 29 September 2013 (UTC).[reply]
As long as you're willing to keep an eye on the new account (assuming the deal is accepted) and the IPs, I have no problem with trying to assist someone who shows promise. I just hope we don't end up with a long-term user with a bad attitude.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:47, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I had a nice polite conversation, on both hands, with the ip, but they declined my offer, as I rather expected. They've been around for years, and if they'd wanted an account, I guess they'd have had one by now. Bishonen | talk 22:48, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I was watching. As you say, at least they were polite.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:57, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a replacement tool: http://toolserver.org/~tparis/rangecontribs/. I hope User:Kww can give us all a hand in cases are not clear-cut. -- Diannaa (talk) 13:34, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Mysogynist" and WP::Label

As you have effectively forbidden discussion of this on the Men's Rights Movement talk page, I believe it is entirely appropriate to take the issue up on your talk page. As I'm sure you are aware, [[WP::Label]] states that a label should not be used unless it is "widely" so used by RS. In practice, the label "terrorist" is applied when one or more governments apply the label -- e.g. Al Qaeda, Tamil Tigers, Hamas, etc. I would ask you to apply the same standard to the Men's Rights Movement article. That is, if one or more governments have stated that the MRM is "mysogynist", it would be appropriate to use the label in the lede of the article. Otherwise, it would not. I request that you apply the policy the same way it is applied elsewhere on Wikipedia. Thank you.William Jockusch (talk) 04:03, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello? It would be polite to explain yourself.William Jockusch (talk) 01:12, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Boxing - Notability discussion

Changes to WP:NBOX/WP:NBOXING have been discussed at length at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Boxing#Notability discussion, and I believe a consensus has been reached. Best Regards. DynamoDegsy (talk) 15:48, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you go to the guideline talk page and start a topic linking to the project discussion and invite comments. It's not clear to me that a consensus was reached in the project discussion. Nor is it clear that should be the end of the matter considering the extent of the changes. Procedurally, for someone who has edited as much as you have, you should (1) stop marking your edits as minor when they clearly aren't and (2) use edit summaries.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:55, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
DynamoDegsy - these kind of changes need wider input than just one WikiProject, same goes for every sport. GiantSnowman 16:55, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Woven Thread deletion.

Hi, thanks for your message letting me know about the speedy deletion of The Woven Thread production company page I created. I understand your reasons for doing so, but I'd like to ask a couple of questions. I checked to see that there were other similar pages for independent television production companies in Scotland and found several: The Comedy Unit, Effingee Productions are two examples, both of which make comedy in Scotland, as does The Woven Thread. In fact effingee hasn't made any television for 5 years, but The Woven Thread is a new company and will make programmes for the forseeable future. My question is this: At what point is a company big enough to warrant a page? Thanks for your help--— Preceding unsigned comment added by MrMHines (talk • contribs) 09:36, 30 September 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

inre Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boss 2(2013 Bengali film)

While this fails WP:NFF, the topic of a planned sequel IS beginning to be spoken about in reliable sources.[4] Yes, the article is TOO SOON, but being sourcable is not a speedy-able film topic. Best, Schmidt, Michael Q. 10:28, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I truest you as an admin and @Drmies: too and know you always post your own views. I also try to do so. In Commons, my arguments are being rejected thrice. No one, not a single admin, is supporting my points there and someone has told, I am wasting their time. Still, I can not understand where I am wrong.

The point I am trying to say them— when we don't know copyright status of an image/content in a country, our attempt should be to find it. "We don't know", "Commons does not have any information" — these should not be reason to keep content here. Please help me to understand where I am wrong here. Commons thread: Commons:Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard#My_disappointment:_TOO_and_India Tito☸Dutta 12:14, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks, but that's outside of my scope of experience. I don't know who Fry1989 is, but they provided an argument that, at least to my inexperienced eyes, makes sense. If you're asking for more participation in a particular discussion, well, you can but it probably won't help much. On en-wiki such discussions remind me of MfD discussions; they don't attract a lot of attention. Drmies (talk) 14:43, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tito, I can barely follow the discussion on Commons. Commons has its own set of policies and ways of doing things, and I've never really participated in any significant discussions. The only thing I go to Commons to do is to nominate an image used on Wikipedia for deletion or in rare instances to tag it for speedy deletion. What you say above I understand, I think. You're saying that although normally a no consensus to delete something defaults to keep, it should be the opposite for copyright issues (the burden should be shifted to use legalese), but that's as much as I understand. To the extent it matters, I do know Fry1989.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:25, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Lindodawki's 3RR report

Hello Bbb. see this 3RR closure, where you wrote 36 hours as the result. Did you forget to issue the block? I had previously done a 48 hour block (though not per the 3RR board) because the Latin America article is on my watchlist and I noticed the revert war. It does not seem that the user is paying any attention. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 05:03, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

Information icon Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bbb23&oldid=575486318"