Why G7 declined?
I had the diffs there that confirmed that the creator was in fact requesting deletion. I don't see why the G7 was declined.
By the way, sorry for not signing last time. My fault. ☢️Plutonical☢️ᶜᵒᵐᵐᵘⁿᶦᶜᵃᵗᶦᵒⁿˢ 16:59, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
- Draft:Damith Madhusanka was created by User:Sameera305.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:04, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
- Right now an SPI is active with the user who I acknowledge as the creater as well as Sameera305. I'll wait until that is done before I proceed, and if they are indeed unrelated, I'll let the MFD continue as usual. ☢️Plutonical☢️ᶜᵒᵐᵐᵘⁿᶦᶜᵃᵗᶦᵒⁿˢ 17:54, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
- You take way too much on yourself. You act as if you have the authority to control what happens, and you do not. If the new user turns out to be a sock, then any edits or "requests" they make are for naught. I suggest you drop all of this. You have a problematic history and narrowly escaped being blocked a few months ago. Your behavior on this is disruptive.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:16, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
- Right now an SPI is active with the user who I acknowledge as the creater as well as Sameera305. I'll wait until that is done before I proceed, and if they are indeed unrelated, I'll let the MFD continue as usual. ☢️Plutonical☢️ᶜᵒᵐᵐᵘⁿᶦᶜᵃᵗᶦᵒⁿˢ 17:54, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
Suspect sock
Hi @Bbb23:, I request you to check these usernames i.e Curious boy km and JayMithila as I think these two usernames are related with each other. I also recommended you to check this investigation. If anything were wrong on nominating then please correct. (Note: I request you to check this beacuse you are the administrator who block the account of Curious boy km as a sock.) Fade258 (talk) 09:39, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
![]() | |
One year! |
---|
Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:09, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
- Umm, one year for what?--Bbb23 (talk) 15:39, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
- There's a link, no? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:28, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
- Ah, I clicked on the picture, not the one year, although even now having clicked on it, I'm not sure what I've done. Clearly above my head. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 18:35, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
- Did you then click on your user name which doesn't go to the user page? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:41, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
- No. Perhaps I deserve an award for cluelessness.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:41, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
- Next year you'll know, or deserve an award for a memory like mine. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:47, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
- No. Perhaps I deserve an award for cluelessness.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:41, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
- Did you then click on your user name which doesn't go to the user page? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:41, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
- Ah, I clicked on the picture, not the one year, although even now having clicked on it, I'm not sure what I've done. Clearly above my head. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 18:35, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
- There's a link, no? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:28, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
Sock?
I think 58.105.161.125 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is a sock of TheFattyClan (talk · contribs), based on their edits to Wikipedia:AFCRC. ― Qwerfjkltalk 09:46, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
User evading your block
Hi Bbb23! Your block on 2600:1010:B050:DDFB:C341:1AB9:1AF1:429 is expiring in an hour and a half. These consecutive edits by 2600:1010:B01F:1974:5DA8:AFE9:B574:A678, part of the same /40 range and restoring the same content at Katherine Delmar Burke School, are obvious block evasion. Giving you a heads up in case you'd like to sanction. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:33, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
- That's a wide range - easier just to protect the page, which I've done for 3 months. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:37, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
- Sensible! Could you be convinced to lengthen the protection? I made the case for a long period at this RFPPI request. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:41, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
- Three months is longer than previous periods. If the disruption resumes after protection expires, I personally (can't speak for other admins) would increase the period to six months or a year. Before that, though, I wouldn't be surprised if the Talk page disruption resumes as its protection expires in a couple of days.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:08, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
- Sensible! Could you be convinced to lengthen the protection? I made the case for a long period at this RFPPI request. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:41, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
Draft:Rick Roll Land blocks
Hi, Bbb. I noticed that you'd G3-deleted Draft:Rick Roll Land and blocked all contributors as sockpuppets, as well as one contributor to a related draft, Slowcolt (talk · contribs). I'd been aware of these two drafts for a while, because they kept coming up at EFFP when people would set off the rickroll filter. As best I can tell, "Rick Roll Land" is a hoax in a sense, but it's a hoax perpetrated by a YouTuber on his viewership, not a hoax perpetrated by his viewership on Wikipedia. See for instance this credulous coverage in an unreliable but widely-read source. Either way, from the readers' perspective there's no difference between a hoax by editors and a hoax that editors fell for, so I'm not challenging the G3, but regarding the sockblocks, I was wondering if there's a piece I'm missing? Having watched this unfold over two months, it looked pretty clearly to me like a bunch of kids working together on a draft, not like sockpuppetry. Some of them were probably on their way to blocks anyways, but Slowcolt in particular was generally contributing constructively. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 21:01, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
working together as a draft
is meat puppetry. I saw Slowcolt's edits as a mix, but if they make another unblock request and you wish to unblock them, I have no objection.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:05, 28 May 2022 (UTC)- Working together on a draft is something we regularly encourage users to do. This draft happens to have been about a hoax that the YouTuber they like pulled, and was probably linked from a subreddit or Discord or something. No one was editing on behalf of any blocked user, as far as I can tell. Auditing the nine users' edits in full, there are five who I don't see evidence engaged in any bad-faith conduct:
- Slowcolt: as discussed
- Xvixvi (talk · contribs): one edit, to add a comma
- Tlochsta (talk · contribs): one edit, not very constructive, but good-faith
- BlackTeishin (talk · contribs): five edits, likewise
- Greasy Sabotage (talk · contribs): one edit, constructive if one assumes credulity
- I'm aware of no requirement that we must wait for an unblock request to unblock a user who has been blocked for an invalid reason. And in the case of Slowcolt, they have already put in a perfectly reasonable unblock request, declined only because the reviewing admin assumed that the underlying sockblock was valid. Thus, I would like to unblock these five users. Do you object to that? -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 21:44, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, I not only object but pretty much disagree with your analysis, including what constitutes meat puppetry, what we "encourage", and the definition of "good faith conduct", but I don't think arguing with you over these things would be productive. That said, if Yamla, who declined Slowcolt's unblock request, agrees the users/accounts should be unblocked, I'll leave it in your collective hands. I can't know if Yamla ran a check before declining the unblock request to make sure that all of the users are indeed separate people. If not, I would recommend such a check before addressing the other issues you raise.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:50, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
- The technical evidence is non-trivial to unwind. For example, BlackTeishin is
Highly likely to Buddyduffymonkey and Buddyduffymonkeyoncrack and
Possible to Wikapedacooldan. AFRWQDA is
Highly likely to Manawayyy, who declared a conflict of interest, though I've no idea to what. However, apart from that, the accounts aren't a direct match. So, we'd be in WP:MEAT category. I fall closer on Bbb23's interpretation of meatpuppetry. Roughly speaking, I take a pretty dim view of people recruited to work together on obvious hoaxes or on commercial articles. This leaves pretty wide latitude for debating the "recruited" part. I'm not strongly inclined to unblock anyone here. I don't oppose unblocking any of the accounts if they, say, agree to stop creating articles about obvious hoaxes. Slowcolt is a plausible to good candidate here, particularly as they didn't appear to be involved in creating obvious hoaxes. Disclaimers: only had one cup of coffee, lots of technical data to unwind here and I mostly looked at the accounts named above (instead of trying to unwind AFRWQDA), I'm old enough that I'm not immediately familiar with almost any of the subjects these accounts are editing about and so miss a bit of context. --Yamla (talk) 11:37, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
- Yamla, thanks for your comments. Do you plan to do any more "unwinding" after you've had more coffee?--Bbb23 (talk) 13:21, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
- No, not unless people think it's necessary. I expect I may be able to find some direct socks of AFRWQDA if I looked hard enough, but I very strongly doubt I'd find anything new with regard to the above named accounts. I'm not opposed to checking further, just pointing out that I don't think it'd be particularly productive. The above named accounts are connecting from geographically distant IP addresses, thankfully, so I'm pretty confident they aren't direct sockpuppets of each other. --Yamla (talk) 17:40, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Yamla: I can see the case for waiting for unblock requests from Tlochsta, BlackTeishin, and GreasySabotage (although realistically they'll just create new accounts and we'll probably never know). But if Slowcolt and Xvixvi aren't sox of anyone, then they haven't done anything blockable, so I would still like to unblock those two. Slowcolt's can be seen as a retroactive granting of their unblock request, which correctly stated,
I've not made any edits or anything in awhile. I've also only had one account so not sure what this means
. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 20:08, 29 May 2022 (UTC)- I lean somewhere between "don't oppose" and "support" on those two accounts. As you clearly understand, they aren't direct sockpuppets so at worst, this is WP:MEAT. You don't need my support, of course, as you have my technical findings. But, let me take a position. I'll support your decision to unblock Slowcolt, especially if combined with a polite warning to be careful with hoaxes (as we all should be; no implication of bad editing there). I'm going to stick with just not opposing you if you unblock Xvixvi. Your call. I could make the argument either way. Indeed, I've spent an awful lot of time recently thinking how I should perhaps be more willing to unblock, and how to write up my thoughts using template:brainstorming. That, though, is counterbalanced by so, so many unblocks turning out to be counterproductive. Anyway, a topic for another day. --Yamla (talk) 20:19, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
- Yamla, thanks for your comments. Do you plan to do any more "unwinding" after you've had more coffee?--Bbb23 (talk) 13:21, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
- The technical evidence is non-trivial to unwind. For example, BlackTeishin is
- Yes, I not only object but pretty much disagree with your analysis, including what constitutes meat puppetry, what we "encourage", and the definition of "good faith conduct", but I don't think arguing with you over these things would be productive. That said, if Yamla, who declined Slowcolt's unblock request, agrees the users/accounts should be unblocked, I'll leave it in your collective hands. I can't know if Yamla ran a check before declining the unblock request to make sure that all of the users are indeed separate people. If not, I would recommend such a check before addressing the other issues you raise.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:50, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
- Working together on a draft is something we regularly encourage users to do. This draft happens to have been about a hoax that the YouTuber they like pulled, and was probably linked from a subreddit or Discord or something. No one was editing on behalf of any blocked user, as far as I can tell. Auditing the nine users' edits in full, there are five who I don't see evidence engaged in any bad-faith conduct:
UTRS appeal #58923
DeaconShotFire requests unblock. They write,
I understand that I was blocked for rude behaviour and edit warring. I fully admit to doing this. If I am unblocked, I will not begin edit wars or harass other users. I will not engage in this behaviour again. I have a genuine interest in improving Wikipedia, as evidenced by my edit history. I have made significant changes (that are still in place) to lead sections of major articles such as Ronald Reagan and Elizabeth II. I hope to continue improving the lead sections of articles. Another editor stated on my talk page following my indefinite mute that I should be given a chance to appeal it, an editor with whom I made those kinds of major edits.
Would this be acceptable as far as it goes? I expect them to fully explain how to handle disagreements w/o being disagreeable.( Frankly, I don't see them as being compatible. ) Do they need a TBAN as an unblock condition, assuming they formulate an acceptable unblock request ? Cheers, --Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:16, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
I need help
plese help Jaat24 (talk) 10:46, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
Disambiguation Link
Thank you for the recent edit. I noticed your note on Disambiguation Link. Is this because the article is not in the mainspace or drafted? Making sure re-adding the infobox image and captions doesnt violate anything? Petra0922 (talk) 11:59, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
- After edits only by you to the draft, I was taken aback by the IP's edit. You should not be editing logged out. The image is probably best left out in draft space.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:18, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
Jk deenu's Sockpuppet
Hello, I am pretty sure that Jaat24 is a sockpuppet of Jk deenu, he is reverting edits in List of programmes broadcast by Cartoon Network (India), kindly do something about it, Thank you.Yuu Haru Angelo (talk) 16:21, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
I am an autoconfirmed user jk deenu joined 20 days ago And i am editing CN page from 1 year Jaat24 (talk) 02:23, 31 May 2022 (UTC)