User talk:Bbb23: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 134: Line 134:
   
 
...and given how those comments, on my own talk page (with ping, so you'd see it), not only did not receive and answer, which you are required to give, but instead an expansion of the block, to apply to my talk page, as well... How is that not clear example of a bad faith [[WP:ADMINACCT|abuse of admin powers]]? (it should be noted, that you have had the time to do a lot of other things, during and after this, including responding to questions that were made ''after'' mine)--[[Special:Contributions/85.228.52.168|85.228.52.168]] ([[User talk:85.228.52.168|talk]]) 10:24, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
  
...and given how those comments, on my own talk page (with ping, so you'd see it), not only did not receive and answer, which you are required to give, but instead an expansion of the block, to apply to my talk page, as well... How is that not clear example of a bad faith [[WP:ADMINACCT|abuse of admin powers]]? (it should be noted, that you have had the time to do a lot of other things, during and after this, including responding to questions that were made ''after'' mine)--[[Special:Contributions/85.228.52.168|85.228.52.168]] ([[User talk:85.228.52.168|talk]]) 10:24, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
  +
* Blocked per [[WP:BE]] [[User:Ched|— Ched]] ([[User talk:Ched|talk]]) 12:40, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Revision as of 12:40, 30 October 2019



Archives
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3
Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6
Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9
Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12
Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15
Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18
Archive 19Archive 20Archive 21
Archive 22Archive 23Archive 24
Archive 25Archive 26Archive 27
Archive 28Archive 29Archive 30
Archive 31Archive 32Archive 33
Archive 34Archive 35Archive 36
Archive 37Archive 38Archive 39
Archive 40Archive 41Archive 42
Archive 43Archive 44Archive 45
Archive 46Archive 47Archive 48
Archive 49Archive 50

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.

The recent deletion of the page for the artist B.O.L.T

Recently you deleted the page B.O.L.T under speedy deletion criteria A7, yet in the page about common claims of significance for artists it lists "Is signed to a label with a Wikipedia entry or to a label that is part of such a label" as criteria for notability, which the group falls under as they are signed to King Records (Japan). I was wonder what the circumstances of this page being deleted were. -Dude22072 (talk) 19:55, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
Can you get me a reliable source that says that the new group has recorded anything on King Records? They haven't released much, and I don't see anything to indicate they are using a notable label.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:10, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
They recorded Digital release 1, and they will release their 1st CD on November 15 1st CD release Vimoral2 (talk) 10:31, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
The CD link indicates that it will be released on Evil Line Records, not on King Records.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:42, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
"Evil Line Records is the label's new division, established on April 2014, and comprises artists like Momoiro Clover Z and Meg, among others." King_Records Wiki Vimoral2 (talk) 10:31, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
The entry for Evil Line Records at the King Records article suffers from the same problem. It is unsourced. I have removed it, and it should not be re-added without a reliable source.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:46, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
The King Records Official pagehas a link to Evil Line Records on the header, also it sells the products of the label. Vimoral2 (talk) 11:56, 23 October 2019 (UTC).
I posted some references in Evil Line Records at the King Records article King_Records Wiki. It's okay now? Vimoral2 (talk) 11:58, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Curious

Hi Bbb23. When you get a minute, could you have a look at OmoYoruba45? I don't have a strong conviction here but they are a newish editor who just dropped a note on my talk page that looks like it was drafted by a wiki law firm. It's late here and I'm not going to respond to it until tomorrow. Thanks... -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:18, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
Please disregard the above. On further reflection, I don't think this is a sock. They are just a run of the mill NOTHERE editor that after consulting another admin I have indeffed. Thanks for all your work, it's much appreciated. -Ad Orientem (talk) 06:41, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

page deleted from my user sandbox

I am a newbie on Wikipedia.
You deleted a page from my user sandbox User:RobMielcarski/sandbox. I thought this was an area that I could use to learn how use the Wikipedia editing tools and that content in the sandbox was not visible on the main site.
You deleted the page because you thought it was G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion.
Please restore the page so I can remove the link that presumably caused you to think it was advertising.
Thank you, Rob — Preceding unsigned comment added by RobMielcarski (talk • contribs) 23:32, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a platform for you to promote yourself in any name space.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:15, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for explaining. I thought my sandbox was private. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RobMielcarski (talk • contribs) 00:40, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Strange account

(Redacted) - this looks to me like a sock by User:Icewhiz who mocks User:Volunteer Marek. My very best wishes (talk) 02:53, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 Done. El_C 03:35, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

42Marco P

I noticed 42Marco P's edits on Oleg Maltsev (psychologist) when looking at DrPoglum's activities here (a look that resulted in this), and decided to keep an eye on both of them, so I noticed the blocks. But he, or more probably they (because I believe the accounts were used by more than one person, as I noted on ANI) will no doubt be back soon, so I have watchlisted the article about Maltsev and a few other articles related to him. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 08:10, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
  • There are dozens of interconnected user accounts and IPs plugging Oleg Maltsev (psychologist) and CESNUR (an organisation with strong ties to Maltsev) on Wikipedia (not only en-WP but other language versions too), several of the accounts editing only for a couple of months each year, like DrPoglum, mostly within a specific field but also supporting each other when needed, including at AfD. I don't know if it's a paid editing ring or just members of Maltsev's organisation, but can't see why that would matter... - Tom | Thomas.W talk 18:45, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Email

I sent you a super-short no-frills email so that the gist would show up in alerts without requiring you to check your email. (I hate checking my Wikipedia email.) There is a please and thanks that is implied in my note, even if I didn't actually say it. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:20, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Block of User:Rcorsini54

I see that you blocked User:Rcorsini54 with a logged block reason of Clearly not here to contribute to the encyclopedia; also disruptive and WP:CIR, having previously deleted that user's userpage under U5. This seems to me rather hasty. The user had been cautioned about the user page by C.Fred and had responded that s/he would clean it up -- the user was already posting at the Teahosue asking about the appropriateness of his edits. The user has not yet made any useful contributions to the project, but had been here only a couple of days, and had not engaged in any vandalism, or anything that I see as disruption. I am not sur what you consider to have shown a lack of competence. I ask that you reconsider the block, please. It seems to me that there is a WP:BITE issue here. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 17:34, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
You don't see this and this as disruptive? And his userpage was simply confirmation of the fact that he's not an asset to Wikipedia.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:43, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
Bbb23, Honestly seems like WP:BITE to me. They have been otherwise agreeable at, say, the teahouse, and likely simply misunderstanding the site. MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 17:48, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
Being pleasant and disruptive are not mutually exclusive.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:49, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
Bbb23, Fair. But seems like it's lack of understanding/competence on their part to me. MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 17:50, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
I agree with User:DESiegel and User:MoonyTheDwarf. This block really seems excessive and WP:BITEy. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:53, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
  • No, I do not see those edits as seriously disruptive, certainly not enough to block without warning the user not to repeat such edits. Most editors lack full understanding of what Wikipedia is for and how it works when they start out. This is not the same as a lack of competence. If an editor fails to understand after clear explanations, that eould be different. This editor agreed to "clean up" the user page when asked, and had hardly had to to do so before beign blocked. I will grant that there can be polite vandals and polite but NOTHERE editors, but I honestly don't see what this editor did that was so disruptive as to warrant an indef block. The user made a user page quoting 4 poems or song lyrics, at 4-6 lines each. With attribution at that. I have seem more extensive quotes on the user pages of long-established, active editors. The user posted at the teahouse to ask if this was OK. S/e may ahve been askign about formatting, or about policy, but was intersted enough to follow a teahouse invite and ask. Afte the user page was deleted, the user asked why, and was blocked shortly thereafter. The user posted two one-line additions to biographical articles in an apparent attempt to communicate with the article subjects. This is not helpful, but it is minor and easily explained -- however no one attempted to explain -- both edits were reverted with a minimal edit summery, and no note or warning, templated or manual, was placed on the user's talk page. All of thuys you obviously know, and it doesn't seem to have persuaded you. I will therefore be posting on WP:ANI and asking for a review of this block and of the U5 deletion. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 21:54, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
  • The one edit I see that would warrant a block is this one, where they implied that somebody else was using their account. Personally, this is when I ask them "Are you sure somebody else has been using your account? Accounts cannot be shared, so we may need to block your account if we can't guarantee that only you have access to this account." A lot of times, the sons (or little brother) mysteriously disappear from the picture after that. :) IMO, that's the only thing that warranted the block—although I was certainly getting red flags about what this user would be up to after the start of the new year. —C.Fred (talk) 22:13, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
  • What I would do is wait to see if the user requests an unblock and then ask him at that point what he intends to do at Wikipedia. Depending on his answer, an unblock may be appropriate. To date, the user has not made a single constructive edit during his tenure here. Normally, that wouldn't be enough to block, but when that is viewed alongside the unconstructive edits he's made, a block seems justified and certainly within my discretion, even if others disagree. All that said, we have three administrators who disagree with my actions here. They haven't persuaded me to unblock, but they have fulfilled their responsibility to talk to me before taking any action. Why doesn't one of you just unblock the user (and restore the userpage if you wish) rather than wasting more time in a community discussion? If you prefer to "punish" me for what you may think is an abuse of my tools, well then you should go to the noticeboards.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:26, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

ANI discussion opened

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Disputed and WP:BITEy block of new editor. --DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 23:10, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Advice needed to help solve the problem

Hey. I see that no action was taken in my request at WP:AN3. I understand that it is not an active edit war, but it still is edit warring of some sorts. Therefore, I want to know what should I do from this point in dealing with the disruptive behavior of the other user. Should I go to WP:ANI, WP:3O or WP:DRN? Or is there another place that would solve it? I am asking, because Jamesmiko clearly indicated in his message on my talk page that he will continue reverting to versions that go against MOS:COLOR and MOS:NAVBOXCOLOR. – Sabbatino (talk) 14:17, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Question

Hello Bbb23, sorry if I made a mistake. To learn from it, I would like to understand what was wrong with my question, and how I could report that issue properly. --SI 19:46, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
Two ways: one is to file a report at the SPI, not on its Talk page, and the other is to ask Yamla or me your question on our Talk pages, although we may simply tell you to file a report. With the usual evidence, of course.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:47, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia on a Saturday night

Yeah, that was close, wasn't it--if Auburn had recovered that onside kick, LSU might be a one-loss team too! I am sure you were spellbound. Drmies (talk) 23:33, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
I plan to watch it tonight. It's still daytime here. I'm rooting for Auburn because I like red hair and because sockeye salmon is very tasty.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:40, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
Bbb23, Alaskan sockeye salmon is clearly best. MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 23:42, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
The best salmon I had was some variety in Normandy. (You don't need to ping me on my Talk page.)--Bbb23 (talk) 23:44, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
It's the reply script i'm using. I know I don't need to. Hmm. Will have to see, I grew up on alaskan salmon/halbut/etc. so i'm heavily opinionated :p MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 23:49, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
I see what you're doing, Bbb--stop playing dumb. I understand if you've checked out of the Alabama game--Arkansas is a cupcake--but plz don't make fun of the SEC, or Ima sick Nsmutte or one of those dudes on you. Drmies (talk) 23:51, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
You're right. I did watch the game, and it was brilliant, especially when Koufax struck out Nsmutte.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:58, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Bbb23

Bbb23 I am sorry but please stop blocking me I do not harm Wikipedia anymore I stopped I wish to make good edits and yeah I don’t vandalize any more Expachie (talk) 08:46, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Expachie, which accounts did Bbb23 block? Cabayi (talk) 09:06, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
@Cabayi: I was a former sockpuppeter but I was making some good edits and put some helpful tips and then I got blocked as Pipercalle. Expachiemail 09:12, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
My signature went wrong someone never mind! Expachiemail 09:19, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
Expachie, your route back to editing is to request an unblock for your first account Gun23man via WP:UTRS. However, the poor appeals you've submitted so far do not make it look likely that any further appeal would be successful. Cabayi (talk) 09:32, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

question

Although I don't understand this, I also know you have checkuser tools that could easily explain it. My question is should this page be deleted as spam/promotional? (not that it's all that big a deal anyway - it's not like copyvio or BLP issues - I just wondered) — Ched (talk) 18:47, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
It's a sock.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:51, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
Oh, sorry Ched, I just realized that I didn't answer your question. The user is part of a very large sock farm, one of the characteristics of which is they put outlandish drivel on their userpages. It didn't hurt for you to blank it, but most of it is just nonsense anyway. Take a look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Marcus lyon‎. It's been a while since I blocked 150 accounts in one day. A large portion were no-edit accounts, but, unfortunately, this person has been known to create accounts and not edit with them for months, so I feel it's necessary to block sleepers. It was truly tedious and time-consuming. My eyes started to glaze over as I recorded account after account.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:36, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
Hey Bbb - no problem at all. Sorry you had such a rough day. I did a quick google and found a Facebook page, so meh ... I just blanked the user page. I never really studied or got involved with the sock end of wiki, but I respect your dedication to the problem. TY for the reply - hope tomorrow is better for you. — Ched (talk) 00:42, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Please explain your decision

Hi, User:Bbb23 please explain your decision on request page here. The user clearly vialotes 3RR rule and never shows up on talk page when called. Clearly he's a vandal or at least do not care about wikipedia rules.--Arsenekoumyk (talk) 17:50, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
  • User:Bbb23 let me give a clear example. After one of vandal edits he makes (all of them are the same he removes the part "of Kumyk descent", never answered on talk page) I return it (here) to consensus version adding a quote which the user pretends to ask for. The quote is clear: Shamil's "fifth ancestor — Kumyk Amir-khan, a man very famous in Caucasus". The user just 3RRs it in a raw again here. Am I supposed to stand by and revert his vandalism forever while you clearly signal to him that he's allowed to come back once in a while and play with articles as he pleases to? I hope it's not what you're suggesting.--Arsenekoumyk (talk) 17:59, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I've warned you at WP:ANEW. You're on very thin ice.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:02, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
Bbb23 fine, I answered. if it pleases you to close your eyes on vandalism & edit warring so be it. let him continue--Arsenekoumyk (talk) 18:06, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Explain your actions, as per WP:ADMINACCT

As my IP has, as my ISP regularly (in intervals I am unaware of) does, been changed, I am no longer under your one week block, but...
To repeat my questions that you have to answer: In what possible way, does anything I've done/said, constitute trolling or any other behaviour, described in WP:NOTHERE?
Taking a look at your talk page and contributions, to look for any signs of why you'd consider me a troll, I noticed this revert of an important bit of information, that was lacking in the relevant article (and which is verified by one of the references on the page ...and statements in the lead section, don't have to be followed by a reference, if they are verified elsewhere in the article, as per MOS:CITELEAD ...as well as the presence of the "Turkey–ISIL conflict"-template). Why? ...and that revert was immediately followed by my getting blocked. That looks quite strange, indeed.
...and given how those comments, on my own talk page (with ping, so you'd see it), not only did not receive and answer, which you are required to give, but instead an expansion of the block, to apply to my talk page, as well... How is that not clear example of a bad faith abuse of admin powers? (it should be noted, that you have had the time to do a lot of other things, during and after this, including responding to questions that were made after mine)--85.228.52.168 (talk) 10:24, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
Hidden categories:

Navigation menu

Personal tools

Namespaces

Variants

More

Languages

  • Wikimedia Foundation
  • Powered by MediaWiki