Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:40, 20 July 2017

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23 Archive 24 Archive 25 Archive 26 Archive 27 Archive 28 Archive 29 Archive 30 Archive 31 Archive 32 Archive 33 Archive 34 Archive 35 Archive 36 Archive 37 Archive 38 Archive 39 Archive 40 Archive 41 Archive 42 Archive 43 Archive 44 Archive 45 Archive 46 Archive 47 Archive 48 Archive 49 Archive 50 Archive 51 Archive 52 Archive 53 Archive 54 Archive 55 Archive 56 Archive 57 Archive 58 Archive 59 Archive 60 Archive 61 Archive 62 Archive 63

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 10 sections are present.

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.

Why?!

There was no reason to delete Jelle Van Vucht 4 times. Bring it back NOW or I'm suing you! User talk:MatthewBriglia2005 19:37, 29 June 2017 (EDT)

IP block exemption check

Hi Bbb23! I was wondering if you could help me out with something - I have a student with WikiEd (Umbereenbmirza) who is editing out of Turkey via a VPN. I helped her set up an account, but she hasn't been able to edit since her IP address is blocked. It wasn't for anything that she did, it just happens to be part of Redstation Limited, a web host provider or colocation provider. (If I understand all of that correctly.) She needs to have an IP block exemption, but I've never done one of those before and since I work with WikiEd (as Shalor (Wiki Ed)), I didn't know if it would be inappropriate for me to do this myself. I saw that one of the things that is recommended is to get a CheckUser to verify the need, so I thought I'd ask if you could help with this.

I didn't know if I would be able to do the IP block exemption thing myself since I work with WikiEd, as I wasn't sure if that would be a conflict of interest here. I don't think it would be super common and WikiEd deals predominantly with students located in the United States. We do have some students outside of the US, but they're in the minority for the most part so it wouldn't be something I would do more than a couple times a year, if that. My inclination is to allow others to do it, though - just so it's all on the up and up. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 21:45, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

• I figured that you'd be a good person to ask since you're an admin and a checkuser. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 21:47, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

  @Tokyogirl79: If I understand properly what I'm looking at, Umbereenbmirza, Shalor, and a large number of students are all using the same webhost (not Redstation Limited). They're using one IP in a range that is indeed blocked (globally by a steward), but it is soft-blocked, meaning she has been able to edit through it. So, I'm assuming it's a different IP she's talking about. Has she told you the address? It's not going to pop up on my check because attempts to use a hard-blocked IP aren't displayed unless she edits her own Talk page. Indeed, if you ask her to make a test edit to her Talk page, I should be able to see it.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:38, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

• I was able to get her an IP exemption, so hopefully it won't affect her too much. I'm not sure if she's editing under any other IP - she sent us an image and that IP was the one that came up. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:58, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Accopulocrat sock

I found a static IPsock of this guy that has edited since July 4 without a block - what general block duration would you advise? Thanks! GAB 21:41, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

@GeneralizationsAreBad: A week or 10 days, whichever you prefer.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:43, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

 Done - thanks. GAB 21:46, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Also nabbed 107.77.165.1 (talk · contribs · count). GAB 14:09, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Knock yourself out. It's always a bit harder for me to block IPs.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:14, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Request for protection

Recently concluded TV series with persistent removal of reliably sourced content by IPs and newly-created accounts. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=The_Emperor:_Owner_of_the_Mask&action=history 203.250.88.126 (talk) 02:25, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

July 2017

Hi mate, how do you deal with guys who put Sockpuppet tags on userpages without evidence? --Saqib (talk) 07:28, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't know if Bbb knows this SPI but I'm guessing Ponyo's come across this one before, I just looked at a couple of places and couldn't find the link though. —SpacemanSpiff 07:36, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Which SPI? anyways thanks for removing the tags.. --Saqib (talk) 07:42, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

This SPI, Saqib. Your tagger is most likely from there. I was wrong, Bbb23 has blocked this farm too. —SpacemanSpiff 08:01, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Indeed. Thanks, folks.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:02, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

And just blocked another sock.--Jezebel's Ponyo 18:49, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

New user HeyMate29

Hi there; I have found a newly-created page Lists of LGBT political office-holders in the United Kingdom, which is a very large page for a newbie to have created. Its content seems rather familiar; investigating my deleted contribs I have turned up LGBT politicians in the United Kingdom. The latter was created by BlobBlob98 who you blocked in March 2017 as a sock of Marquis de la Eirron, and deleted their pages (this one included) under WP:CSD#G5. A number of their deleted edits were to pages having the pattern of "Category:Fooian politicians convicted of crimes".

Lists of LGBT political office-holders in the United Kingdom was created yesterday by HeyMate29, an account which was created the previous day: 21:03, 12 July 2017 (UTC). Their very first edit was to create Category:Zambian politicians convicted of crimes, a page which has not previously existed, but whose name fits the pattern of "Category:Fooian politicians convicted of crimes". Similarly for their next two page creations.

Do you have an opinion on this new user? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:38, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

@Redrose64: Yup:  Confirmed, blocked, and tagged. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:14, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:05, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

41.138.78.0/24

I just revoked talk page access from this range due to one of the IP's leaving a legal threat. Just wanted to let you know since you're the blocking checkuser. Cheers -- ~Oshwah~ 18:22, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

@Oshwah: Gosh, if he prevails at court, I'll have only $9B left. Globally locked several minutes after you revoked Talk page access. It's probably a nice sunny day where they are. Why can't they just go outside and play?--Bbb23 (talk) 18:35, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

That's a lot of $ - wish I had $10B to play with (lol)! Someone needs to invent Misplaced Pages NLT insurance for us poor folk! Cool deal; I figured you wouldn't care but I wanted to leave you a message and give you a heads-up nonetheless, especially given that the block is a checkuser block. I obviously try not to touch those unless it's needed, and even so - I let them know ;-) ~Oshwah~ 18:45, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Right off a block, on ANI

Would you mind taking a look at this discussion on ANI since the editor under discussion is fresh off a block you issued? Thanks. Toddst1 (talk) 06:48, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Original Research Query

Hi, can you please provide guidance on the List of countries by median wage page. I am alleging that there is clear OR being done but author disagrees. Lneal001 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:11, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't know why you're asking me (or at least one other administrator).--Bbb23 (talk) 18:17, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi again. The user on the page agreed to delete the content if it was deemed OR. Since it now has been deemed as such (on the No Original Research Noticeboard), Could you please allow me to modify the page and to merge it to a legitimate one? Right now the page is blocked from any modifications. https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard Lneal001 (talk) 14:39, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't see one editor's opinion at the noticeboard as "deemed OR". If the other edit warrior, Jeine091, now accepts your wish to modify the article, I will unprotect it.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:32, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

We now have 2 additional editors on the Talk part of the article's page who are saying it is also OR. What more do we need to merge or delete the page? Lneal001 (talk) 16:39, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Your deletion of comments to unblock request

You again deleted my comment about the unblock request for User:Moltenflesh on their talkpage. As WP:BLOCK clearly and simply states that Any user may comment on an unblock request, I believe there was no reason to remove my comment. As the comment I made is allowable under WP:BLOCK (as any user may comment on an unblock request), and was not disruptive, but was in all good faith criticism of the block, then there is no basis for removal. You have mistaken criticism for disruption, however recall that editors are free to criticize administrator action. To try and resolve this though, rather than reverting you deletion (which I believe I have every right to do) can you please explain why you didn't note that it wasn't a slam dunk in either the block log or the user page. Or why you didn't make an entry at all in Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Perfect Orange Sphere? Thanks! Nfitz (talk) 15:57, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't normally tutor users on how CheckUsers do their work, but with the hope that you'll understand my actions better and put these issues to rest, I'll make an exception. Generally, when there's a suspected sock, someone opens or reopens an SPI, and the report is evaluated. If I decide a CU is warranted, I run a check and post my findings. Those findings are along a spectrum of more certain to less certain. For example, the most certain is  Technically indistinguishable, then slightly less to  Confirmed, less to  Likely, and so on down to  Unrelated. If I believe a block is warranted, I block and it's my decision whether to make it a checkuseraccount block. The finding doesn't have to be confirmed or even likely for me to do so. If the blocked account is tagged (not all socks should be tagged, but that's a separate topic), the tag would normally reflect my finding. Thus, I wouldn't normally tag a sock as CU-confirmed unless my finding was confirmed or tallyho, although there are occasionally exceptions.

Once a master has a case, not all socks go through the SPI process. I and all CheckUsers can block a sock outside of the SPI and not record it at the SPI. It's standard practice. We do it all the time. We may also choose to tag or not at our discretion. However, because such blocks have no SPI finding, unless the tag is very clear, other editors won't necessarily know the degree of certainty, but no one marks that in the block log.

My comment at Moltenflesh's Talk page was intended to let the user know that they might be unblocked and to let other CheckUsers know that I would like their input before I make a final decision. Although casually couched ("slam dunk"), the purpose was to help the user. It's rare for me to comment on a sock-blocked Talk page, but in this case I thought it would be constructive.

I didn't remove your comment because it was critical of me. I removed it because it betrayed your ignorance (no offense) of how the whole process works and because it distracted from the process of re-evaluating my block. I hope that addresses your concerns.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:48, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation and the transparency. I see now what you were doing, and I apologize for getting in the way of it. I'll try and avoid shooting first in the future. Nfitz (talk) 07:06, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Do you have trouble on Commons?

We have a strange request here. Thanks for taking a peek. --Hedwig in Washington 00:54, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

@Hedwig in Washington: The IP who posted at Commons is a sock. What they say strikes me as incoherent, but perhaps you understand what they mean by "cyborbot/help".--Bbb23 (talk) 01:17, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

I thought so. But before I block an IP that could be a fellow sysop, I rather ask. Had a feeling you didn't move to Botswana. Thanks for your fast reply! --Hedwig in Washington 01:20, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Is cyberbot the same as wikibot? —SpacemanSpiff 03:57, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

I think he meant cyborgbot, or there's always the much older bebopbot.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:26, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

User talk:Mattmclaren#Account Blocked

I am inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt but to do that I need your agreement or checkuserblock removed. What are your thoughts, please? Just Chilling (talk) 22:50, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

@Just Chilling: You can see my comments at his Talk page. Sorry.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:37, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

NP and thx for looking at the situation. Just Chilling (talk) 23:17, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Rowingasia

Can I trouble you to have a look at the recent unblock request? Their claims to not have socked at all are a bit humorous if I can say so. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:28, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

@RickinBaltimore: Sure. I revoked Talk page access. We have better ways of spending our time.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:42, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Cooper edits

All the information I cited was from the primary source. You may not have agreed with it but it's indisputible that Fletcher accuses Huff of deliberately sabotaging the hearings, and that Rymer went out of her way to ridicule Fletcher. All the other incidents (The fact that Roger Lang admitted the knife could have been different, the fact that the shoes weren't unique) were all matters of record. Making mention of it is entirely fair; declaring it impermissible seems a bit like a cowardly dodge unless there's something I'm missing — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.75.61.201 (talk) 03:35, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

WP:PRIMARY prohibits an editor from using primary sources that require interpretation. Legal decisions fall into that category. Therefore, a reliable secondary source that interprets the decision must be used.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:33, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Incivility from Freshacconci

Hi. I seem to having some difficulty with a user that I see you have previously dealt with.

My discussion with him is here, though Freshacconci removed the last message, with the edit summary:

"'Please learn these policies if you wish to continue editing here'? Who are you? Fuck you."

If you could inform/remind him of WP:CIV, it would be appreciated. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 23:40, 20 July 2017 (UTC)