Jump to content

User talk:JBW

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Pushon007 (talk | contribs) at 19:30, 2 January 2021 (→Deleted an article). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This account was previously known as JamesBWatson, but was renamed to JBW on 19 September 2019. James B. Watson is not my real name.

Please post new sections at the bottom of the page. If you don't, there is a risk that your message may never be noticed, if other edits follow it before I get here.

Elemetal

Hi again, JB. Seems we have a sockpuppet with conflicts of interest editing Elemetal. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 20:06, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Skywatcher68: It looks very likely, but they haven't edited since you posted a COI warning to them, so I don't think anything needs to be done unless they start up again. I have also given a gentle warning about using multiple accounts. JBW (talk) 21:31, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weird reverse socking

A couple of weeks ago, you blocked a number of IPs [1][2][3][4] from Clonmel, Ireland, for disruptive editing, namely at Loki (comics). It now looks like that editor has registered an account (their persistent insertion of the exact same edit as the IPs is pretty obvious[5][6]), who is also doing disruptive things at other articles. I just reverted a number of unsourced edits they made across a number of other comic book articles [7][8][9][10], fixed an unsourced claim here, and have observed other problem editing around articles related to the Godfather films. Could you take a look? Grandpallama (talk) 15:06, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Grandpallama: Sorry it's taken me a while to get round to answering. There's more than enough similarity between the IP editor and the account to make me think it's likely to be the same person, but I'm not yet quite convinced enough to feel that blocking would be justified. However, that is open to reconsideration, and if you spot any more signs then please feel welcome to let me know. JBW (talk) 21:20, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I wasn't sure if there were other things the IPs were doing, too, that caused you to block them, so I just wanted to put it on your radar in case there was something more serious. Grandpallama (talk) 07:56, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Grandpallama: I've reconsidered this, and blocked the account. The first time I considered this, I thought along the lines of "well, yes, that could be the same person, but then again it could be someone else with similar interests who saw the reverted editing, agreed with it, and decided to restore it, so it isn't certain". However, when I thought about it later, I realised that while that might explain a couple of coincidences, there were just too many coincidences. (Restoring exactly the same edits on not one but at least two articles, also editing some of the other articles that the IP editor had edited, and other articles very closely related, and so on and so on... many of them very small details, but they all add up.) I came back, intending to block the account after all, and found that the editor had now made yet another edit on another subject the IP editor had done, so if there had still been any lingering trace of doubt at all, it was now gone. Thanks for drawing this to my attention. JBW (talk) 22:06, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why

Why was I named derpy penis? ESBirdnerd (talk) 19:01, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please I want to know. ESBirdnerd (talk) 19:06, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How on earth should I know? JBW (talk) 20:22, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) FWIW, it looks like it's something to do with this (though why they're asking you...?) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:33, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Boing! said Zebedee: Yes, I realised that edit was what it was about, as I reverted it, as you can see here, but I'm not sure why I was supposed to know the reason for the edit. JBW (talk) 20:44, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, it was you who reverted it. At least I've done my bit in joining in the confusion ;-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:11, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yo Ho Ho

Donner60 (talk) is wishing a foaming mug of Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Christmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec20}} to your friends' talk pages.

Merry Christmas

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2021!

Hello JBW, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2021.
Happy editing,
C1K98V (💬 ✒️ 📂) 08:09, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Merry Christmas

May you be showered with good health, wealth, peace and prosperity. Merry Christmas to you and your family!

Merry Christmas to JBW

Warm regardsRAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 14:50, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Joyous Yuletide to You!


JACKINTHEBOX • TALK is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Merry Christmas

Merry Christmas to a thorough admin executing his job perfectly. Merry Christmas and a prosperous new year to you and yours. Have a blast!!!! Celestina007 (talk) 20:19, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A penny for your thoughts

UTRS appeal #38828 --Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:44, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Deepfriedokra: I've had only a quick look at this, as I have to go offline now, so I haven't done as thorough a job as I would like to of refreshing my memory about the editing history before the block. However, in this kind of situation my inclination is generally to act on an assumption of good faith and give the editor another chance, on the understanding that another block will come quickly if there's further abuse. Sometimes taking that option really does lead to the project gaining a good editor. I'll try to have a more thorough look at this when I get time, but I really don't know when that is likely to be, so if you wish to go ahead and make a decision about it, either way, please go ahead, rather than waiting for me for what may be quite a while. JBW (talk) 22:59, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Watching BattleBots. Too tired to think anyway. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:41, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Lightning. We have lightning. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:43, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Deepfriedokra: Well I have just seen the outcome of this. I can't say I am remotely surprised, though I still think it was worth a try. I notice, however, that although I appear in the last block log entry, in fact all I did was remove talk page access: the actual blocking admin was Drmies, but that is now irrelevant. Since your new block is for the same length as the original block (3 months) the net effect is to increase the length of the block by an amount equal to time served already, a little over a month and a half. Nevertheless, I would probably have given a longer block, on the principle that if the vandal hasn't been deterred by being blocked for a few months then they aren't likely to be deterred by another block for just a few months. Any thoughts? JBW (talk) 14:20, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Feelings. Profound disappointment and pity. Sadness. Bewilderment. Futility. Thoughts. So much trouble for so little gain. Hope it was worth that one dumb edit. I reinstated for three months 'cause it seemed as good as any other duration. There does not seem much risk of collateral damage, but you never know. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:56, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's sad

I saw that you deleted the Mage & Demon Queen page. Its sad because I thought that page was pretty good. I can't vouch for the editor, of course, but I wish the page had stayed up a little longer, so I could have saved it, but now I have to start from scratch. So, that just kinda sucks. Historyday01 (talk) 05:17, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I did re-create it. Yeah, you aren't getting any holiday greetings from me, after deleting that page unnecessarily. Historyday01 (talk) 23:19, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page watcher)@Historyday01: WP:G5 is, I think, the deletion rationale. By community consensus, pages meeting WP:CSD do not require an AFD. G5's are generally deleted on sight. It is good if you recreated the page w/o content from the deleted versions, as those would pose copyright/attribution problems. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:39, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, it would have been better to start from the previous version. I can't even get the text from the previous one anyway as I'm not an admin. But, yes, it is good that the page was re-created.Historyday01 (talk) 23:49, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas

--Deepfriedokra (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas6}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

IP hopping disruptive editor

Merry Christmas or whatever holiday you celebrate. One hopes 2600:8807:E4A:4B00:0:0:0:0/64 will disappear when school starts up again. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 17:50, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Skywatcher68: Thanks for your good wishes. Maybe it's a little late to reciprocate, but I hope you've had a good time. You may or may not be interested to learn that recently I checked the editing statistics for this page, and found that you have edited it more than twice as often as anyone else apart from me. Make of that what you will. JBW (talk) 21:37, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Group accounts and autobiographies

Also pretty obvious, don't you think? (I don't think they're really a group, though the name is.) Lemme see... I'm pretty sure there's something coming up... oh yeah, happy new year! Bishonen | tålk 20:02, 28 December 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Hi, Bishonen, good to hear from you. Please take a happy new year for yourself, too. Now, it just may be that explicitly spelling this out could be seen as insulting your intelligence, but I didn't for one moment think it really was a group, nor did I expect anything other than a self-promotional vanity page. However, I thought it best to get some sort of warning in, and the user name was the only thing that had been done so far, so that was the only thing I could latch onto. Many administrators might have imposed a user name block, but I regard that as a mistake, for a number of reasons, most importantly because it encourages them to resurface under some totally different user name, where their unacceptable editing may go unnoticed, whereas if they are allowed to stay with their existing user name then I can watch out for anything that needs action. (Though of course there is always the risk that some other administrator will come along and spoil things by taking action herself, depriving me of the opportunity. Hmmph. Growwwl.) I suppose now we could hard-block the account, as it has both edited promotionally and continued to edit under a user name which it has been told is unacceptable, but I really don't see any point in doing that. JBW (talk) 21:50, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again, Bishonen. I didn't check as carefully as I should have done before posting the message above. I see that the account has been blocked. I wouldn't have done that, but never mind. JBW (talk) 21:57, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As you say, friend Not-James. I don't like to block over just the username either (unless it's obscene or whatever — a different kind of case). It just encourages them to stuff beans up their nose. Especially with the soft-block template actually suggesting they simply create a new account. Bishonen | tålk 22:20, 28 December 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Article created by a sock

Hi JBW, quick question. If an article was created by a sockpuppet and the bulk of the content are from those sockpuppets (content consisting of OR, unreliably sourced claims, and POV claims that are not supported by the sources/references and deceptively used to pretend like they are), should the article be deleted? The specific article I'm talking about is: Legality of bestiality in the United States. It was created by the blocked sock User:Female bodybuilder enthusiast, reverted and redirected by another editor [12] because "some or most of the 'references' do not support what is written in the article", but the sock reverted and re-created the article. Once the sock was blocked, they block-evaded and continued socking to disruptively edit the article (the bulk of the deceptive and unreliably sourced content of that article comes from the sock). Do articles like this, ones created by sockpuppets and mainly edited by block-evading socks, usually stay or do they get deleted? Some1 (talk) 14:54, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Some1: The short answer, I think, is that there is no answer to what "usually" happens, because this is a very unusual situation. If I had known of the situation shortly after the creation of the article I would have deleted it, whereas usually if an article has escaped deletion for several years it has by then acquired "substantial edits by others", thus disqualifying WP:CSD#G5. On this occasion, however, your comments above suggest that almost all of the content is from the original creator of the article, using various sockpuppets, even though it has been around for a long time.
What exactly does "substantial edits by others" mean? Like various other expressions used in the criteria for speedy deletion, "substantial" is not clearly defined, and has to be a matter of judgement. Usually there have either clearly been substantial edits by others or there clearly haven't, and in the minority of doubtful cases after a little checking it is usually not too difficult to come to a conclusion, but in this case there is such a large number of edits by other editors interspersed among the sockpuppet edits that it is difficult to see how much "substantial" editing there is in there. I have checked a fairly large proportion of the editing, and I have not seen any individual substantial edits which are not by either certain or likely sockpuppets, but it takes a lot of checking to be sure. (Having said that, there have been only 458 edits, which is a small number in proportion to the time the article has existed, so it isn't an impossible task, just a rather tedious one.) Also, are the suspected but unblocked accounts sockpuppets? (There are two that I know of.) Then there are your other concerns of "OR, unreliably sourced claims, and POV claims that are not supported by the sources/references", which could on their own justify deletion, irrespective of the sockpuppet issue.
I'll try to look further into this, starting with checking whether the latest alleged sockpuppet really is one, and if so following it up with other issues. However, it may take me a while to do that, so please feel free to ask for help elsewhere if I don't get back to you soon; I won't regard it as forum shopping. Also please do feel totally welcome to remind me if you don't hear from me again within a couple of days; I suffer from attention deficit disorder, and things that I really really intend to do often get completely lost as my mind moves off uncontrollably onto other things, so I regard reminders as help, not harassment. JBW (talk) 21:06, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the detailed response; there's quite a lot I still have to learn around here so your comment was really insightful and informative. And thanks for being willing to look into this (and the SPI case). Not sure if this helps but suspected socks Gdca1 and AHC300 are both in the March 2018 archive (which unfortunately closed due to inactivity, but I think you probably already saw); Pro-Randian ([13][14]) from 2013 is also a suspected sockpuppet but is not in the archive; Dawkinsfan44 was blocked for being a sock but is not listed in the archive. (It makes me wonder if there are more blocked Latitude socks out there than what's currently in the archive.) I haven't posted this to the case page yet, but I noticed that the majority of those socks don't have userpages. The first of those socks I encountered was Plateau99 and they never had a userpage [15] even though the account was created in 2004. AHC300 also doesn't have a userpage even though that account was created in 2014, a month after the latest sock was blocked [16] (also no userpage [17]).
There's no rush or deadline, so feel free to look into all this at your own convenience; waiting for your comments is definitely better than having the SPI case closed due to inactivity (for a second time). HNY, Some1 (talk) 00:36, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cancelled video games debate

I would like your advice on my recent edits, due to an accusation of disruptive editing and creating inappropriate pages. I am simply trying to preserve what would become potentially deleted information for which I have spent months compiling. I have examined the rules, but nothing in my activities fits into either accusation placed. So far I've been given a stern warning, but no consensus or input from other users. Also the content of my created articles meets Wikipedia content policies with sufficient sources and notability. If I'm doing anything wrong, just let me know and I will try to amend it. Thank you and happy 2021. Deltasim (talk) 06:07, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On second thoughts, I would like to withdraw my complaint. If you need more information go to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cancelled Sega Genesis games. Thank you. Deltasim (talk) 13:29, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted an article

Hello JBW, Happy New Year. on 29 December 2020 you have deleted an article made by me "Draft:Mawlana Kabiruddin Rahmani". This article is about my Grand Father . I just want to know if I can resubmit it or not. Please do help me understand and guide me to make a proper article. Also I would like to know why is such a hurry was this article was deleted. you could have given me time to fix the errors that I made. Help me out here. Pushon007 06:13, 1 January 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pushon007 (talk • contribs) 20:33, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Pushon007: As you know, the article was nominated for deletion by an editor known as Onel5969, and you then moved it to draft space, perhaps in the hope of avoiding deletion. The article was full of praise and adulation of its subject, and it also has a substantial amount of personal opinion and judgement, contrary to the policy that all Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view. Wikipedia policy is that any page which serves little or no purpose other than promoting its subject may be deleted immediately. If you think that policy should be changed then you are free to seek to get it changed; however, I see my task as an administrator as being to uphold the existing policy, as long as it is policy.
Some promotional articles can be salvaged by a little editing, as would be the case with the page in question if it were just a matter of removing such adulatory terms as "great", "talented", "wise", "brilliant", and the expression of personal opinions, such as that "the biggest asset is Knowledge and Humanity". However, the problem runs much deeper than that, as the whole tenor and character of the page is a matter of impressing the reader with how noble a person the subject of the writing was, so that it would be difficult to make it acceptable without a complete rewrite from scratch. If you have taken in what I wrote to you about Wikipedia's conflict of interest guideline then you will also be aware that it is highly likely that you will not be the person to do that job.
My advice is that any work you put into writing about your grandfather in Wikipedia is likely to be wasted, and you would be much better off writing about him somewhere else where the kind of writing you have done is accepted, and/or writing in Wikipedia on other subjects where you do not have a personal involvement or strong personal opinions. Nevertheless, I shall restore the draft, so that if you choose not to take that advice then you can try to improve it, and then submit it for review. However, if you do decide to take that route then don't move it from draft to article yourself, and do make 100% sure that you follow the conflict of interest guideline fully.
One last point. The page fully and unambiguously qualifies for speedy deletion as promotional, and thousands of pages far less promotional than that one get deleted for that reason. Therefore, if the page remains in its present state it will sooner or later be deleted again, and very probably stay deleted. JBW (talk) 22:22, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@JBW: First of all Thankyou for restoring the article. I have understood the issues perfectly. This time I will rewrite and provide more reference as you have advised and will resubmit for review again. I will follow the conflict of interest guideline fully. I am very much obliged to you and other administrators. Thank you again and hopefully I will be able to be a better submitter gradually.

Moving drafts to article land

Hey JBW,

I look at my watchlist and noticed that you moved a draft to article space and then deleted the redirect. Is there some rule or reason for deleting the redirect? It certainly would leave the impression to the original authors that their article was trashed instead of promoted. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 21:09, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Oiyarbepsy: I guess you must mean Draft:Predictive engineering analytics. If so, it was a minor slip, so I've restored the redirect. Thanks for drawing it to my attention. JBW (talk) 21:48, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JBW&oldid=997894634"