Bbb23

Hi. What's the difference between being blocked vs locked? —usernamekiran (talk) 14:39, 17 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

• User talk:usernamekiran, "locked" pertains to articles, "blocked" to editors. Please don't post so early--Bbb hasn't had coffee yet. Drmies (talk) 14:40, 17 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

  @Drmies: Seems like you haven't had your coffee yet either, you pinged my talkpage hehe. So, what does it mean on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Viralvilla/Archive (the second last comment), User:Steelbird1967, is "globally locked", but not blocked? —usernamekiran (talk) 14:58, 17 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

  A global lock is imposed by a steward and prevents the user from editing on any Wikimedia project.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:00, 17 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

  I pinged your talk page because that's the quickest thing to do from your signature. Yes, a global lock, that's a different matter: I suppose that's really a kind of super block. Good morning Bbb. Drmies (talk) 15:01, 17 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

  so in other words, globally locked = globally blocked from all namespaces on all Wikimedia projects? —usernamekiran (talk) 15:07, 17 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

  That's convoluted: globally locked means what I said. As an aside, "globally blocked" is the phrase used for IPs, whereas "globally locked" is for registered accounts. Bonus: globally locked users cannot edit their own Talk pages, either. Salut, Drmies.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:44, 17 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

  (talk page stalker) I suppose that it's like a Venn diagram; the difference is that an IP is "globally blocked", a user is "globally locked", the user can't edit their own talk page, and the similarity is that both of them are unable to edit any type of Wikipedia project, correct? NoobThreePointOh (talk) 15:54, 17 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Shoot me now, please.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:56, 17 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

  This is actually pretty, uh... weird that they don't say "blocked" for users, either. I mean, on here, administrators can "block" normal user accounts, but don't even ask me why on other Wikimedia projects stewards can globally "lock" user accounts instead of "blocking" them. Do you ever look at someone and wonder, what is going on inside their head? NoobThreePointOh (talk) 16:06, 17 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

  One uses a key and the other a lego. Drmies, a Ph.D, answers all etymological questions.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:30, 17 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Well, I kind of like it. "Block", like, "you can't get into this room", but "locked" as in "I'm locking you out of the building altogether". "Lock" is a cool word. Drmies (talk) 16:38, 17 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

  (edit conflict)That doesn't address why global block is used for IPs and global lock for registered accounts. I even took a look at Meta and couldn't find an explanation for the different terminology, although I did find an amusing pair of statements, one saying that IPs can be globally blocked indefinitely and other saying that IPs should never be indefinitely globally blocked. We have the same issue for local blocks of IPs. My favorite is Admin Killallips indefinitely blocks an IP, Admin Iloveallips says policy prohibits indefinite blocks of IPs, so AdminKillallips, after blocking Admin Iloveallips for opening their yap, changes the IP's indefinite block to a 10-year block.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:48, 17 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Hi, @Drmies. I saw you were telling Kiran this morning about Bbb having his coffee. Going back to Friday, that may have officially ruined my coffee experience in the morning. Apparently, there's a cafeteria near my dorm, and I went to grab coffee. I grabbed iced coffee, because the cold in the coffee jolts me up quickly. So I poured it out into my Lorax cup (still love that book) and I touched the side of my cup and it was SO HOT. Like, who the hell calls it "iced coffee" and makes it so hot? It's usually never hot. At this point, I've grabbed tea bags to take back to my dorm, because in no way am I trusting my cafeteria's coffee ever again. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 16:46, 17 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

  I think the difference is that locked accounts also can't log in any more. So they're not just blocked from editing, they're locked out of their account. So they can't access userscripts, don't have access to their watchlist, etc. --rchard2scout (talk) 10:26, 22 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi Bbb23 -- Struggling to see how Draft:Koichi Kobayashi is sufficiently spammy to merit a block? Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 04:24, 22 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

It's a poorly formatted lengthy resume, but the block is not just because of the draft. He created the same cruft in his sandbox and on his userpage. Why on earth would we want a person like that editing Wikipedia?--Bbb23 (talk) 16:43, 22 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Could you please explain how the short biography of Michael W. Herren could be considered a poor source for information about his life? It is, after all, a biography written by a scholarly peer in a festschrift dedicated to his honor. There is no better literature available on the subject. Hellenyck (talk) 16:35, 22 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

If you have any doubts about whether the information is truly included, I have the festschrift available in both printed and digital formats and can email it to you if needed. Hellenyck (talk) 16:39, 22 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

feels like a sock puppet. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:08, 23 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Maybe, but I'm sure where that gets us. Anyway, he'll probably self-destruct on his own.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:27, 23 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi @Bbb23:, 58.120.141.78 appears to be a sock of Dopenguins/WelshDragon in my opinion, now using a VPN of some kind. Thoughts? Jkaharper (talk) 20:36, 23 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Why do you think it's a VPN? I have no idea - too long ago for me to analyze. Take it to SPI if you wish.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:00, 24 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Just wanted your thoughts. Definitely him judging by the latest edits this morning. I'll raise at SPI. --Jkaharper (talk) 12:40, 24 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi Bbb23, if the removal of the Raleway redirect was vandalism to you, you may be able to resolve my confusion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 24 § Raleway. Thanks in advance and best regards, ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:22, 24 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

The user blanked the page; not the right way to go. But if you think it wasn't vandalism (the user had a final warning from Yamla), feel free to unblock. I trust your judgment.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:38, 24 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

True, true. Hmmm. I think we can wait for an unblock request. The user has edited disruptively and is probably currently not aware of their user talk page, so perhaps the block changes that. They'd probably end up getting blocked sooner or later if just unblocked. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:45, 24 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

I am not one of sockpuppert and I was wiki veteran for 14 years, let me allowed draft of Hello Mummmy because I previsoley add Malayalam movies in past by --Sunuraju (talk) 05:15, 24 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Why are you contacting me?--Bbb23 (talk) 14:15, 24 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'm enquiring about this[1] revert and this [2] warning. What do you know that I don't here? In this edit, all I'm seeing is that the user tried to change "excessive" to "bulky and unnecessary", and they switched the maximum speed of a bike from 15 to 18. Glancing at the company website, their 18 actually look more correct than your 15. I mean the sourcing is terrible and that section of the article should probably be blown up, but that's besides the point. It's not worthy of a 3rd level vandalism warning, and I know you know that. I also know I'm the second person to ask you about this - but you chose not to respond to the other editor, and instead threatened to block the original editor [3]. What gives? GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 11:29, 25 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

The only thing you're right about is that the section on the scooter is badly written, but that's unfortunately common in so many of our articles. The user changed the phrase "using a bike would be excessive" to "using a bike would be too bulk and unnecessary". Even assuming the word "bulk" was a typo, it's hardly an improvement. But that's not the main problem: the source cited in the article (here) says that the "max speed" is "15 mph". When you couple what Twinkle calls deliberately introducing false information (because that's what I think the user was doing) with their preceding edits, it's clear that the warnings are deserved.

Have you bothered to look at their first edit to Lakeville, Minnesota where the user added "Before you read I would like to let you know Lakeville Public Schools does not care about your child. My child was severely bullied and they did nothing to help."? They did something similar, although not as obnoxious, in adding their personal commentary to E-scooter ("Depending on what model you purchase, it may or may not have suspension"). Obviously, such a comment is unencyclopedic, but it is also unsourced and, although I'm hardly an expert on e-scooters, not true. I'm going to ping Feeglgeef so they can read this too, and I trust that disposes of the matter. I've now spent far more time on this than it deserves, and it's left me grumpier than I was before I did so.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:15, 25 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

The user said in their edit summary that they updated the figure, likely because they saw a new model released with a higher max speed. You need to do a better job at assuming good faith here. While the edits were poor in quality, your level 3 vandalism warning was not appropriate. While I get their edits to Lakeville, Minnesota were vandalism, that doesn't give you the excuse to give them a level 3 warning for the wrong vandalism edit. You should not have doubled down on your warning (twice), and instead should have admitted that in this case you are wrong. See also: Fallacy of composition, Moving the goalposts, Proof by assertion, Hasty generalization, Straw man, Invincible ignorance fallacy, and Vacuous truth. Thanks! Feeglgeef (talk) 16:03, 25 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

And, on E-scooters, [4] Feeglgeef (talk) 16:10, 25 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

It doesn't matter that they edits weren't an improvement, they are not vandalism. I'm not going to patronize you and give you whole the "Vandalism has a very distinctive meaning on Wikipedia" speech - only a little of it. Changing a number and forgetting to update the source is not vandalism. Even if I hadn't been able to easily confirm it as true, it's a {{uw-unsourced1}} warning or, if you're assuming bad faith, {{uw-subtle1}}.

And yes, I did see their edits on the city page before I reached out to you. And I checked their edit filter log. And I checked their contributions on other wikis. And you're right, a {{uw-vandalism1}} would have been an appropriate warning. {{uw-npov1}} might have been my choice, but either warning is justifiable. But you didn't warn them for those edits- you warned them for something completely different. Actually, you warned them for improving. They changed courses and made a valid attempt to update an article, and you threatened to block them. That's unacceptable. If you disagree, I'll be happy to ask for a third opinion.

(also, fwiw- yeah not all escooters have suspension. They're pitiful excuses of scooters for people living in a pothole-less suburbia who are scared of getting a scooter any bigger or fancier than they can manage, but they exist. People also may sometimes refer to bikes without a rear suspension as not having suspension which, while technically untrue, is common enough that it's not vandalism) GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 21:27, 25 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi

I have asked you about block evasion (the account have been created when the IP have been blocked). Now, I have discovered that he have made the same edit the blocked IP. So he should be blocked for his October's evasion because now we have found a great evidence. Panam2014 (talk) 23:58, 25 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Please, what is the solution? Panam2014 (talk) 21:14, 26 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Although it's true that the named account started editing while the IP was still blocked, it seems a little late to now block the user.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:12, 26 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Someone has poured you tea.

For your advice and knowledge on my edits made to this article. I do think I was a little too eager and excited!

Let me know though of course :D

00:34, 27 November 2024 (UTC) Luke Elaine Burke (talk) 00:34, 27 November 2024 (UTC)Reply