This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

When you're back from holiday (hope you had a great time), would you mind having a look at User talk:The highest authority#Sock list? The list is a bunch of socks you blocked all at the same time, as a checkuser block, but he's saying several of them are not his. Any chance you could confirm one way or another? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 01:21, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Boing! said Zebedee (talk · contribs); looking at sequential blocks I make in the block log really isn't an accurate way to draw connections between editors. I often run more than one SPI at a time and the blocks can be unrelated to each other, or to socking altogether. Also, the majority of the accounts are now stale. The Snake dude master was socking as recently as this December (which you are aware). I'd be hesitant to unblock them regardless of whether they meet the standard offer requirements as there are some striking competency issues.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:22, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Ah, OK, thanks. When I presented that list to him he was at least able to confirm most were his, so I guess we can stick with those and I'll remove the rest. There's no chance of a standard offer unblock for at least six months from the last socking, and even then, yes, I agree the competency isn't there. I'm just not quite sure what to say to him at this time - maybe I'll just finalize my comments on the sock list for now, and then think some more about what to say. Thanks for your help. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:38, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

It's an odd case where even if they could comply with WP:SO, they really probably shouldn't be editing an encyclopedia. Hopefully they will find an online forum or group where they can express themselves the way that they would like to.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:42, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I think something like that would probably be for the best. I'll sleep on it and try to work out something to suggest tomorrow. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:46, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi P, happy new year! Thought you might be interested in this dialogue that I've been having with Padmalakshmisx. I've apprised him of the standard offer in an effort to maybe (one day) eliminate the socking by giving him a glimmer of hope. Given some of his responses, I'm worried that he's going to botch the unblock request, and that he's going to quickly get himself blocked again just based on some of the mistakes that he's still making today. He had the gall to refer to himself as a master editor...jeez. Anyway, I think I've been completely honest with him in terms of managing his expectations, what he will be required to demonstrate for his unblock request, letting him know that any socking will reset the clock, etc. While I'm hoping that he'll stay true to his word, I'm also sort of hoping that maybe you could keep an eye out for any squirrely editing. Not sure how that would work, but if it's possible, I'd appreciate it. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:12, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

We shall see. They are technically indistinguishable from other confirmed Padma accounts (e.g. Thandrapaparayudu and Memusaitham), so I updated the tag on the accounts.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:32, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Greetings. Came across a page which had been changed from a long-standing redirect. I saw that you had just recently returned the redirect, leaving the summary "LTA Block evasion". The user who reverted your revert is a brand new account. So I thought you might want to take a look into it. Hope you're enjoying your time away. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:46, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the note @Onel5969: it is indeed the same sock. I've semi-protected a handful of the target articles. --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:06, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Ponyo, I think they meant SirJonasMcKeth. It's one of the trolls who undos your recent edits. Sro23 (talk) 03:28, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Sro23. I thought I'd already blocked the Jonas account yesterday when I ran a check. I'm still a little foggy after being away for the last few days.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:22, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

I was looking for an article on a nearby star: NY Virginis. I found it had been deleted:

18:49, 22 January 2016 Ponyo (talk | contribs) deleted page NY Virginis (CSD G5:Mass deletion of pages added by Marvel Hero)

I looked into it and saw that was part of a sock puppet thing... But I'm wondering if this mass deletion could have made mistakes. For example, even if that banned user created that article, was it a good article? I can't find a way to look at it since it has been deleted.

Anyway I was wondering what happened there. Autumn Wind (talk) 19:53, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

BTW, an exoplanet orbiting that star NY Virginis b, has an article. Autumn Wind (talk) 19:55, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Sorry to spam you, but I was wrong about that star. My original source listed it 10 light years away, which would make it fairly notable. However, it's distance apparently is thousands of light years away... So, probably not very notable. Autumn Wind (talk) 20:48, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Autumn Wind, there is no prohibition on non-blocked/banned editors creating articles that have been speedy deleted under the G5 criteria. If you believe it is a notable topic then please feel free to create the article.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:09, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello Ponyo - I recently came across Profile101 Nightfury who was blocked on what I believe was DUCK evidence. I did notice, however, that they didn't target a certain non-admin whom they almost always target (you'll know who I mean, hopefully). Would it be OK for me to request a CheckUser on the accounts? I noticed the English of this potential sock is a little better this time, too. Thank you in advance. Patient Zero^talk 11:50, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

This is the authentic voice of Profile101. I think this one was checked. Patient Zero^talk 12:09, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) User:Profile101 Nightfury (I've fixed your link, above) claimed to be Profile101 here and targeted some of the usual editors before being quickly blocked. Their last target was User talk:Bbb23 at 09:14, 6 January 2017 before being blocked that very same minute, so it looks like they were simply stopped before completing their usual spree. Even if this was an imposter, they still would not be unblocked, so I see no point at all in wasting any more time and resources investigating this further. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:24, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Indeed. Thanks for your help, Boing. I wasn't suggesting an unblock, by the way; I just wanted to make sure nobody else was behind the account. But yes, I completely understand. Patient Zero^talk 12:28, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Sure, but in the absence of any identified alternative suspects, I think it would amount to fishing. I've seen most of these socks, and each one seems to attack a subset of the usual targets, so I really don't think the omission of one individual should be a cause for doubt. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:05, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Boing! said Zebedee: I didn't have anyone particular in mind on this issue. Apart from that, I can see why it would be a wrong reason to use CU. Thanks, once again - enjoy the rest of your day. Patient Zero^talk 13:47, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

As the one who blocked this, I have no doubt it is Profile101, I have many of the target admins' talk pages on my watchlist and if I'm around, I block before he does the full round. —SpacemanSpiff 13:51, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, SpacemanSpiff. Patient Zero^talk 13:55, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks SpacemanSpiff and Boing! said Zebedee for stick-handling this while I was away.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:12, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

P.S. It's not fishing if there is evidence of disruption/abuse of multiple accounts without a clear suspect. Fishing is when you check someone where there is no evidence of abuse.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:18, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Patient Zero If you're referring to me as the non admin who he skipped, he cannot contact me because my talk page is at present protected until next month. If he does target me again, I will no doubt request for my talk page to be protected again. Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 21:16, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

I was indeed referring to you, Class455. That's good - if he does strike again, please do that. Also thanks Ponyo for explaining. Patient Zero^talk 12:40, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Why did you just delete the whole section? I know for fact his brother Daniel McDonald was a notable person. His wife is an actor also. His brother has a Wikipedia page. Also you only say "independently notable and reliably sourced family is included." I am very sure this is a reliable source. Wikipedia does not call for sourced in the info box. I am going to add his wife and brother to the info box. Please don't delete it since he and his wife are actors. Have a wonderful day. MDSanker 00:56, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

The entire section was deleted because none of it was supported by reliably sourced article content as is required by the Template:Infobox person instructions as well as policy. Also per policy, the names of individual family members are only included when independently notable and, again, when it is supported by reliable sources. Wikipedia articles do not meet reliable sourcing criteria as it consists of user-generated content (in addition to the caveats listed at Wikipedia:Researching with Wikipedia#Citing Wikipedia). Your personal knowledge of what you know to be true is irrelevant unless you can provide the reliable sources necessary to support the content; this is the crux of our BLP and verifiability policies (from said policy: "verifiability means that other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors"). Any such additions will be removed until a source meeting WP:RS is provided to verify the material.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:10, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

• Note I've cross-posted this discussion to Talk:Christopher McDonald. Please ensure any reply is made there as opposed to this talk page.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:15, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Also pinging @Cyphoidbomb: Are we still feeding her Talk:Monster High as sock bait for Gabriella~four.3-6? Much as I would like to see what minor nitpicks she wants to correct, I don't like her insulting attitude. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:25, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

AngusWOOF, the bait helps us figure out that it's her, but we needn't respond. No amount of discussion is going to correct her behavior, or get her to spell better, or fix any of the other problems that have been persistent. She makes more mistakes than she corrects. You can still revert, report, and we'll block. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:50, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi P, Vrushank Aithal K strikes me as a strong possibility for a Nagendra sock. I'm not 100% sure, because much of what I saw from this user was basically vandalism, and there was also some incompetence in the way they formed citations, which I don't specifically remember from Nagendra.

• Intersection with Nagendra sock Alludusheenu at Kalpana 2.
• Intersection with 2 Nagendra socks Jack1515 and Kilbridge at [1]
• Intersection with Jack1515, Nenorakam and Kiran Kirak at Yajamana (movie)
• Intersection with Shanthiniketan and Vikramranrathod at Santhu Straight Forward
• Intersection with Drownman at Doddman Hudga
• User has only edited 7 articles, so this seems like a large intersection. This user in particular has also deliberately changed film box office figures against existing references. Indistinguishable from vandalism.
• Vrushank Aithal K uses phrasing "Added box office collection" [2][3] Similar to this by Kilbridge. "Adding box office collection". Seems needlessly wordy, which makes it stand out. I think most people would say "Adding gross" or something. Although I will note that generally Nagendra doesn't leave many edit summaries, so that could lean more toward this not being a sock. Anyway, it would be hard to compare.
• Most of Vrushank's edits are mobile. Same with the others.

Just thought I'd mention it just in case. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:22, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb: I'm not seeing the technical overlap usually evident with Nagendra socks, nor a link to any of the other "usual suspects" in this topic area.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:23, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

My mind must be playing tricks on me. :( Thanks for lookin'! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:24, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Or it's just another bum in another seat pumping out the same paid editing garbage from across the road. It never ever ends.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:30, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

The attack on my tak page appears to have been a late respnse to a politely worded message I left on his talk page about three months ago. They've edited quite a bit since then so I'm unclear on why it took so long for them to reply. You may want to check their deleted contribs and reconsider if perhaps a block is already overdue at this point. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:59, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

I deleted the worst of the talk pages in the deleted contribs, so I was aware. I will absolutely not hesitate to block again if there are any further shenanigans, but if anyone deems an immediate block is warranted then that's absolutely fine by me.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:08, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

I would've if you hadn't got there first, but I'll defer to your more reserved judgement in this case. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:37, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

It's likely poor judgement in this case; I just don't want to block after giving a final warning without any further edits from them as it makes a block appeal more likely. We shall see...--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:43, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

I promised myself I would stay out of the proceedings when I warned Bishonen of User:BlackAmerican (CrazyAces), but I wanted to add that, besides the multiple sock puppets he used during his block (the "fresh start" argument he brought up is total bull, sorry to say) he also viciously attacked me with IPs during his supposed "fresh start". Here is a charming example: [4]. My point is you cannot trust him in these situations. This is not a person who works collaboratively, he lies blatantly, and can be a downright horrible human being when the mood strikes him. If he ever gets to come back, please keep a watchful eye on him. Another thing, please make him required to go through a review process on his articles. He still clearly does not understand notability. If I am out of line, I apologize, but thank you for your time.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 21:43, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello. Thanks for removing TPA. But what a pathetic way for Evlekis to spend his Friday evenings, sifting through his old socks to see if he can find one that still has talk page access, and then pinging me to make sure that someone sees the crap he posts. As if I would care... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 21:21, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

You're the chump is the most recent sock I think. I have some requests. Please delete the edits made to Ulrika Jonsson as serious blp violations, and revoke talk page access as a preventative. Also I came across Stephen valensky. It probably wouldn't hurt to disable tp access for this account since he often returns to old blocked socks for talk page abuse. Sro23 (talk) 20:46, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Please explain how I have committed vandalism, and why this breaks Wikipedia's rules. I am asking his in a civil way, no looking for trouble. Thank you. --TheRestUnderMachinePolio (talk) 22:39, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

You created a ridiculous redirect to the Donald Trump article, then redirected your own user and talk pages to Donald Trump. Each edit in and of itself was disruptive. Given the implausibility of a brand new user knowing how to create redirects from the get-go, I would suggest you quit while you're ahead. And by ahead I mean "not blocked".--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:43, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for my earlier delation of this comment; my "finger-trouble", again, sorry! Huldra (talk) 21:46, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Okay. I will stop my re-directions, although they were done in good faith. May I ask if you feel anti-Trump sentiment? Did you shill for Hill? --TheRestUnderMachinePolio (talk) 09:52, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello P, I hope that you are well. Our Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/109.151.65.218 has returned as 31.49.30.87 (talk · contribs). Thanks for your time. MarnetteD|Talk 18:54, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Already nipped in the bud by Jayron32.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:40, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for checking and a big thanks to Jayron32 for helping to deal with this person. MarnetteD|Talk 22:09, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

but the question is: was born or not on June 6, 1976? :) --Zionilson (talk) 15:32, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

@Zionilson: The question is irrelevant as the inclusion of a full date of birth is 1) not supported by reliable sources and 2) the subject of an WP:OTRS request. Per policy only the birth year is to be included. There is ample discussion of this on the article talk page.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:49, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

RensCoolYEAH, ColJacobson3, NinerWing63, and MilioBataglia appear to be the latest socks of that prolific sockpuppeteer. When I notice these socks, should I notify you directly, or would it be better to file a formal SPI? This person has been churning out so many sock accounts recently it feels like I'm opening a new SPI case for them every day. Sro23 (talk) 01:46, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello Ponyo and Sro23. Is J the one who messes with the sports personality articles? I ask because I came across YoungJediGrasshoppa whose only edit was to add this nonsense to a different article. If not do you know who it might be Sro23? Thanks to you both for your time. Oh and thanks Ponyo for you edit on my talk page history a few hours ago. MarnetteD|Talk 01:54, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it's the sports personality vandal. That account is a sock as well. Sro23 (talk) 01:58, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for checking this Sro23. Good to know that some parts of my fading memory still work. MarnetteD|Talk 02:01, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

It's not just sports, it's BLPs in general (e.g. children-related articles such Sharon, Lois & Bram and Fred Penner). The edits are easy to recognize given the the absurdity of the BLP violations. @Sro23: If you see that I'm around you can drop a note here or send an email, otherwise please report them to SPI and request a check. 99% of the time they are using a proxy from which they create scads of accounts that need to be blocked and reverted. --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:40, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Okay. It's already been blocked, but could you please check ReeseAcolyte and delete their edit. Sro23 (talk) 22:06, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

 Done.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:17, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Ponyo, could you please block ShotintheArmMan? Sro23 (talk) 23:29, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Got it (plus a few others). Thanks, --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:37, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

There is also SingtotheMOuntainsSea, PinkOperatta, and AnthoNYJapazo, which is a bit of an older account but doubtlessly a sock. Sro23 (talk) 00:07, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

All blocked, plus a handful of others.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:46, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Could you also block UncleBillyUncleBilly when you get the chance? Same vandal. Thank you. Sro23 (talk) 02:07, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

This one is globally locked.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:02, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Mind blocking SpringXcitement, SenorBryanNando, and StanleyStanislawMechenco too? Thanks again. Sro23 (talk) 02:06, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

All blocked now.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:02, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Are you sure? Because according to their block logs they aren't. Sro23 (talk) 23:57, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

So, if I only make the blocks in my head they don't count? Kidding aside, I'm not sure how I managed to miss actually blocking the accounts, but the job is done now. Thanks for the head's up.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 00:02, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

I *just* filed an SPI and right after that closed immediately stumbled across these socks: DelAndre2II, OBKnightedSir, PonderAnnThought, and UmaBaroqueGal. I'm sorry for dumping this all on you. I just feel uncomfortable letting these vandals sit idle until they become auto or extended confirmed and start doing serious damage. That and I appreciate how you also consistently make the effort to hide the socks' libel and other such garbage per WP:DENY. I've been thinking of creating a sandbox or something like that to keep track of these socks, then spreading out the number of sockpuppet investigations I open to maybe once a week, so as not to overwhelm WP:SPI with daily Jaredgk2008 cases. It's insane the amount of sock accounts this person has. Sro23 (talk) 02:02, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

• 71.55.223.62 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Hello Ponyo,

This IP editor has continued to make disruptive edits immediately after your last CU block (2 weeks). Could you take another look into this IP's edits? Thanks. 172.56.38.43 (talk) 03:59, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Nevermind, it looks like Materialscientist already took care of it... 172.56.38.43 (talk) 04:32, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Recently SSZ was blocked for edit warring for a period of 10 days by @EdJohnston: and subsequently an unblock request was declined by @Max Semenik:.As an involved editor, who once participated in the related matter, I clarified my stand, supporting the block.Now, a few minutes after my edit, a new account DeborahKM is created whose first and lone 2 edits are to support SSZ and mock those who are opposed to his unblock.

I smell something definitely fishy here!

What's your take?Winged Blades ^Godric 06:48, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

@Winged Blades of Godric: Could you please open an SPI and list your evidence there? Thank you, --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:08, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Will look forward to opening a SPI when I get to a PC.Anyway, primarily what do you think of? Winged Blades ^Godric 17:21, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Ping me when you open an SPI and I'll take a look. I'm not digging in too deep without an SPI with specific diffs presented.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:26, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

I choose you!

Note: if you ever do a video search for that phrase for a use such as this (lame humor), be sure to include the word 'pikachu' at the end. Otherwise, you get a bunch of love songs that come across as waaaay too creepy to be funny. I mean, I'm all about the funny/creepy stuff, but even I know not to send links to love song videos to random wikipedians. <shudder>

So I found the following IPs, all with the same first and second octets: 36.37.206.49 and 36.37.205.64. Both have very brief editing histories that consist entirely of what looks like automated spam. I haven't had the time to dig further into it, but it looks very likely to result in a range that needs blocking. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 18:51, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Hurray! You choo choo choose me! The editing is odd (see also User:36.37.206.21 and User:36.37.206.29 for example). The disruption on this range stretches back to December 24th, so I've soft blocked 36.37.204.0/22 for one month.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:05, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. And the heads up on that video. (I knew there was a quasi-romantic, not-too-creepy pop culture reference that wasn't pokemon out there, but I plain forgot about lil Wiggums) :) Also, I meant to say octet pairs. I really did. Don't put a black mark on my nerd card, please! I got so many strikes from fixing up my old camaro (instead of upgrading my home network) that the nerd council deliberated making me forget everything I know about LISP as penance. I can't take another... MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 20:30, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Your secret is safe with me. (for now...)--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:46, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

<sighs and adds another name to the "blackmail creditors" entry in his books.> MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 02:36, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi P, do you think you might be able to look into this situation, please: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=500&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=Tehseenahmad*&namespace=&tagfilter=&year=2017&month=-1

I ran into Tehseenahmad188 first, and noticed that Vanjagenije had blocked them for socking. When I looked deeper I found a bunch of these accounts. I don't know if maybe "Tehseenahmad" is a common name to emulate, like as if there were numerous editors called DarkKnight001, DarkKnight002, etc. Tehseenahmad75 created Bhoothnath 3, which I am confident is a hoax, so that has some hints of Google Boys Arimalam, but I don't know for sure. Anyway, something funky's going on and it might be faster if you could look into it...? Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:08, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Also, one of them has an intersection at Judwaa 2 with a Taokaka sock. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:09, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Hmmm. Bbb23 blocked Tehseenahmad997, so he may have a better handle on the socking/master. He's also a better checkuser :) --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:16, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

I blocked those accounts because someone (can't remember who) alerted me to them on my Talk page. Tehseenahmad90 is the master, although as you can see from Cyphoidbomb's list, it goes back much earlier than that, but the others were stale even at that time. I've now blocked 188 as confirmed. I've retagged a few accounts confirmed socks of 90. The SPI should probably be changed, but I'm not going to go to the trouble. I don't know anything about Google Boys Arimalam. There is one thing, though, I can't figure out. Vanja said he blocked 188 for 3 days as the master (much too lenient in my view but ...) and the log did expire, although I don't know if it was after 3 days but look at the log. I've never seen anything like it. I think it's Ponyo's fault. She taught me everything I know, and that wasn't in the curriculum! --Bbb23 (talk) 00:46, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

What the....? The same thing happened here. Curiouser and curiouser. --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 00:54, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) FYI: WP:VPT § Block length malfunction / phab:T156453 — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:20, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Isn't JJMC89 great, Ponyo? I guess Vanja must have typed in 3 days, even though 72 hours is on the drop-down list.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:20, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

• I moved the case to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tehseenahmad90. Vanjagenije (talk) 09:36, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Dear Ponyo,

     While I was going thru some pages that I have on my watch list, I noticed that IPv4 address 117.248.188.120, did a section blanking on page List of Bollywood films of 2017.  I have reverted that IP address's edits.  Here is the history point where the blanking occurred with diff, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Bollywood_films_of_2017&type=revision&diff=762210852&oldid=762143375 .

     I would like to know, how does one create a hyperlink to the link above on Wikipedia.  I do have knowledge of HTML, <a href="">text to link</a> .  However, I am not sure if Wikipedia allows the use of that HTML tag. I actually never tried experimenting.

Sincerely, Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 03:45, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

@Aceing Winter Snows Harsh Cold: Do you mean like this?--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:16, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

@Ponyo:Yes. Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 06:54, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello Ponyo, long-term disruptive editor Smoore95GAGA looks to be back under various IPs (usually beginning with 73.81), similar editing patterns (targeting recent music releases) and similar edit summaries ([5] and [6]). They have been reported by Kellymoat, Jennica and myself since earlier this month at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/PeopleEater143, but no action has yet been taken. Not exactly a smoking gun, but one of the IPs reported and blocked on Smoore95GAGA's archived SPI begins with 73.81 as well, and as pointed out in the most recent report by Livelikemusic in November of last year, they edit recent music releases, and lately have targeted List of 2017 albums, Ed Sheeran's recent releases, and SweetSexySavage just earlier today. Ss112 07:29, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

It appears several of the blocked accounts (including Antonio Bononcinis (talk · contribs)) also edited Miley Cyrus & Her Dead Petz, and PeopleEater143 and at least one of the accused IPs have also edited this recently. Letting you know because this user's IPs have been getting away with hostile language in edit summaries and edit warring lately, and the SPI has not gone anywhere. Ss112 08:20, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Today, they have also continued edit warring with a user at List of 2017 albums, [7], using a different IP and insisting they will continue reverting users and edit warring. Ss112 03:21, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Ss; as a Checkuser I can't take action in this case as it solely involves IPs. You will, unfortunately, need to wait until the behavioural investigations close at SPI.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:21, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SSZ. Apropos to our prev. conversation asking me to ping you when I open a SPI.Cheers!Winged Blades ^Godric 16:19, 29 January 2017 (UTC) Winged Blades ^Godric 16:19, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

It's all wrapped up now.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:25, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

I wrote a short bio of myself and added it to Wikipedia. I did not copy it from anyone. I cut and pasted my bio from a page on IMDB. But I wrote that too. Why was it cut not long after I added it? The information is all true. It is about me. And I wrote it. Waynorama61 (talk) 23:46, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) There is no such thing as "my Wikipedia page". There have on two occasions briefly been Wikipedia articles about you; but in both cases, they were deleted both as violations of copyright and because no case was made that you are a notable performer about whom there should be a Wikipedia article. You have an IMDb listing; I have an IMDb listing; neither of us is notable enough for an article, and articles created about us have been deleted. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:53, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi,

You're the blocking administrator, I cannot email you through UTRS as the tab is not working. Could you please take a look at the request and let me know what you think?--5 albert square (talk) 13:59, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

I can't log in to UTRS right now. It's asking me if I want to login with meta or en-wiki and then a pop-up opens that states "In order to complete your request, UTRS Global OAuth Authenticator (Development Branches) needs permission to access information about you, including your real name and email address, on all projects of this site." No way am I clicking "allow" without a clear explanation as to when the changes were made and what it entails. Salv or Amanda, can you shed any light on the change? In the meantime, you can email me the gist of the request if you'd like 5 albert square.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:27, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Ponyo. We've upgraded UTRS to use mw:Extension:OAuth which is specifically developed for mediawiki. While the permission statement says that on enwiki, it would pull the information stored in your account (currently my real name isn't in my preferences). UTRS does not look at, evaluate or store your wiki account's real name. It only keeps your email address up to date with your wiki email and verifies that you are an admin (and in your case CU/OS). It removes the requirement for us to approve accounts manually and the need for a second login besides your wiki one. Feel free to ask if you have more questions. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 20:33, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Amanda. Is there any material difference in choosing to login via en-wiki or media-wiki?--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:35, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, there is. You will need to use enwiki. Meta wiki is for the WMF Staff and Stewards, and verifies those groups on metawiki, and would therefore decline to authenticate you. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 20:38, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

@5 albert square: Are you getting an error or is it simply not working period? -- Amanda (aka DQ) 20:39, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi @DeltaQuad: it's simply not working. Only started happening today. As a result I've had to put the status to "On hold" until I hear from Ponyo.--5 albert square (talk) 21:29, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Ponyo I just sent you an email :)--5 albert square (talk) 21:36, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Seen and replied!--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:04, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

• Some comments. I think the "upgrade", at least as implemented, is awful. First, when I used to click directly on a UTRS #, it took me to that page. Now after I click on the #, it takes me to that "choice" page. I click on Wikipedia, and do the oath thing (every damned time), and it takes me not to the page I wanted to go to, but to a general page. Then, because UTRS numbers on that page aren't clickable, I have to run a search for the # I'm interested in to finally get where I wanted. This is about as friendly as a porcupine.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:13, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
• I just tried to log in and received two errors:

1)"Notice: A session had already been started - ignoring session_start() in /usr/UTRSgit/utrs/public_html/src/oauth.php on line 198" and

2)"Catchable fatal error: Object of class UTRSUser could not be converted to string in /usr/UTRSgit/utrs/public_html/src/userMgmtLogObject.php on line 51"

• This is after I accepted the OAuth.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:18, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

• Just a quick note Ponyo, Bbb23 and 5 albert square thanking you all for your patience. OAuth was absolutely a necessary upgrade: the fact that admins had to request UTRS accounts and be manually verified (which can take some time as there is no notification to tooladmins) was one of the biggest hurdle to transparency in UTRS usage, because while all admins are "eligible" to access UTRS and read tickets (or respond to them if they want), the manual account approbation system was an obstacle to admins who just wanted to pop in and read a ticket while investigating something. Obscurity is not a good thing. In addition to automating the process of accessing UTRS (and preventing non-admin access attempts), OAuth does away with the need for separate logins for UTRS and Wikipedia. This was also an essential part of what we call "internationalization" of the tool, to allow instances of it to be used by projects other than Enwiki. So far we're working on a Ptwiki version (at their request), but with this standardization it becomes quite plausible to one day see UTRS instances on a variety of projects, such as Commons, Meta, Wiktionary, Wikidata, Frwiki, Dewiki, and so on. By automatically querying account's on-wiki user-rights to check for admin, CU, etc. we do away for the need to put in place strict human-controlled security. WP:ACC implemented OAuth a while ago, not without hiccups either, and their upgrade was a great success -- I'm sure UTRS' will be as well, even if the process isn't perfectly smooth. Remember we're all volunteers and we can't ask DeltaQuad for perfection -- she's our only coder (while TParis is moving across country), and UTRS is far from the only thing on her plate (ArbCom anyone?), so any time she can devote to UTRS, I cherish and value highly. :) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 14:15, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

I hope my comments weren't taken as criticism, I just couldn't log in. Whatever the issues were they've been fixed as I can access UTRS now. Amanda knows that I think she's a star (at least I hope she does!).--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:48, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Maybe that was obvious to everyone but me (I'm usually in the dark), but I didn't know that Amanda wrote the code. I still don't like it, but I apologize for my lack of tact.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:52, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

I just tried to logon for the 5th or 6th time. I'm past the authorisation bit but I'm getting "database error occured when attempting to process your request:
array ( 0 => '23000', 1 => 1048, 2 => 'Column \'userID\' cannot be null', )' in /usr/UTRSgit/utrs/public_html/src/unblocklib.php:115 Stack trace: #0 /usr/UTRSgit/utrs/public_html/src/unblocklib.php(65): registerLogin(NULL, Object(PDO)) #1 /usr/UTRSgit/utrs/public_html/index.php(34): loggedIn() #2 {main} thrown in /usr/UTRSgit/utrs/public_html/src/unblocklib.php on line 115". Doug Weller talk 17:20, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

• I understand there are frustrations around the issues being experienced right now, which seemed to have somehow not shown up in testing. I am committed to resolving these issues as soon as possible, though it's gonna be slower over the next 48 hours. Doug's issue never came up during testing, nor have I ever seen before, i'll be looking directly into it as that's a fatal of a core module. Ponyo's uses are both intermittent issues I saw during testing that I thought got resolved. #1 i've coded up a fix for, but it's not been patched through yet. #2 I need to investigate more. For Bbb23, I don't completely follow the train on what pages you were actually on, but i'll try and reproduce the train and eliminate post login issues. As for 5AS, it kinda reminds me of a possible old bug. OAuth was started a long time ago, and while I made every attempt to merge the live fixes in with OAuth, sadly Github fought long and hard with me on this one, and some may have fallen through. I am committed to resolving these issues as soon as possible. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 19:17, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

• I've got bug reports running for each item now:

• 5 Albert Square: Request blocking admin function failing
• Ponyo #1: Session start issues
• Ponyo #2: UTRSUser $hideTarget conversion issues
• Bbb23: Redirect through logins
• Doug #1: UserID not provided during logged in check
• Doug #2: Duplicate entry with OAuth

You can follow each to keep up with it's status. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 23:46, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Ponyo #1 & 2, the most critical of all the bugs have been patched. Next the priority goes to Doug 1 & 2, if I can get more information from him, followed by Bbb23, then 5 Albert Square.

@Doug Weller: are you still having issues logging in? If so what are they at this point? I've having a hard time reproducing what's happening. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 08:40, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

@DeltaQuad:When I click on the OAuth request for permission, I now get "Notice: Undefined index: password in /usr/UTRSgit/utrs/public_html/src/userObject.php on line 62 Fatal error: Uncaught exception 'UTRSDatabaseException' with message 'A database error occured when attempting to process your request:
array ( 0 => '23000', 1 => 1062, 2 => 'Duplicate entry \'dougweller@gmail.com\' for key \'email\, )' in /usr/UTRSgit/utrs/public_html/src/userObject.php:107 Stack trace: #0 /usr/UTRSgit/utrs/public_html/src/userObject.php(78): UTRSUser->insert() #1 /usr/UTRSgit/utrs/public_html/login.php(204): UTRSUser->__construct(Array, false, Array) #2 {main} thrown in /usr/UTRSgit/utrs/public_html/src/userObject.php on line 107". Doug Weller talk 11:13, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: Could you try now? Seems the issue was people who had different onwiki usernames compared to UTRS logins from before. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 19:13, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

@DeltaQuad: Got in with no problems just now on my iPad. I guess I was already logged in as I didn't need to login. Doug Weller talk 20:44, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: The whole point of OAuth is so that you no longer need to login, just verify your wiki account. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 06:21, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

• @5 albert square and Bbb23: and others, All issues that are listed in this thread should be  resolved at this point. Please let me know if they are not. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 06:22, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
• @DeltaQuad: Yes, I just lost the plot struggling with errors and I think at one time yesterday or the day before I did have to login, but that might be my imagination. Much better now. Doug Weller talk 14:00, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
• @DeltaQuad: yup seems to be working ok for me now. As you can see below I managed to get the UTRS bot to post a request on here earlier for Ponyo to look at something. Didn't have any problem in getting it to do so. Thanks.--5 albert square (talk) 14:06, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks, Amanda!--Bbb23 (talk) 16:15, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi P, user The Worst Case is a sock of someone, but I don't know who. Maybe Charles Turing based on (intersections)? Exactly 10 innocuous edits to random articles in late December, then boom, right into Indian film articles. Links to WP:PUFF in his 17th edit because all noobs know about puffery, requests page protection by edit 20, meaningless user page creation, referencing expert by edit 41... Fiiiiishyyyy... Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:11, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

I will look right after lunch. Your section header triggered a Pavolovian response and I'm now starving!--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:45, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb: It is indeed Charles Turing/Inside the Valley; there were four related accounts (Big Eye, The Worst Case, Modern Harpoon and Yackmann), now all blocked and tagged. They are block evading prolifically via logged-out edits but the ranges are too dynamic and large to block.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:22, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Augh... The most effed-up part about this is that by all accounts he was a decent user and the Indian cinema group has gotten smaller and smaller because of this idiotic sockpuppetry crap. We lost admin Ricky over it. Why do they do it?! So dumb. Thank you for looking. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:34, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

If socks didn't repeat the same mistakes we would never detect them. --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:40, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi P, does this behavior look familiar to you? I don't recognize it, but it's certainly odd, the user flagging edit summaries with run-together words and "Rockz" like "BeastandBelleRockz". This is clearly vandalism. I looked for "rockz" at SPI, but didn't find anything helpful. I've blocked the IP for a month. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:00, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb: Doesn't ring a bell, sorry.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:39, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

I cleaned up some edits that turned out to have been made by 1994thegoodolddays (talk · contribs), and later cleaned up some edits made by Kinkirankinkirankirunkurankink (talk · contribs). Then I realized they seem to be the same person. Following "what links here", I saw your name on this page: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Ctway/Archive#10_February_2016. Further pursuit of this issue is beyond my pay grade. Felsic2 (talk) 17:33, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Felsic2 Thanks for letting me know. The extant technical data aligns with the behavioural evidence and I've blocked the account.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:54, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Felsic2 (talk) 01:36, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello, I've corrected the dab-link by replacing it with the direct-link to Wikipedia's Sindhi language article. I came here to tell you this, because I noticed that you didn't seem to understand or read the text-scripts for Sindhi and Urdu languages (since you're quite unfamiliar to those languages) - hence, you mistakenly removed the text-script and the language of one another.(ManFromMohenjodaro (talk) 21:39, 9 February 2017 (UTC))

Thank you for correcting the dab link.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:46, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

For looking deeper than the bot comment. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:31, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

• No problem. WP:PERM is a hotbed for socks, so I tend to keep an eye on it, though I rarely act on requests. --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:33, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

FYI, they're now abusing their talkpage... 172.58.40.66 (talk) 22:59, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Talk page access yanked.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:00, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Ponyo: where should I report this? Sock puppet and Neutrality problem?

Good evening, @User:Ponyo: I am adding this note here since you were involved with the blocking of User:Igaalbania and I don't know where exactly I should be reporting this situation.

i.e. User:Igaalbania got this note: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Igaalbania#Sockpuppet_investigation

   You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 year--Ymblanter (talk) 20:07, 19 November 2016 (UTC) for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: User talk:Iaof2017 From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Well, I wonder if there is now a new sock puppet, User:Iaof2017 (Wikipedia does not have a user page with this exact title. In general, this page should be created and edited by User:Iaof2017.) He does however have a Talk page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Iaof2017 which includes this note:

    Multi-user icon An editor has expressed a concern that this account may be a sock puppet of Igaalbania (talk · contribs · logs).

I mention this because I did some edits on the Albania article, including some comments from the European Union that the country will not be admitted until it cleans up its problems. That was quickly reverted by User:Iaof2017 ... who also happens to be the user that has done most of the edit on Albania since December 2016.

Aside from that, there are real problems with neutrality WP:NPOV in the Albania article as I pointed out in friendly note on the Talk page of that article. It almost sounds like much of the content was written by someone working for the Albanian government.

Kind regards, Peter K Burian (talk) 23:00, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

@Peter K Burian: The connection between Iaof2017 and Igaalbania was already discussed here and they were found to be technically unrelated. I would suggest you follow standard dispute resolution if you have concerns regarding their edits. --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:15, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Correction re: neutral POV. I now see that the content I had added about the European Union, and the problems identified by Forbes and the International Monetary Fund are included in the article. The User deleted them but then added them back in different parts of the article. He did delete the mention of the problems identified by the EU in the lede that I had added, but such is life. So, overall, I cannot complain since much of the cited content I had added is in the article now and I will not proceed with WP:DR. Peter K Burian (talk) 23:19, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

If only all these matters were resolved so easily!--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:24, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

@Jezebel's Ponyo There is an old expression: Figures do not lie, but liars do figure. See Economy of Albania. The article is playing games with the stats for Gross Domestic Product, using the data from incorrect lines of the IMF report.

(I added the following to the article's Talk page too).

This information in the article is wrong. In Macroeconomic indicators section AND in other sections.

 GDP (PPP): $36.524 billion[1] (2017)

 GDP per capita (PPP): $13,368[1] (2017)
 country comparison to the world: 95

Here is what the IMF Web site actually says re GPD, 2017 estimate. See http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2014/02/weodata/weorept.aspx?pr.x=96&pr.y=19&sy=2014&ey=2019&scsm=1&ssd=1&sort=country&ds=.&br=1&c=914&s=NGDPD%2CNGDPDPC%2CPPPGDP%2CPPPPC&grp=0&a=

Gross domestic product, $17.000 billion In other words the GDP for Albania is not $36.52 billion

Gross domestic product based on purchasing-power-parity (PPP) valuation of country GDP $36.524 billion This is another way of calculating GDP but this is NOT the basic, standard GDP for a country

Gross domestic product per capita, 2017 estimate, $6,221.743 NOT $13,368

Gross domestic product based on purchasing-power-parity (PPP) per capita GDP $13,367.534 In other words, this is a very specific statistic and is NOT the country's GDP per capita

I am not an accountant or an economist but it seems to me that the article takes whatever is the highest number in the IMF report and calls that the Gross Domestic Product for the country, and the highest Per Capita number and calls that the basic GDP Per Person. Those higher numbers are secondary stats, and not the standard GDP for the country or its Gross domestic product per capita. Peter K Burian (talk) 20:10, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

That seemed familiar. I thought that had been deleted several days ago. Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:51, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

They've been at it for months (assuming they're the same "tech support" sockfarm I've seen previously). It's the oddest vandalism.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:55, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi P, found three newish socks of Rodolfootoya12, Eduardo Otoya, Gerald Otoya and Jerry Otoya. Same crap as always, typically hoax stuff. Anyway, I've blocked them as ducks, but I was curious if there's any way to look for undiscovered accounts since he had two open that I just blocked (Gerald and Eduardo). I don't know if that's possible given how old the master is, but I do know that he typically uses Costa Rican IPs. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:04, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't see any further socks. Note that the Stewards have locked two of the accounts, so they are aware of the recent activity as well.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:41, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

	Happy Valentine's Day!
	Happy valentine's day dear!.-- Mona778 (talk) 06:13, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Mona, that's very sweet!--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:42, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Ponyo, please help me understand how to do this better as I have read the policy on Living Persons and tried to maintain a Neutral point of view (NPOV), I used all of the same reputable references supplied by previous contributors so the information could have a high level of Verifiability (V), and included no original research (NOR). I can see where the one source I used may be not considered to standard. There is discussion, in the references already provided as to Mr. Hawke being granted a lifetime protective order from the judge regarding Mr Teti and numerous other pieces of information, but if these things from the articles are not shared, then there is a completely biased selective picking of information coming from these articles which does not portray an accurate account as captured in those references. When I read the articles then the Wiki entry, I get two distinctly different perspectives as to what is going on and that seems very misleading. So how to update the entry with the information as directly quoted from the articles to portray an accurate recount of the articles and not misrepresent what is shared in the articles (as is currently happening)? Again, apologies if the article came off as one way or the other, I wanted to be neutral and thought I was because I am indifferent to the goodness of facts, only that they are accurate and want them share them, good or bad, it is what it is. Thanks, please let me know how to better edit the entry for accuracy. Gscarp12 (talk) 02:26, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

@Gscarp12: Although you are under no obligation to acknowledge any involvement with regard to Joe Teti, your edits do exhibit signs of editing with a conflict of interest. When you're close to a situation it makes it very difficult to maintain neutrality, especially in controversial topics such as the legal involvement between Teti and Hawke. Wikipedia policy requires that edits, especially those that can be considered controversial, be supported by reliable sources. The more controversial the statements, the stronger the sourcing needs to be. Another key component of our policy regarding neutrality is that we need to endeavour to ensure due weight is given to the majority view as covered by reliable sources (which as I noted earlier does not include court documents). The most worrisome aspect of this article is that it completely lacks balance. At the point of my writing this there is a single sentence (20 words) that demonstrates, weakly at best, that Teti meets our notability criteria for inclusion. The remaining three paragraphs (266 words) describe a protracted legal dispute. This is very much out of proportion for a biography, so much so I believe that the article should be redirected to Dual Survival or deleted entirely unless more balance is achieved. What I will do is bring the matter to the biographies of living persons noticeboard and ask for further input there. I'll post a link to the conversation here for you once I open the discussion. --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:02, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. Gscarp12 (talk) 14:31, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

@Gscarp12: I've reviewed the article again and I believe the most policy-compliant way forward is to redirect the :Joe Teti article to Dual Survivor as this is where Teti's notability lies. Interestingly, this is how the page Joseph Teti was originally created in 2013 (i.e. as a redirect to Dual Survival) and has remained a redirect to this day.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:36, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

sock expert

Thank you for quality articles such as Bohdan Ihor Antonych and Colette Renard, for explaining "if you're close to a situation it makes it very difficult to maintain neutrality", for fighting vandalism, especially by socks, for handling UTRS "absolutely being a cornerstone on this project", - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:40, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Gerda, it's an honour. Thank you!--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:21, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

From our previous post here /Archive_35#Special:Contributions.2FTum_Kon_Piya.3F.3F. Check out Special:Contributions/119.160.102.148 and Special:Contributions/Tum_Kon_Piya??. I think the ducks are quacking. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 14:52, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Based on a brief review of the edits it certainly could be the case, however the IPs cycle so rapidly they will have moved on by now. It will likely be more effective to semi-protect the repeatedly targeted articles than to play whack-a-mole (unfortunately).--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:28, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry I thought that's normal for wikipedia french and arabic it's the same thing for wiki english ... thanks for the information and sorry for the inconvenience --morroco_love 21:06, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

No worries, every wiki is different! --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:07, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Please correct the link in the Anand Mahindra article U.S.-India Business Council. Thanx, 80.99.208.111 (talk) 19:39, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

+ Please make a link in the introduction Mahindra Ugine Steel Company Ltd. (MUSCO) (including the abbrev too, as it is missing. ++ Please make a link of Tech Mahindra in the Carreer section. Thanx, 80.99.208.111 (talk) 20:00, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Please note that correct place to make edit requests to protected articles is the article talk page using this template.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:35, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Ponyo. A number of vandalism-only accounts have continued to disrupt the Fred Penner article shortly after your last page protection on the article for ban evasion ended. I've blocked the users and re-protected the article – however, do you think a checkuser for sleeper accounts would be helpful here? Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 01:57, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Mz7: It's always best to run a check in this case as there is nearly always additional accounts and/or proxies to block. You may need to up the protection back to edit-confirmed at some point, they usually keep sleepers to edit through their favourite semi-protected articles.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:42, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello P. The Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/109.151.65.218 has returned as 86.141.6.165 (talk · contribs). They will find a new IP eventually but I wanted to make you aware of this one until then. Have a pleasant weekend. MarnetteD|Talk 20:26, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Got it! Have a fantastic weekend :)--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:31, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you twice :-) MarnetteD|Talk 21:36, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi. A user (new as a matter of fact and a potential sock) has been reverting the same edits as another user was several days ago when I was banned for edit-warring. I've made it clear that a consensus should be reached on one of my edits but they may not correspond?Resourcer1 (talk) 01:55, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

User Mekdes Getachew is edit-warring on Tigrayans. A consensus has been reached with a different user previously about the images but this user is still reverting edits by both of us. Jezebel's Ponyo I am not getting banned again because someone else doesn't want to co-operate with the rules and discuss issues like this on the talk page. I have made it clear on the edits telling the user to discuss their edits on the talk page but they (mind you a new user) is not giving up, just like the previous user. Resourcer1 (talk) 02:52, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

photos of children should not be added on the page of the people of Tigray because it is disreputable and ambiguous--Mekdes Getachew (talk) 12:35, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello,

I agree with Mekdes Getachew the location addition of photos and unhappy poor children must be changed with a picture of adults, then why all this insistence on keeping them?--Sennaitgebremariam (talk) 12:57, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

{od}Mekdes Getachew (which is a sockpuppet) Sennaitgebremariam Because it says nothing in the guidelines disallowing this as Soupforone has already explained to you. There is nothing wrong with these children, the insistence is coming from you reverting edits and not discussing edits over the talk page. There is nothing ambiguous about it and even the picture your attempting to add was taken by the same photographer in the same town.Resourcer1 (talk) 16:06, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Great both of you are sockpuppets talking to yourself.Resourcer1 (talk) 16:08, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

@Resourcer1: Both accounts have been blocked as sockpuppets by indefatigable checkuser Bbb23.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:04, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

I see an overlap with this sockfarm. Might he be worth looking into? Thanks, — Preceding unsigned comment added by GeneralizationsAreBad (talk • contribs) 14:35, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

@GeneralizationsAreBad: In this case a direct technical connection is  Unlikely.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:21, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Here. You blocked him before for NPA, and altho the IP is listed as dynamic, it's obviously the same user. Thanks. John from Idegon (talk) 20:30, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

I've blocked them to stop any immediate disruption. If they resume when the block expires I'll extend the block significantly as it's only being used to harass you.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:48, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. John from Idegon (talk) 21:54, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

I remember coming across another potential sock a while back (see this diff; hoax and NOTBROKEN vio; similar to hoax added by confirmed sock [8]). Linguist^talk|contribs 22:47, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Definitely looks like it to me. Blocked and tagged.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:51, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Ponyo. For your info, I posted this to NeilN's talk page:

Hi NeilN. On the Victory at Entebbe article, you cautioned ...930C:FCE5 about edit warring. You've met him before, three times in 2015. He's had over 30 sequential ip-hops since I started tracking him after he gave me a pile of annoyance as 75.34.103.158, all about deleting/reverting edits on Uganda related articles. He was blocked as 70.124.133.228 by Ponyo last September for six months, and still has a week to go on that ban. During the block I saw disruptive edits as 2605:6000:EF52:B200:4C5D:FB30:169F:383A and as 2605:6000:ef68:d500:711f:74b0:c23d:301b. All these geolocate to the same neighborhood north of Austin, Texas, US. His new ip's can usually be spotted by checking edits of Index of Uganda related articles, which Ponyo semi-protected for a few months. Cptmrmcmillan (talk) 03:40, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

@Cptmrmcmillan and NeilN: I've blocked 2605:6000:EF43:8500:0:0:0:0/64, their current range, for one month as obvious block evasion by User:70.124.133.228 (related to this SPI). They've been editing extensively, so if you see them pop up on another range please let me know and I'll lock it down.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:05, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Gracias. Cptmrmcmillan (talk) 05:55, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Ponyo. Considering this autoblock, and the extensive block history of User:2602:306:379D:1AA0::/64, I wondered if you'd be interested in throwing down another CU block with appropriate parameters. I note they also seem to be operating in 2600:1:b100:0:0:0:0:0/41 or thereabouts. Perhaps you could narrow that down and apply similar. Thanks. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 12:29, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

@Zzuuzz: I've reblocked the original /64 range. The collateral on the /41 is extensive, and I can't make any sense of a workable smaller block. --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:12, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:06, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

re: Chantry Island Lightstation Tower Good evening Ponyo. I wonder if you would at least provide a third opinion about this issue:

Before my edits, the page was rated as not adequate to be even at START level. I did a lot of work on it, adding fully cited content. (Perhaps it is at the Start level now.)

Today all of the content I had added was reverted by Imasku 18:28, 14 March 2017‎ Imasku (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (14,086 bytes) (-3,444)‎ . . (Reverted 16 edits by Peter K Burian (talk) to last revision by Jokulhlaup. (TW))

With no explanation. I tried to UNDO his revert but got this note: The edit could not be undone due to conflicting intermediate edits; if you wish to undo the change, it must be done manually. I don't know how to do that. Or am I crazy and is Imasku right to revert all of the content I had added? Your advice would be appreciated. Cheers, Peter K Burian (talk) 22:19, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

@Peter K Burian: The first step would be to your concerns with Imasku.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:27, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

OK, thanks; I did post a note to the Talk page but will also post one to his own talk page. Peter K Burian (talk) 22:30, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

I have researched this article in depth, this is also my home. Most of Peter K Burians add ins, did not have fully cited material -- they where missing titles, links etc. Which is why they came up in red. I am not challenging his work or time spent, I am challenging his content and proof. When I researched this article, there was a lot of material I wanted to add and could not, as I could not locate info that could not be challenged in verifying. Everything I put in this article and proved came directly from the Federal Government. I had to accept it, which is why I made sure website links where added to the article. I am sorry someones pride is hurt over this article, however, I am an historian on this lightstation and a Doctorate Researcher. Imasku (talk) 22:27, 14 March 2017 (UTC) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chantry_Island_Lightstation_Tower

You both appear to be reasonable editors with Wikipedia's best interests at heart; I'm sure you can work it on the associated article talk page. Note however that being the creator of the page affords no extra privileges with regard to content - see WP:OWN. --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:36, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

I have added this request to your Talk page, Imasku and to the article's Talk page. The reply should be added there. I will then continue the discussion with you there.

I am an experienced editor and I intend to pursue other avenues to get a Third Opinion or to start Mediation. I see no evidence on Wikipedia that one must be a PhD candidate to revise articles.

If you do not revert my edits -- as a prelude to further discussion -- we will need to find out if administrators agree that none of the content I had added has merit. Peter K Burian (talk) 22:41, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Just a quick note that this is an editorial issue, not an administrative one and WP:DR applies.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:43, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Jezebel's Ponyo<; he and I have had some discussion in the Talk page at Chantry Island Lightstation Tower. My last note asks if he intends to compromise or not. If not, then I should be able to move on with WP:DR. Peter K Burian (talk) 23:42, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Hey Ponyo, I seem to have upset Imasku as well - apparently he thinks I have attacked him on his talkpage? Oh well, I have too much other editing to do elsewhere around here. Moving on, Shearonink (talk) 05:01, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

One last thing...he removed my post from that article's talkpage, but like I said....moving on.Shearonink (talk) 05:19, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Update: I have filed for mediation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Chantry_Island_Lightstation_Tower#Parties.27_agreement_to_mediation

Note: Shearonink has another issue as he mentioned above but I did not feel it was right for me to include him in my Mediation. Peter K Burian (talk) 17:28, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your incredibly fast response to my request for page protection on LGBT rights in Saint Kitts and Nevis.

AddWittyNameHere (talk) 22:05, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

To be honest I didn't even see the RFPP request. Do I have to give the kitten back?!--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:06, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Yup. *takes back kitten* Now let me give you this kitten for your honesty! *gives kitten back*. I suppose that makes sense, though, as there was about a minute between my request and the page getting protected. (Do those edits need revdel, by the way? I reported one such edit (identical to the newer ones) at IRC earlier today and it was eventually revdelled but that was only after a few admins weighed in; seems some admins felt it was revdel-worthy, some felt it wasn't and some figured 'well, it's definitely disruptive and revdel won't hurt, but whether it's strictly necessary...') AddWittyNameHere (talk) 22:11, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

EDIT:Well, looks like you handled it while I was typing the message...AddWittyNameHere (talk) 22:12, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

So...more kittens then?--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:15, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Or a cookie, depending on which you'd prefer? AddWittyNameHere (talk) 22:17, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Ponyo. I hope I'm doing this correctly (I'm an old broad). I don't need my old username unblocked anymore. They let me use a new one and I worked with an edit-a-thon last week. I still have to read thru and learn all of the guidelines. Thanks for checking in. I don't know how to make a tilde! Drat.BevFayeL (talk) 23:25, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Ok, thank you for letting me know.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:28, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Ponyo. Thank you for your recent engagement with Apollo The Logician on his talk page. I'm glad to see other editors standing up to his persistent, self-righteous attitude. However it doesn't seem he is listening. I have had constant problems with this user constantly and unreasonably reverting edits. Even after you, myself and others have spoken to him, he is still doing it. For example only just now he has yet again done the same. The most recent example is my edit on the page - Revolutionary Socialist Party (India), which I have given good reasons for why I have made my edit. And yet without giving any good reason, he has constantly reverted my edit, while hypocritically telling me to 'stop edit warring'. I think something really needs to be done, as this is getting out of hand now and he's just not listening to multiple users that have had issues with his behavior. Thank you for your time and for engaging with this matter so far. Helper201 (talk) 23:03, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello Ponyo, I saw that you blocked the IP 90.146.213.80 and I am interested in the reason. This user also has been blocked in the Dutch wikipedia. I just saw that this IP makes a lot of controversial edits in the German wikipedia, although not necessarily wrong, and since the IP mentioned it has been blocked in the Dutch wikipedia, I researched a bit. I am currently looking through all his/her edits on the German wikipedia. Most edits are sourced with reports about scientific studies (not the studies themselves). The main reason why I am skeptic is that someone edited other articles with another news article from the same study, but overexaggerated to content... It is really quite difficult to verify all these edits... --Christian140 (talk) 10:12, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

I guess I already get behind it myself. --Christian140 (talk) 18:15, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

@Christian140: The IP was confirmed via the Checkuser tool as being used for block evasion. I cannot connect the account to the IP however as it is against our privacy policy to do so.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:46, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello Ponyo, I uncovered a lot of PROMO and COI editing regarding Milcho Manchevski, and reported it at AN/I. Three of the five involved accounts have activity that appears suspicious to me: editing within the same time frame, and being SPA with the intent of promoting Manchevksi. So far no admins have commented on the situation in light of sockpuppetry, so per WP:CHK I am requesting a CU regarding Davidklausner1 2017reception, and Pmm1112. Thank you for your time, L3X1 (distant write) 16:16, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

@L3X1: The accounts listed here and at the AN/I report edited between 2011 and 2016, meaning they are all stale as far as checkuser goes.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:53, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Does "stale" mean that a CU won't work, or produce the desired effects? L3X1 (distant write) 21:19, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

The checkuser tool only provides data obtained over a specific time period (+/- the last 90 days). After that there is no data for a checkuser to pull.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:21, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

No, I am not receiving any financial things. How do I know which articles are paid so in the future I know not to edit? I also apologise for adding sources that weren't reliable. I thought they were reliable so I added them. I will be more careful in the future. Plum3600 (talk) 18:22, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

@Plum3600: I only added that to your talk page so that you are aware of the requirements if they pertain to you. If the requirements don't apply then you can safely disregard that portion of my message to you. --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:32, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!

Have a very happy first edit day anniversary!
Best wishes, UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) (18:32, 28 March 2017 (UTC))

• Happy 10th anniversary Ponyo!!! Your value to the project is immense and much appreciated. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 18:49, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Luke and MarnetteD. When I started editing Wikipedia it was to fill time while at home with a newborn, in what little down time there was between naps and feedings and such. Wonderful memories, but to think it's been 10 years is crazy. Surely that much time hasn't passed!--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:30, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Whoosh - it goes by so quickly. Thanks for sharing your story. At a guess the size of your wonderful child today would be one giveaway :-) MarnetteD|Talk 19:47, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't really have anything else to add, so ^ditto^. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 23:32, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Dear Ponyo/Archive 36,

I'd like to extend a cordial invitation to you to join the Ten Year Society, an informal group for editors who've been participating in the Wikipedia project for ten years or more.

Best regards, Chris Troutman (talk) 19:20, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

In that case the categories were perfectly relevant, however you're right there were no references. I will add the categories when I found some right sources.--Carnby (talk) 22:46, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Okie dokie. Also note the inclusion of categories regarding sexuality "...should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question, and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources".--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:50, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.