| Revision as of 18:05, 22 December 2018 view sourceBbb23 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators271,626 edits →Closing comments with personal attacks are not okay: reply← Previous edit | Revision as of 18:20, 22 December 2018 view source Levivich (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers40,469 edits →Closing comments with personal attacks are not okay: rTag: 2017 wikitext editorNext edit → | ||
| Line 183: | Line 183: | ||
| Please edit the SPI page to remove the offending language from your closing commentary. Thank you. ] (]) 17:10, 22 December 2018 (UTC) | Please edit the SPI page to remove the offending language from your closing commentary. Thank you. ] (]) 17:10, 22 December 2018 (UTC) | ||
| :You have all the earmarks of a sock.--] (]) 18:05, 22 December 2018 (UTC) | :You have all the earmarks of a sock.--] (]) 18:05, 22 December 2018 (UTC) | ||
| ::If you believe I am a sock, I encourage you to start an SPI and have me CU'd. At least then the results would be public. (My guess is that's already been done, and if anything were found, I'd already be blocked.) I am not a sock. Nevertheless, you are entitled to your opinion of me. However, you are ''not'' entitled to cast aspersions about me in an admin closure comment. I am asking you a second time to please remove "I find the filer of this report more suspicious than the alleged master." from . If you are not going to grant my request, please state that clearly, and I would also appreciate an explanation as to why not. Thank you. ] (]) 18:20, 22 December 2018 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 18:20, 22 December 2018
|
|
Demorea
Your presence has been requested. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:33 on December 3, 2018 (UTC)
MariaJaydHicky sock
Thought I'd come to you since last time, when I posted it on Ad Orientem's page, you took care of it. Proof: Editing genres on Mariah Carey and Meghan Trainor related articles, arranging them in alphabetical order. Also note that one of MJH's prior socks was called IPhoneKid.--NØ 16:35, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
- Indeffed. Bbb23 is on a short break. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:39, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks for taking care of it.--NØ 08:35, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Another one . Ad Orientem Bbb23.--NØ 04:11, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
- Indeffed. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:58, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
Jaiden animations
In looking at this new creation, Jaiden animations, I spotted that it was a recreation of Jaiden Animations. Special:WhatLinksHere/Jaiden Animations shows Mylodana a sock of Lapitavenator (talk · contribs). While this makes me suspicious of continuing sockpuppetry, I note you ran a CU on 27 Nov. Am I right in assuming this would exonerate the other creators/editors at that date? Thanks, Cabayi (talk) 11:59, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
- The answer to the CU question is complicated. Putting that aside, other than the one-article connection, I don't see anything else about Jhillardai that would lead me to believe that they are a sock of Lapitavenator. Their editing pattern is unusual, as is the recreation of that page, but that's it.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:56, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
- On a single user basis, I'd agree. As part of a stream of users trying to recreate the article under various titles (Jhillardai being the 7th), it starts to look a bit concerted, and perhaps coordinated. It just gives me an itchy feeling - thanks for scratching. :-) Cabayi (talk) 13:08, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
- Heh. Thanks for the early morning smile.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:13, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
- On a single user basis, I'd agree. As part of a stream of users trying to recreate the article under various titles (Jhillardai being the 7th), it starts to look a bit concerted, and perhaps coordinated. It just gives me an itchy feeling - thanks for scratching. :-) Cabayi (talk) 13:08, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
Arbcom
"The stats are rather wierd on analysis - 2&3 on supports fail, only 1 person got over 50% support votes, 2-6 on neutrals succeed." You really don't understand that? Happy to explain if that's the case. Johnbod (talk) 05:51, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
Rockallnight5
I don't necessarily see this as a huge deal, but I'm curions about your indef block. It is my understanding that the user is now limiting their edits to a single account. Many of their edits are productive. Their unproductive edits seem to be in good faith at this point. They are self-reverting some of their foolish edits. They seem open to change. Perhaps some discussion or explanation might be called for? UninvitedCompany 15:28, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
- The history of this user clearly shows someone who is a net detriment to the project. Unlike you, I see the conduct as continuing. I can't comment on logged out edits.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:33, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
- If the block is based on information that you can't disclose publicly, would it not be appropriate to state that either in the block log message or on User talk:Rockallnight5, and possibly also in the noticeboard thread? UninvitedCompany 15:42, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
- Rockallnight5 is now using 172.58.87.91 to restore the unsourced recording dates . TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 19:14, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
- Based on obvious behavior, I blocked the IP for one week for block evasion.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:19, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
- Rockallnight5 is now using 172.58.87.91 to restore the unsourced recording dates . TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 19:14, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
- If the block is based on information that you can't disclose publicly, would it not be appropriate to state that either in the block log message or on User talk:Rockallnight5, and possibly also in the noticeboard thread? UninvitedCompany 15:42, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
Pain in the butt
It took me forever to get the damn decline template right on that page (not helped by being on mobile.) Also add that it substitutes the CU needed template, and it’s even more a pain to decline. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:22, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
- Referring back to the discussion at WT:SPI that went nowhere, why can't it be fixed???? I think it's the 5th ring of hell that's reserved for templates. Drives me batty.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:25, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
- I've removed {{checkuser needed}} from {{checkuserblock-account}} and cleaned up the documentation to match the default appeal (public). — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:18, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
- @JJMC89: As King Kaspar sang in Amahl and the Night Visitors, "Thank you, thank you, thank you!"--Bbb23 (talk) 15:02, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
- I've removed {{checkuser needed}} from {{checkuserblock-account}} and cleaned up the documentation to match the default appeal (public). — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:18, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
Hello! You deleted a sandbox page of mine and I would like to contest it
Hello, I'm an SFSU student and I was using User:Ahugebox/sandbox2 to edit my article before moving it to live. Since, I have moved it to live, but the article is not perfect and would like to make all the edits in my sandbox before migrating them over again.
It was deleted for ("duplicate" of article created to promote subject), but I do not think it was. It was being used to hold the reviews from my fellow classmates for my grade.
May I restore my page? I'm sorry to ask, but it would probably be easier for my professor to see everything consolidated in one place, seeing the work only I had done. Thanks in advance!
Ahugebox (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:15, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
- @Ahugebox: Do you know Bulaklak64 (talk · contribs · count)?--Bbb23 (talk) 14:49, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
- Not personally, no. But given their edits, it looks like the subject themselves. I removed their unsourced information. Ahugebox (talk) 22:41, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
- Great. I restored the sandbox and then removed all the edits by the sock back to the last update by you. Good luck!--Bbb23 (talk) 22:45, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
- Not personally, no. But given their edits, it looks like the subject themselves. I removed their unsourced information. Ahugebox (talk) 22:41, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
Thank you! Much appreciated. Ahugebox (talk) 22:51, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
Articles about drag queens
Hi there! Sorry to bother you. You judged me on this case of alleged sockpupetry. I'm not as familiarized with Misplaced Pages in English as I am with Misplaced Pages em Português, so I wonder if you could help me.
Some articles about drag queens, specially alumni of Rupauls Drag Race (TV Show) will probably see a lot of activity in the coming weeks. A new season just started and some old participants are in the spotlight again. I believe this is the reason a lot of articles are being created/modified right now, and not because of sock/meatpupetry.
At the same time, they are now being attacked by anti-trans/lgbt ips, like this one and this one. Would it be possible to block the edit by IPs for some time to prevent vandalism?
I'm sorry for bothering you, and would appreciate any help or any directing to the correct procedures. Simonecv (talk) 17:02, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
- If you believe an article requires semi-protection, you should report it at WP:RFPP. Keep in mind that, generally, persistent disruption over a certain period of time is required to justify protecting an article.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:39, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
Your edits at User talk:Chzz
Hi. I don't find your recent edits at User talk:Chzz to be appropriate at all and you seem to only be further involving yourself in a conflicted manner. Why are you doing this?
Regarding "CheckUser blocks", CheckUsers quite literally do not have the ability to block users here (I just checked Special:ListGroupRights again), only administrators do. It feels like a weird misnomer that I would discourage you from using in any discussions. Administrators make blocks here and any administrator who makes a block should be responsive to inquiries about it. The default discussion location is the affected user's talk page. It has been this way for many, many years, as I'm sure you're aware. Consequently, I'm pretty confused by your behavior here. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:06, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
- (talk page watcher) MZMcBride, you are correct that only administrators can issue blocks, and must explain their block rationale when challenged. The rationale in this case includes the {{checkuserblock-account}} notation, which indicates that the rationale for the block involves private checkuser evidence which cannot be discussed publicly under any circumstances. The only path to appeal in such a case is to contact the Arbitration Committee privately to investigate the situation offline. Discussing an unblock on Misplaced Pages (anywhere on Misplaced Pages) is pointless because no admin will unblock this user, unless they are looking for a reason to be immediately desysopped for cause. Ivanvector (/Edits) 14:47, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this is a sock so can't report it
Can you kindly check? Thanks. My evidence is below.
In the article Princess of Wales's Royal Regiment, User:J-Man11 made this edit. It was corrected by User:Dormskirk. An hour or so later, IP:80.4.75.240 edited it here. Checking IP:80.4.75.240 contributions, he/she edits 1) articles similar to User:J-Man11 see contribution history and 2) edits it in almost the same style as User:J-Man11 does, evidence 1 evidence 2, evidence 3, that is, editing without sources or reliable sources and/or editing incorrect information (see evidence 3). User:J-Man11 has socked before under this account, User:Justyouraverageme.
Thank you very much.
BlueD954 (talk) 04:31, 20 December 2018 (UTC) (previously SLai)
- Sorry, but there's nothing I can do. I'm not familiar with the editor, and I see no reason why I should engage in a behavioral analysis, especially based on the fact that the IP has made only a couple of edits.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:04, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
- Ok if the editor makes more similar edits, would you consider? BlueD954 (talk) 14:21, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
- If the IP is persistent enough and you believe it is disruptive and connected to the named user, then you may file a report at WP:SPI. I express no opinion on whether you're right.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:26, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
- Ok if the editor makes more similar edits, would you consider? BlueD954 (talk) 14:21, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
Analogies between two recent SPI cases
I'm not sure that writing on your page is appropriate but I'm not sure I can write on the concerned SPI case page as the case is marked as closed, but, if I can put my two cents in, I would suggest considering the analogies between Viviocon group and Lascava group:
- Almost all the confirmed sockpuppets of Lascava were created in other wiki-projects (wikinews, wikisource, wikivoyage, wikiversity, wikibooks, etc.), the same as most of the accounts listed above;
- All of them were focused on italian IPA trascriptions and the message left by the accounts above is about that topic also (in particular one of the edits of Mongales was exactly on that aspect (m->ɱ), see here Special:Diff/861112889;
- The usernames were often some sort of a word-puzzle of the articles they edited (Isenoilgug is the reverse spelling of Guglionesi; Lascava edited LAScia o raddopia and CAVA de Tirreni; Mongales edited MONfalcone and Luigi ZinGALES etc.). Similarly, the usernames of the Viviocon group are an anagram (syllables in reverse order: fotrion -> trionfo; viviocon -> convivio; vernoin -> inverno; foniasin -> sinfonia; and so on...) of the words having the feature they are asking a modification for (again, m->ɱ).
A check-user may also prove helpful in order to confirm this relation. Horst Hof (talk) 08:27, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
- The two groups are
Unrelated.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:08, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
139.60.226.249
139.60.226.249 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
Please consider revoking Talk page privileges for the remainder of the block. General Ization 14:18, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
Done --Bbb23 (talk) 14:24, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
It always confuses me
When sockmasters file SPIs. I was about to ping Anonymuus User at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Huddohudson to see you'd CU blocked them. Not as bad as when they file reports on their own socks, though. That one I will never understand. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:18, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
- I find that socks often file SPIs. Many, like the one you handled, have merit. The Anonymuss User "case" has to be one of the more confusing investigations I've made on my own (as opposed to evidence being presented by someone else). I've spent a chunk of time this morning on it, and I'm still a bit dizzy from it.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:21, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, I've noticed it too, though it still confuses me. It seems to me it'd be the last place I'd go if I was one. Anyway, have more coffee! It aids in dizziness and SPI handling. Or so I've been told. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:28, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
- If you adopt my view, although socks come in different flavors, many love attention. What you would do is hardly a good barometer of what socks do - at least I hope so.
Unfortunately, I don't drink coffee (or anything with caffeine in it).
.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:31, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
- @TonyBallioni: Here's one for you from a few minutes ago: Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Web SourceContent. That master (Web SourceContent is a sock, not the master) has been on a roll lately, but mostly as IPs.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:51, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
- Oh yes, that's fun. This filing I think is my favourite recent one. The master reported three of his own socks under a different SPI. It's also amazing how many people he's "forced to create accounts for him, and then they get here and love Misplaced Pages and just want to fight vandalism." . TonyBallioni (talk) 19:55, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
- Why don't you like reply-link (I don't use it but am thinking about it)?--Bbb23 (talk) 20:26, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
- I haven't tried it, and this may be a really dumb reason, but I find the edit summary it leaves annoying, and I'm not smart enough to figure out how to configure it not to leave one nor do I want to change it every time. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:51, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
- Why don't you like reply-link (I don't use it but am thinking about it)?--Bbb23 (talk) 20:26, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
- Oh yes, that's fun. This filing I think is my favourite recent one. The master reported three of his own socks under a different SPI. It's also amazing how many people he's "forced to create accounts for him, and then they get here and love Misplaced Pages and just want to fight vandalism." . TonyBallioni (talk) 19:55, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
- @TonyBallioni: Here's one for you from a few minutes ago: Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Web SourceContent. That master (Web SourceContent is a sock, not the master) has been on a roll lately, but mostly as IPs.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:51, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
- If you adopt my view, although socks come in different flavors, many love attention. What you would do is hardly a good barometer of what socks do - at least I hope so.
- Yes, I've noticed it too, though it still confuses me. It seems to me it'd be the last place I'd go if I was one. Anyway, have more coffee! It aids in dizziness and SPI handling. Or so I've been told. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:28, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
Query
Can I email you right now? --Thegooduser Let's Chat 🍁 01:11, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
- You don't need my permission to e-mail me. Just bear in mind that I don't reply to user e-mail.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:13, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
- It's sort of Urgent.--Thegooduser Let's Chat 🍁 01:14, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
- I see no urgency; nor do I see a reason for any action, let alone the action you suggested. You're welcome to e-mail me again and explain your position.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:41, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
- It's sort of Urgent.--Thegooduser Let's Chat 🍁 01:14, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
Re:SPI
Thank you for the notice. I consider myself to still be a little green when it comes to this sort of thing, and any help is greatly appreciated. Jebcubed (talk) 02:26, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
Stale socks
I had a question about socks that haven't been active recently. I was reviewing the edit history of Jain University and found it infested with undisclosed paid editors. Among them was the account Sainath Nuvvula, but scrolling further down I saw blocked accounts linked to Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Sainath nuvvula. I was surprised that this account was not blocked, since it's an obvious sock and they merrily picked up where the others had been stopped. The account has been inactive since 11 January 2018... so does a stale sock still merit a block or is it pointless now? --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 20:24, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
- For an account to be blocked, someone has to report it. I might have kept track of the article for a while via my watchlist, but at some point I remove it, and this account wasn't created until about three months after the case was last actioned. No, it doesn't make sense to block him as it's been almost a year since he last edited. If you notice a resumption in editing, then he should be reported.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:58, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
Paul Atherton's FRSA title
I noticed you reversed an edit of the title FRSA to the end of Paul Atherton's name. There's clearly evidence he's been appointed a Fellow of Royal Society of Arts and it seems to be an accepted norm on Misplaced Pages to apportion the title to the name of those who have been awarded it. E.g. Alex James (musician), Rod Aldridge, Sonita Alleyne, Sara Arber, Timothy Garton Ash etc. So curious to know if there was a particular reason for the reversal/Fix? Thanks. 82.14.100.183 (talk) 22:29, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
- You're absolutely right. My apologies. I put it back in the article. It's supposed to have a comma, though, after the person's name (like the others). Thanks for bringing it to my attention.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:12, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
Beta Tau Omega
Hi! May I know the specific reasons my page was deleted? You did leave a message in the talk page (I got an email about it) but then proceeded to delete that as well so I couldst really read it. It was ("Ahmedmgad65 Hi, my handle is User:Naraht and I'm an editor who specializes in greek letter organizations. Yes, Omega Phi Gamma, Rho Delta Chi and L...") And that's all I can see from the Misplaced Pages email. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahmedmgad65 (talk • contribs) 15:21, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
- It was deleted per WP:CSD#A7, i.e., the article had no credible claims of significance.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:40, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
Closing comments with personal attacks are not okay
Hi! We haven't been introduced: I'm Levivich. When closing the SPI I filed, you wrote: I find the filer of this report more suspicious than the alleged master.
This is publicly casting aspersions against me, without any justification, evidence, or other basis.
WP:PA includes "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence...Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done. When in doubt, comment on the article's content without referring to its contributor at all."
WP:ADMINCOND says: "Administrators are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others. Administrators are expected to follow Misplaced Pages policies and to perform their duties to the best of their abilities...Administrators should strive to model appropriate standards of courtesy and civility to other editors."
WP:Casting aspersions: "An editor must not accuse another of misbehavior without evidence, especially when the accusations are repeated or severe. If accusations must be made, they should be raised, with evidence, on the user-talk page of the editor they concern or in the appropriate forums."
I don't know why you think I am "suspicious," although I assume it's because I recently posted evidence in an arbcom case against an admin. Regardless of your reasons, you are welcome to discuss it at my talk page.
However, casting aspersions that I am "suspicious," without evidence, in a public place, in closing an SPI investigation, which is an official admin duty, is not cool. Doing so:
- Violates the above policies
- Sends a message to other admin that it's OK to cast aspersions or be snarky or otherwise unprofessional in performing an admin closure
- Sends a message to editors discouraging them from participating in Misplaced Pages
- Generally adds toxicity to our editing environment, and we have too much of that already
In performing an admin closure, you should comment on the content, not on the editors. You could have just written, "Closed for insufficient evidence." (By the way, I take no issue with the actual closure, as you are in a better position to evaluate the evidence than I am.)
You can post whatever personal attacks you want against me on my talk page or yours (I have thick skin, it really wouldn't bother me), but not when you're performing an official admin duty. At that point, you must be professional and civil. As an admin, you are a model for other editors and an ambassador for Misplaced Pages. Please act accordingly.
Please edit the SPI page to remove the offending language from your closing commentary. Thank you. Levivich (talk) 17:10, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
- You have all the earmarks of a sock.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:05, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
- If you believe I am a sock, I encourage you to start an SPI and have me CU'd. At least then the results would be public. (My guess is that's already been done, and if anything were found, I'd already be blocked.) I am not a sock. Nevertheless, you are entitled to your opinion of me. However, you are not entitled to cast aspersions about me in an admin closure comment. I am asking you a second time to please remove "I find the filer of this report more suspicious than the alleged master." from your SPI closing comment. If you are not going to grant my request, please state that clearly, and I would also appreciate an explanation as to why not. Thank you. Levivich (talk) 18:20, 22 December 2018 (UTC)