User talk:Bbb23
Recent user:Crashout block
Hi,
Following on from the recent sockpuppetry block [1] that you implemented for user Crashout, I wondered if I could ask a couple of quick questions.
Firstly, was the block purely on behavioural grounds (with no need for Check User)?
Secondly, was I correct in my comments at COIN [2] (linked from the relevant SPI) re: the inherent unlikelihood of an IP address swiftly responding to a talk page message (and the series of events leading from that)?
I'd be really grateful for some background here to allow me to more accurately spot possible sockpuppetry in future.
Kind regards, Axad12 (talk) 17:10, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- Behavior. A check would have been a violation of the privacy policy.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:12, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- I see. I'd noticed on other SPIs then there was some issue with IP addresses and Check User but it hadn't occurred to me that it was privacy related. That makes sense though.
- Thanks for getting back to me. Axad12 (talk) 17:25, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- Axad12, the privacy issue here is specifically the linking of an account with those IP addresses--that's why reference to WP:LOUTSOCK was made. I'm a CU--I haven't checked the log to see if CU was indeed run, but I can tell you that if it had been run, no one would have made the information public, because that precisely is the privacy breach. I just thought I'd make that clear. We see socking often in such COI matters/promotional editing ("the goal of recognizing the outstanding American jewelry designers who are committed to driving inclusivity within the design industry"--that kind of stuff), and you may have addressed that on the user's talk page. In general, we look for similarities in phrasing but also for the minutia, like how a user does citations and how they fill in the templates, how they write up edit summaries, whether they use capitalization and punctuation in the same way, that sort of thing. Hope this helps. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:26, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for the extra detail here, much appreciated.
- Having initially noticed the sockpuppet like elements of the case at COIN [3], but later having engaged with the user on their talk page [4] in what seemed to be their good faith attempts to address promotional looking editing, I must admit that I have mixed feelings about the user having been blocked.
- My impression is that had I not noticed the sockpuppetry but only engaged on addressing promotionalism then the user may have developed into a productive contributor.
- However, it is also possible that they played me for a fool by only engaging me on promotionalism once they realised the sockpuppetry would possibly result in a block.
- I do not question the validity of the block, I just have mixed thoughts about the whole affair. If there was indeed sockpuppetry then it seems to have been part of a rather extreme adverse response to having been brought to COIN. Axad12 (talk) 17:36, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- Axad12, the privacy issue here is specifically the linking of an account with those IP addresses--that's why reference to WP:LOUTSOCK was made. I'm a CU--I haven't checked the log to see if CU was indeed run, but I can tell you that if it had been run, no one would have made the information public, because that precisely is the privacy breach. I just thought I'd make that clear. We see socking often in such COI matters/promotional editing ("the goal of recognizing the outstanding American jewelry designers who are committed to driving inclusivity within the design industry"--that kind of stuff), and you may have addressed that on the user's talk page. In general, we look for similarities in phrasing but also for the minutia, like how a user does citations and how they fill in the templates, how they write up edit summaries, whether they use capitalization and punctuation in the same way, that sort of thing. Hope this helps. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:26, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – December 2024
News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2024).
Administrator changes
Interface administrator changes
CheckUser changes
Guideline and policy news
- Following an RFC, the policy on restoration of adminship has been updated. All former administrators may now only regain the tools following a request at the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard within 5 years of their most recent admin action. Previously this applied only to administrators deysopped for inactivity.
- Following a request for comment, a new speedy deletion criterion, T5, has been enacted. This applies to template subpages that are no longer used.
Technical news
- Technical volunteers can now register for the 2025 Wikimedia Hackathon, which will take place in Istanbul, Turkey. Application for travel and accommodation scholarships is open from November 12 to December 10, 2024.
Arbitration
- The arbitration case Yasuke (formerly titled Backlash to diversity and inclusion) has been closed.
- An arbitration case titled Palestine-Israel articles 5 has been opened. Evidence submissions in this case will close on 14 December.
A barnstar for you!
|
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar |
| Thanks for your tireless contributions to this project. I also want to thank you for replying to newbies on my talk page. Maliner (talk) 18:35, 3 December 2024 (UTC) |
- Thanks, but, honestly, I should be thanking you. I don't know how you do it.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:36, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Bbb23 This is the beauty of Wikipedia, where different editors from different backgrounds and skills try to improve the project. I really love your efforts in improving this project. Keep up the good work! Maliner (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
Dormant Sockpuppet Accounts
Good afternoon! I saw your comments and closure on reported sockpuppets of Abduvaitov Sherzod 2 (talk · contribs) in the associated SPI. I understand the requirement to provide evidence, and in this case it's the unique naming convention and timing of the account creations. Other admins in the past have banned similarly dormant accounts for this user. I've been unable to find any policy stating that only sockpuppet accounts that have edits under them can be dealt with, could you point me to it? Thanks! nf utvol (talk) 00:51, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
- Generally, the only time socks with no contributions are blocked is by a CU because of technical evidence confirming them, and it is usually associated with a check of users who do have contributions.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:06, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
- Ah, understood. I just realized I failed to tag that with a CU request. Any heartache with me reopening it with a CU request to confirm the associations with the accounts with contribs? nf utvol (talk) 11:13, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
- Don't do that, thanks. If you wish to contact a CU directly, you may.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:01, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
- Not to get into an argument on semantics, but I understood that to be at least a tacit suggestion. Apologies for the misrepresentation elsewhere! nf utvol (talk) 17:14, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
- No worries, I didn't think you did it in bad faith. I just didn't want it to sound like I thought a CU should be run.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:16, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
- Not to get into an argument on semantics, but I understood that to be at least a tacit suggestion. Apologies for the misrepresentation elsewhere! nf utvol (talk) 17:14, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
- Don't do that, thanks. If you wish to contact a CU directly, you may.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:01, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
- Ah, understood. I just realized I failed to tag that with a CU request. Any heartache with me reopening it with a CU request to confirm the associations with the accounts with contribs? nf utvol (talk) 11:13, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
yuck. Read their talk page. yuck^2. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:47, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
Joyland2017
Hello again. What do you make of this? Wikishovel (talk) 20:05, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
- Could you elaborate a bit? I'm tired, and I'm not sure what you're getting at.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:48, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry, that was a bit terse. I suspect the creator of the CFORK might be another sock of User:Joyland2017, a few of which you've blocked in the past. Their edit history also has a few other signs of UPE. But if you're tired, this is pretty low priority in the Grand Scheme of Things. Happy to discuss it another day, or to file an SPI if you prefer. Wikishovel (talk) 00:39, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
- I guess you mean Fizziest? In future, please be explicit.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:33, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry, that was a bit terse. I suspect the creator of the CFORK might be another sock of User:Joyland2017, a few of which you've blocked in the past. Their edit history also has a few other signs of UPE. But if you're tired, this is pretty low priority in the Grand Scheme of Things. Happy to discuss it another day, or to file an SPI if you prefer. Wikishovel (talk) 00:39, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
Hello owner of Wikipedia - master of the universe.
How's the article you passionately and speedily deleted (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhav_Singh) different to any of the following?
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mursal_Hedayat%7C
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noor_Shaker
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yogesh_Patel
(Redacted) I am confused, please enlighted me.
Like, did you even read the article??? Aatsol2007 (talk) 06:40, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- Apparently, Euryalus redacted the personal attack, warned you on your Talk page, and at some length analyzed the merits of the article that was tagged for speedy deletion. I have nothing more to say except that if you believe the article should not have been deleted, WP:DELREV is the appropriate forum. In future, do not post anything on my Talk page unless you are civil. You might also consider removing the word "passionately" from your Wikipedia vocabulary.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:06, 6 December 2024 (UTC)