User talk:Bbb23


Blocked user Kingcutie under new sockpuppet HDClear

It appears that user Kingcutie is once again vandalizing his brother's wikipedia page under sockpuppet HDClear, for which he was previously banned by you.

It's not entirely clear to me how to proceed with bringing attention to this.

WIKI PAGE: Har Mar Superstar

OLD USER: User:Kingcutie

NEW USER: User talk:HDClear

Sockpuppet

Hello. I noticed an account named Miagarciacs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) making edits, this would presumably be a sockpuppet of the User:Mariagarciacs account? NICHOLAS NEEDLEHAM (talk) 10:08, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) @NICHOLAS NEEDLEHAM: I've opened an WP:SPI. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:19, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting undeletion

Hi @Bbb23, as you might recall during my indefinite block you had deleted an article titled like 'Monastery of Our Lady of Seeds' that I had created while I was, regrettably, block evading. I am placing this message inorder to request you its undeletion, if it is possible to do. If not can you please let me know if there is any way to access the content of that article? Regards. Logosx127 (talk) 09:01, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This one: Monastery of Our Lady of the Seeds, Alqosh? Although not really relevant to your request, I find it disappointing that some of your conduct has been disruptive since being unblocked by Jpgordon in January after making many promises to improve your behavior, the most recent of which is your battle with Pbritti at WP:ANEW#User:Logosx127 reported by User:Pbritti (Result: ).--Bbb23 (talk) 13:17, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Exactly that is the one. Meanwhile about my interactions with Pbritti, as you can see I have explained about it in detail there. As you can see it was just a issue of an addition of a name, actually a longer version of the original one, in the infobox. That dispute could have been easily solved with a third opinion but, unfortunately, the adversary thought it is better to have me blocked instead so that there will be no more discussions needed. Logosx127 (talk) 13:26, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pbritti is not an "adversary". The fact that you view content disputes that way is a problem in and of itself. As far as I can tell, you unilaterally changed the name in the infobox and should have followed WP:BRD when it was challenged by Pbritti. Instead, you edit-warred over it. It's true that you and Pbritti have been discussing the dispute, although not very civilly, on the article Talk page, but it was your burden to use another form of dispute resolution if the Talk page discussion could not resolve the dispute. I suggest you self-revert your latest change and do that now.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:43, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
By using the term 'adversary', I didn't mean it in a sense of 'opponent', but simply 'the opposite side' of the dispute. I think there's more of a language gap here. Meanwhile I was thinking of restoring the status quo ante too. With this being said, I can't help but say that Pbritti has repeatedly demonstrated article ownership behaviour along with non-cooperative attitude and attempts to misread and manipulate the content of the sources that I provided. While the bylaws (canons) of the institution (Syro-Malabar Church) clearly say 74 times the title Syro-Malabar Major Archiepiscopal Church. Still Pbritti cannot agree with me when I add it in the infobox. Removing unsourced content is justified but clearly this is not the case here.Logosx127 (talk) 14:41, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At this point I must inform you that this talk has diverted from the original subject. So, what about my original request? Logosx127 (talk) 14:41, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for self-reverting at Syro-Malabar Church. I just noticed that I did not delete Monastery of Our Lady of the Seeds, Alqosh; it was deleted by JBW - any objection to my restoring it, JBW?--Bbb23 (talk) 15:04, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm perfectly happy to let you make your own decision, Bbb23. Since the deletion was just because of block evasion, if the editor is now legitimately unblocked I don't see any compelling reason to keep it deleted. JBW (talk) 20:49, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I've undeleted it.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:56, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Bbb23 and @JBW Logosx127 (talk) 00:17, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what to say or do, as I've butted heads with this editor a lot and I don't want to anymore. However, after I reverted yet another change they made (this time to Eastern Catholic Churches), they said every reliable source that disagreed with them was citogenesis and then added their changes back to not only that article, but also two others. What can I do? Also, apologies that this is taking place on your user talk page, but it seems to be the fastest way to get someone to notice. ~ Pbritti (talk) 13:36, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In this particular instance, you could take the issue to WP:RSN. I don't know how often you're finding yourself at odds with Logosx127, but if you think their overall conduct warrants sanctions, you'd have to take them to WP:ANI. The question is are you willing to put up with the ensuing drama, especially if you bring Logosx127's history into the complaint (as you did at ANEW), which some might see as poisoning the well.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:49, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your insight is appreciated and I'll consider the options. If they revert again on Eastern Catholic Churches without consensus for such a change, should I repost in ANEW (sans mention of prior history)? ~ Pbritti (talk) 13:57, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Depends on whether there's a violation of 3RR or you're reporting a slow edit war, which is always a bigger problem at ANEW. Also, if you're the one who reverts them each time, you may be sanctioned as well.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:00, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that Pbritti is not trying to read the sources that I add along with the my edits. Instead, they tend to revert everything and remove even the reliable sources see this. They have been constantly and blindly assuming bad faith and that's exactly why there is frequent edit conflicts. As you can see, I have never went after Pbritti's edits, but instead, it was always Pbritti who always tends to do so whenever I edit. When a dispute erupts, they disregard the sources that I provide. They keep assuming bad faith in me, stalk me wherever I edit and always carry the 'rope' just in order to strangle me in case I continue to hesitate in hanging myself. This behavior is also evident against other users who tend to edit these articles, exhibiting sort of article ownership. Logosx127 (talk) 16:34, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure that Brudelman is back

I'm reaching out because you were the last editor to block Brudelman. This editor (Azavaza) is behaving extremely similarly by creating a lot of redundant categories in terrorism related topics. What's the protocol for a suspected sockpuppet? Mason (talk) 18:56, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Figured it out :) Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Brudelman Mason (talk) 19:04, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Potential mistake in deleting TNT Music talk page

Hi there,

I noticed that you deleted the talk page for TNT Music due to it "being created by a blocked or banned user" (per G5). However, I wanted to clarify that I translated the page from the Russian Wikipedia (to the extent that I could) and created a talk page for it. If the page was deleted before, I did not see it; I just thought it would be a good idea to bring it over to the English Wikipedia. I think you deleted the page by accident or due to a misunderstanding, but please let me know if I'm wrong on this. Thank you! Losipov (talk) 02:11, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You must be confusing something you did with some other page. The sock created Talk:TNT Music on June 8, and I deleted it on June 17. There is no earlier history.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:34, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I realized I was mistaken after I posted this message; that's my bad. Just so you know, I created a new talk page for the article (to prevent any confusion on how or why it reappeared). Thanks again. Losipov (talk) 14:33, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Beirut in the Israel-Hamas War or Category:Shootings in 2024

Hello, Bbb23,

Just a reminder, some of Azavaza's category creations, like these two, were populated and that means that they are not subject to CSD G5 (just like transcluded templates) (see WP:G5: G5 should not be applied to transcluded templates or populated categories unless they have been transcluded or populated entirely by the banned or blocked user; these edits need to be reverted before deletion). Deleting populated categories leaves red link categories which are not permitted. Could you check the categories and empty them before deletion? Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 20:42, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I usually do, but this time I just spot-checked a few because they were so numerous (I did a mass delete).--Bbb23 (talk) 22:04, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Revoke Talk Page Access

of 2601:2c6:500:5300::/64 for their message on their talk page that I removed

Thanks! Myrealnamm (💬pros · ✏️cons) 22:37, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why me? It's ScottishFinnishRadish's block. Doesn't look that horrible anyway.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:40, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I was just looking at recently active admins. Sorry about that. :( Myrealnamm (💬pros · ✏️cons) 22:41, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try to be less active. :p --Bbb23 (talk) 22:42, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that was pretty mild. In case like that I prefer to let them scream into the void, rather than pay any attention. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:44, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bbb23&oldid=1230301304"