User talk:Ponyo/Archive 40

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 35 ← Archive 38 Archive 39 Archive 40

Ego

I just want to be first.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:48, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

You're always #1 in my books!--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 17:50, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

How to solve plagiarism problem in an article

Good morning,

I need to discuss this with someone and hope you can get involved or direct me to an Admin who can.

I was reading an article today, Har Gobind Khorana and made some edits.

Within a few minutes, I realised that some of the existing content is copied from a book, Physiology Or Medicine, 1963-1970, edited by Jan Lindsten. The personal life section is almost verbatim. You can see relevant pages of the book at https://books.google.ca/books?id=O5jQ-GRTvPUC&pg=PA370&lpg=PA370&dq=mahan+singh+professor+researcher+Punjab+university&source=bl&ots=vXbrdAsnTG&sig=hrmK6ZPr8wMcH4Q5rHdqtCBFrqw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjcnPChp8vYAhVY1GMKHZTcABUQ6AEIOzAD#v=onepage&q=mahan%20singh%20professor%20researcher%20Punjab%20university&f=false

The book was never cited, until I did so, before realising that previous editors had been copying verbatim from it.

Regards, Peter K Burian (talk) 16:44, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Problem solved, for the most part. I deleted most of the content that had been copied from the book and added facts that are now fully cited from sources such as MIT and obituaries in major news media. Peter K Burian (talk) 17:41, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

A protection request

Hello Ponyo, I have requested for protection of Jaana Na Dil Se Door due to vandalism by IP. Especially this one has crossed all limits, 2405:204:B309:C033:0:0:1DD8:98B0 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). This IP is always giving fan based plot to the serial's article and violating talk page discussion about the cast [1] and had removed citation tag from Shashank Vyas article. He is trying to use wikipedia for Vyas's promotion. As a admin can you protect the page plz??? Could do anything about the IP??? ABCDE22 (talk)

Ponyo, plz give the page proection, it is being vandalized and edit war has waging everyday. Its quite depressing plz.ABCDE22 (talk) ABCDE22 (talk) 15:45, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

@ABCDE22: As noted in the notice box at the top of my page, I am on a bit of a break and am only checking my talk page intermittently. If you would like to request protection, please do so at WP:RFPP.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:43, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Suspicious "new" account

No one with this username is likely to be a newbie... Thanks, GABgab 22:52, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Let's watch a bit and see where they go...Softly, softly catchee monkey.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 22:55, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

My sockpuppets.

Monteyaga was created because I lost my password, but I retrived it back.

and Mastar Crash and Fire Mario779... they were created for no reason.

sorry dude. --GG

@Great Gonzo: That doesn't really explain why you were talking to yourself as if you were two different people at User talk:Monteyaga, but I'm not overly concerned as long as you stick to the Great Gonzo account moving forward. If you create additional accounts in the future due to a lost password, please link the accounts as described at WP:ALTACCN.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 22:19, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Sorry. I wont do that. I promise. --GG

Stormy Daniels & Nicole Eggert edits

I was already going to look more carefully into this being a possible SPAM situation (editors using recent media events to promote their blog). I'll definitely do so now and let you know what I find. --Ronz (talk) 23:38, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Sounds good Ronz. I imagine they'll be back to it once the short protection and block expire. --Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 23:41, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
Looks like spam.. I found very little, but it's the type of material that gets removed quickly. 2604:2000:7020:1800:523:3C62:FC68:5183 (talk · contribs) 13 Aug 2015, 2604:2000:702b:600:a58d:3039:cbd9:47b5 (talk · contribs) 16 Aug 2015, 2604:2000:702B:600:70A9:5E12:78C5:4218 (talk · contribs) 14 Sep 2015 plus some edit-warring. Only one of the edits was not made on the same day as the publication of the reference (two days later instead). --Ronz (talk) 01:40, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Sita Kund

@Ponyo, Kautilya3, and Sitush: Under the Galary section of the Sita Kund page, file names of certain pictures is misleading. Sitamarhi is in Bihar, India but several files are wrongly named as ".... Sitamarhi, Nepal...". I don't know how to correct it. Could you please help? Thanks. Jakichandan (talk) 08:45, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

The files seem to be in Commons now. You can do a "page move", which will become a request to the Commons maintainers. I suppose you would need to provide evidence that it is in Bihar rather than Nepal. Perhaps best to initiate a discussion in the talk page of the images first, and ping the original "author" so that he/she can object if necessary. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:37, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: Well, the wiki page itself mentions that the place is in Bihar. Moreover, this source which clearly mentions Sita Kund as part of Bihar. Thanks. -- Jakichandan (talk) 11:31, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

That doesn't establish that the particular images are of the places in Bihar. "Sitamarhi" seems to extend into Nepal as well. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:57, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

No, Mithila region extends but not Sitamarhi district. I have requested page move. Jakichandan (talk) 12:00, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

+ IP sock

re: Indigowestern.

It looks like 2600:1001:b12c:89ec:be42:4195:e0f1:d535 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 2600:1001:b11a:327c:a64e:6b9a:f454:a67f (talk · contribs · WHOIS) are from the same barrel. Are they blocable? In any case I requested semi-protection. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:58, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

As a checkuser I'm limited in what I can say regarding IP use by sock accounts. If you do think you've found additional sock accounts, please list them at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bulgarian Archer. --Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:02, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Muneesh Sappel

Hi,

I would like to inform you that this article is false and utter rubbish: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muneesh_Sappel and should be deleted immediately. In future, we should make it the point that only admin can create this article.

I am sending you because I was told that you are honest and senior admin and takes the quick action. Muneesh Sappel took advantage of this and written more rubbish than his previous articles.

He is using wikipedia page for his publicity and propaganda. I am quiet shocked there is no article about him on Indian newspapers and on google, what you find one …. Is only one liner. Even images on google also posted by him….. not a single newspaper photos.

In his article most of the awards has won by other cast/ crew but he is showing in his article like he won!!!

Please do see his sixth article which he has written again in 2015: He says he is “Indian and International production designer, art director, costume designer, hair and make-up artist” but there is not a single hint about AWARDS. In his recent updated version he won so many awards, he has become now Indian production designer, art director and costume designer from previous claiming being INTERNATIONAL production designer…

Now he has become an actor, writer, director, poster design, publicity set construction, theatrographer, production assistant, art director… blah blah….

His article deleted many times since past (10 – 12) years and I see he writes article about himself again…. than some same user:Sapna Shrivastav: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SAPNA_SHRIVASTAV who use to write earlier on fake name user:Shruti Narayanan: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Shruti95Narayanan takes-over…..

“CONFLICT OF INTEREST”

He is a paid IMDB member, which you can understand… if you are not IMDB paid member. You can’t write anything. Rediff References are bullshit because Sapna Shrivastav works at Rediff. Just see how cleverly he created and designed false newspaper article for reference on his Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=551791188210278&set=a.345572122165520.79274.100001382062100&type=1&theater

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=542341122488618&set=a.345572122165520.79274.100001382062100&type=1&theater

How someone could use his website as reference, he used it: http://www.indianproductiondesigner.com/PL/profile.php?ref_=nm_awd


For your reference (since 2010 his articles are getting deleted.): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Muneeshsappel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Muneeshsappel — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jac Frost (talk • contribs) 20:54, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

  • @Jac Frost: If you believe there are accuracy and referencing issues with the article, please feel free to attempt to improve it. The article talk page is the correct place to raise concerns and gauge consensus for the changes you would like to make, but please don't make disparaging comments regarding living persons anywhere on Wikipedia (see WP:BLP). If you find yourself in an editing dispute, please follow the advice provided here.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:08, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Untitled

Hello Ponyo, you're a checkuser so I'd like to signal a problem to you. There's an Italian user who's been abusing sockpuppets and using open proxies since december in several wikis, among the which there's en.wikipedia. In some project one or more of his proxies and socks were blocked, and now he's using also normal IPs to restore the edits which had been reverted. His accounts are, probably, these: Baka Líte, Fulgencio Kokomeci, Myeuurn, Onpuryvgr. His proxy IPs are: 66.160.128.0/18, 72.52.64.0/18, 74.82.0.0/18, 204.246.56.71. His normal IPs are: 151.18.0.0/16, 151.34.0.0/13, 151.65.0.0/14, 151.82.0.0/16. There's also a concrete chance that the sockmaster is an old registered Italian user, who normally has always used IP 195.206.3.188 to log and edit and whose edits are similar to all these IPs', proxies' and socks' edits, while the overwhelming evidence should be this: [2]. How should this cross-wiki vandal be dealt with, on your opinion? I hope that my report was helpful. Please, answer as soon as you have time to write a reply, thank you! 151.48.200.90 (talk) 10:40, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

For cross-wiki socking you can make a report at Meta.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 18:14, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
I know that only registered users can open CU requests. I don't think they'll consider the first anonymous requesting to investigate about so many accounts and IPs in several wikis. And registering an account just for that could be seen as an even more inappropriate behaviour. Is there anything you can do yourself about it? Even just reporting the problem to an admin who could take care of it himself. The problem is real as I've shown you and some accounts and IPs were already blocked in some wikis. Let me know whether you could do something or not please! Thanks anyway. 151.48.220.241 (talk) 09:42, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
I suppose you could include your evidence at WT:SPI and a clerk could open a case. This won't help with the cross-wiki disruption though. --Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 22:18, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
Thank you very much! I'll do as you suggested. 151.48.208.208 (talk) 09:21, 7 February 2018 (UTC) (EDIT: done)

Thanks!

You're awesome. :) The Interior (Talk) 22:35, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

I know, right?--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 22:42, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Michael 182 & new IP

Hi Ponyo, regarding User:Michael 182, there is now this IP account doing very much the same changes [3] and giving the exact same arguments [4]. However you decide to tackle this (or not), thank you for your time. Cheers. Hoverfish Talk 15:08, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

@Hoverfish: That's obviously the same user. I've blocked the account and the IP for 72 hours for WP:SOCK violations.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 16:48, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
Thank you Ponyo. The user seems to insist through another IP (also located in Buenos Aires). [5] Hoverfish Talk 16:13, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
They will have hopped to another range by now, so blocking won't be effective. With editors like this reverting and blocking as they pop up, combined with semi-protection, usually is the only deterrent available.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 18:19, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

NI Rape addict

Hello Ponyo, Do trust you are well? Just to let you know I have posted an entry on ANI regarding the latest "contributions" from the NI Rape addict, now posing as 31.49.30.126 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) with the usual silly and questionable sexual content. I have also posted a entry on the Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/109.151.65.218 page. With best regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 21:19, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Already taken care of David.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:24, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
Ponyo, Many thanks and warmest regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 21:26, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Bjoergenbestever

Hi, thanks for your checkuser actions today on sockpuppets of Bjoergenbestever. Can you also have a look at user: Samanthastevenson40 whom I reported together with user: NatalieTenerelli? Given the conduct and editing history I am fairly certain that these two accounts are from the same editor. --Wolbo (talk) 22:43, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the head's up Wolbo; the account is  Confirmed along with the sleeper account Nickdavies they created today.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 22:56, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
Hi could you have a look at user Zerilous to see if this account is a sockpuppet of Bjoergenbestever? The editing history of this account combined with a number of ip harassment edits today by Bjoergenbestever give me reason to believe this may be the case.--Wolbo (talk) 17:42, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
@Wolbo: I had thought it suspicious as well, however there is no technical link between the accounts.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 17:41, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the check. I thought the pattern of edits and behavior warranted a look but was not entirely sure.--Wolbo (talk) 20:07, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
@Wolbo: Technical evidence is only a piece of the sockpuppet puzzle. If the behavioural evidence is overwhelming and contradicts the technical findings, a block can still be made. In this case, however, I think it's likely a different user in the same topic area.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:13, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
Good to know. Will keep an eye out to see if certain patterns repeat but for now I'm inclined to agree with your assessment.--Wolbo (talk) 20:26, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
Pretty sure Angrykitty is another sockpuppet of Bjoergenbestever.--Wolbo (talk) 18:28, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
Blocked now, Wolbo.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:40, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

POV socks/meatpuppets?

Hi, my little Ponyo. This is a query about three accounts, Niele~enwiki, Druckmaschine and Gani zanyar. They look like possible socks/meats to me, because of this sequence of events:

Niele~enwiki added a lot of text about Ezidkhan being an autonomous region to the article Ezidkhan on 5 September 2017. It was reverted as POV. Druckmaschine re-added the text yesterday, Doug Weller removed it, and an hour and a half later, Gani zanyar created the article Autonomous Region of Ezidkhan, which consists of the same text again. The new article has been AfD'd at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Autonomous Region of Ezidkhan. So.. I was just wondering if the three accounts are the same. What speaks against it is that none of the three is brand new. Frankly, if Gani zanyar had been new, I might would have duckblocked, but as it is, I'm baffled.

Oh, btw, I noticed you were asked to "calm down" on Feb 9[6] and became so calm you vroomed away on holiday. Hope you had a good (and calm) time, and hope you're back — if not, young User:Bbb23 may perhaps take a look? Bishonen | talk 15:58, 13 February 2018 (UTC).

@Bishonen: Druckmaschine and Gani zanyar are probably unrelated. Druckmaschine is  Confirmed to FC Bayern M1 (talk · contribs · count), but thus far, all the account has done is repetitively edit his userpage, although it's possible that was to become autoconfirmed. I don't feel that a check of Niele~enwiki is justified.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:18, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, little Beeb. I see FC Bayern M1 had made twelve "edits" within three minutes of registering the account. That looks so shady — but then they did nothing with the autoconfirmed status, once the four days had passed. Well, good. If they had plans I guess they forgot about them. Bishonen | talk 19:27, 13 February 2018 (UTC).
Thanks for stepping in with the assist Bbb23. And Bishonen, I am always calm; my message was the equivalent of an emphatic "oh puh-lleze" eye roll. My zen-like aura remained bubblegum pink and raspberry scented whilst I wrote it.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:30, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

119.180.232.128

My initial impression was that 119.180.232.128 (talk · contribs) was mostly making good faith edits, but I'm not so sure after looking closer. Could this be another sock? Do the edits look familiar to you? --Ronz (talk) 18:23, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

@Ronz: Why do you care? The IP hasn't made any edits in months.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:16, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
I just ran across the ip's edits today, reverted some, and noticed that the articles are areas of regular problems where Ponyo keeps a much better watch than myself. What do you think of the edits where the actor categories are being changed to child actors? --Ronz (talk) 19:27, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Hi @Ronz: I don't remember ever tying this behaviour to a specific user or sock master, I just reverted the majority of the edits as they popped up as not meeting WP:BLPCAT and/or WP:CATDEF. Not sure if that helps you much though...--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:38, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Good enough for me. Thanks. --Ronz (talk) 03:57, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Evlekis is back...

... and in need of a range-block. See Special:Contributions/Max Pumpkin Defeats Brownfingers Every Time. Cheers, - Tom | Thomas.W talk 19:12, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

It looks like Zzuuzz took care of this! --Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:40, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

A year ago ...
sock expert
... you were recipient
no. 1588 of Precious,
a prize of QAI!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:04, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Gerda! You're a star that makes this place shine a little brighter...--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 22:15, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

IP:119.14.62.94

Hello Ponyo, I am re-inserting this comment, as another editor transferred it thinking you were not around. A IP you recently blocked as re-surfaced 119.14.62.94 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is now inserting unsourced changes on the American Airlines, but not only that is making obscene comments when asked for sources. Can I leave this with you please. Regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 21:03, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

@David J Johnson: can you provide a pointer to the IP I previously blocked?--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:21, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
My mistake, it was Oshwah who made the block.... Apologies, David, David J Johnson (talk) 21:24, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
No worries. It didn't look familiar, but I do have a rather nasty head cold and am not firing on all cylinders.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:35, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
I've been rushing around today - hence the confusion. Do get well soon. David J Johnson (talk) 21:46, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Hot tea-honey-lemon helped when I had this last month Ponyo. I hope you get to feeling better soon!! MarnetteD|Talk 22:11, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
If I drink anymore lemon honey tea I will float away! It's the only thing that brings any relief right now. Thank you for the well wishes :)--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 22:14, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Welcoming new users

Thanks for saying to me about it, my apologies for not realising. Thanks.

Do the Danse Macabre! (Talk) 20:54, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

No problem; as I said, I don't your good faith in doing so.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:57, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Ncube03

Ah, those "numerous accounts".. - TNT❤ 21:25, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

They just can't help themselves...--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:31, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Jack Gaines socks

This is the second time in two days you've had to block a Jack Gaines (talk · contribs) sock. I'm tired of playing whack-a-mole with this lunatic. What do you suggest we could do? Would there be a way to add some of his key editing tactics ("bro-country" in the genre field of Infobox Song, setlist.fm, "Look at the lyrics" or "#AlanJacksonKilledCountry" in the edit summary) to the edit filter? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 21:59, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

  • I'm taking a look at the possibility of some coordinated range blocks. An edit filter could also be helpful. Maybe @Zzuuzz: could help with that?--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 22:03, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
    Lunatics, my fave. I might need to do some research before committing to a filter. I read with surprise that bro-country is actually a thing, which complicates things, and I can't see any obvious recent hashtag usage. Filters are good for unique and consistent tells, nothing immediately jumps out at this point. -- zzuuzz (talk) 22:39, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
One of the socks was using the hashtag yesterday here.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 22:52, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
  • This user is now harassing me on Twitter. Can we push for a ban here? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 06:01, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
There's a discussion right now about changing the banning policy so that repeat sockmasters are automatically considered banned, which has near-unanimous support. It's obviously going to pass; I say consider this person banned and act accordingly. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:48, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
TenPoundHammer, if you're experience personal harassment from this sockmaser I suggest you contact The Support and Safety team.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 19:41, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

User Page blanking

(Duplicating response from my talk page)

Thank you. I was never entirely sure of the policy. I've read it now and will know not to mess with it.
--KNHaw (talk) 21:00, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

UTRS Ticket 20611

Do we have any update on UTRS appeal #20611? It's been sitting in the backlog a while, so thought I'd ping you. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:36, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Sorry about that TonyBallioni. I've updated the UTRS appeal.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 18:32, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping. I've gone ahead and closed it out. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:35, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Question about Laetitia Toureaux

Hi! There is a page called Murder of Laetitia Toureaux. I wanted to create a redirect to it from "Laetitia Toureaux". Since you previously deleted a page with that name I wanted to ask if there's going to be a problem if I do that. It's just going to be a redirect page. Cheers. Crusoe704 (talk) 22:42, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

User talk:23h112e

I've seen some very unusual post-block edits in my time, but this person's ranks way up there.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:13, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

It was very "aren't I the clever one?!", except, you know, the whole caught and blocked indef part.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 23:17, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Heads up

Hey there, when you made this edit, you were actually reinstering vandalism into the article. Maybe it was just a mass revert of all of Makkat1's edits (who is now blocked); but in fact, they were correctly revering the persistent vandalism from 50.105.111.168 (who is also now blocked) who persistently adds "Fox Kids" to various articles. I manually removed the content from Angel (1999 TV series) (because it's on my watchlist), but not the others. Thank you. Drovethrughosts (talk) 23:26, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

@Drovethrughosts: Thanks for fixing the article. Per WP:BANREVERT please feel free to correct any errors I may have made. As the master account had a history of making disruptive and unsourced edits, it's difficult to tell which edits are valid and which need to be returned to the "status quo".--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 23:30, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
So, you wouldn't mind if I simply reverted you on those articles (it would be faster than manually removing the content)? I just don't want to offend you with the multiple reverts. Because yeah, everything from 50.105.111.168 is just vandalism. Drovethrughosts (talk) 23:37, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
If you can vouch for the accuracy of the content, revert away! --Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 23:38, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

RhodesAvenue

Hello, I saw you blocked the latest sock of RhodesAvenue, can all the registered accounts in Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of RhodesAvenue be confirmed as well? Any other socks? Thanks, S.A. Julio (talk) 19:02, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

I blocked it per WP:DUCK, it was not a checkuser block. When a sockmaster has access to multiple large ranges it's more efficient to just block on sight as the new accounts pop up; checkuser can do little to stop the creation of new accounts in such instances.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 19:05, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
  • @S.A. Julio: Some time ago when this was getting under steam, I recommended that an SPI be created to keep track of the socks. Instead, the master's Talk page has continued to be a somewhat disorganized proxy for an SPI. There are too many socks not to have a case, at least in my view.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:17, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
Agree regarding the SPI. I'm not even watching that talk page; I saw it pop up in pending changes.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 19:19, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
Ah, I wondered, I'm so dull when it comes to the venues I look at.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:28, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
I have some filters set up that are helpful in separating the wheat from the chaff. Watchlists are so 2016! --Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 19:31, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
Filters are way above my pay grade.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:47, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
@Bbb23: Alright thanks, I'm not too familiar with SPI so I was unsure if it should still have been opened, I'll go ahead then. Cheers, S.A. Julio (talk) 19:57, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
@S.A. Julio: It'll be great. There's nothing like one's first SPI under the belt to make one feel proud. I recommend filing a new one every day instead of breakfast. Just as enriching and a lot more slimming. Seriously, if you need any help, let me know.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:06, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
@Bbb23: Ha, thanks again! I've added a new section for the latest sock, hopefully this was done correctly? S.A. Julio (talk) 19:18, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

How to Get Away with Murder (season 4)

Hope you are well. I am here to ask you to lift the protection you placed on the article. The disputed content has now been settled. You can see this thread.

Thank you. Nyanchoka : talk 2 me 16:51, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

User talk:ColinTTran

Duck season! Fire! --Daffy Duck--Dlohcierlibra (talk) 22:08, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Your "AGF" ability is a wonderful attribute; it's unfortunate it gets wasted in cases such as this. Don't get jaded like me!--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 22:12, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
Too late. Never took it personally before. -Dlohcierekim (talk) 22:21, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

User:Wormslurs

Thank you for the block. I've known for a day or so they were obviously a previously blocked user, but couldn't figure out who. Canterbury Tail talk 17:17, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

My SPIdey sense was practically vibrating, so I took a peek under the covers, so to speak. They have a wide array of IPs and ISPs available to them, so you will likely see them pop up again.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 17:21, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
Yeah mine went off from the first interaction, but since I don't have Checkuser I couldn't go that route. Didn't want to ask someone to run one without some more cause. So I settled for watching and seeing how they responded to see if they went far enough that I could justify a block. Canterbury Tail talk 17:55, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
Hopefully I saved a smidgen of your sanity by not having to go too deep into that conversation with them (which I imagine Vicky Pollard style "yeah but no but yeah but no but..").--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 18:04, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
Yes, and many thanks for it. Hmm, should that comma be there? Should I "fixed grammar" this page? No, I think I need more-hyphenation. Canterbury Tail talk 18:08, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
How did you figure out who he was the sockpuppet of? Did you check all the users who participated in the GA review of Dean Smith (pilot)?. L293D (☎ • ✎) 13:33, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
@L293D: Could you more specific? I don't see any connection between this sock/master and the GA review of Dean Smith (pilot). --Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 19:32, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

The connection is that Wormslurs had a topicon that said "This user helped promote Dean Smith (pilot) to Good Article status on September 6, 2016" and that his account was created in 2018. I asked him about it, but he removed the message. Then I asked him again and he removed the topicon and then claimed he had never had one. Then Canterbury Tail asked him if he had any previous accounts and then you blocked him. L293D (☎ • ✎) 21:49, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

@L293D: I definitely didn't check anyone involved with that GA; I checked Wormslurs based on their sockish behaviour and the master Retro72 account popped up.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:56, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
Wow! I didn't know that fishing was so efficient! How many users did you check before getting to him? L293D (☎ • ✎) 23:45, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
Not knowing who the master is does not make it "fishing" (see WP:NOTFISHING). I already noted that I checked the Wormslurs account due to obvious tells of socking (which I won't detail per WP:BEANS) and the master account showed up in that check. A single account was checkusered, and that account was the sock Wormslurs.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 16:06, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Editor's misuse of Huggle

Hi. An editor is in my view badly misusing anti-vandal tools. I've spoken to him. Nothing penetrates. Just now he again did so. You cautioned him recently on another matter. So not sure where the board is to report this, as he invited me to do, I am appealing to you. He just now used tools to assert vandalism for my adding the years of birth and death and details to the listing of a person in a list of people by that person's name here. And then shockingly left a vandal warning for me. I tried to discuss this on his page. He told me not to. Is this how you want editors to welcome other editors -- using vandal tools like this? I would appreciate any assistance you might be able to offer. --2604:2000:E016:A700:B49B:7B31:1E5:3777 (talk) 19:17, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

I was in the process of asking them about the reverts when you left this message. At first blush it does appear that you are being reverted without regard to the quality of your edits and have been inappropriately warned for vandalism. --Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 19:28, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. It really takes the air out of my balloon to run into that reaction. I'm just trying to make things better. And I run into that. Both the reverts, and the "go away" response. And if you read above the most recent instance, it is a pattern .. not isolated. And its not just me -- other editors are with frustration running into the same problem with him. For recent example -- here. This type of use of Huggle can drive good editors away. 2604:2000:E016:A700:B49B:7B31:1E5:3777 (talk) 19:31, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
I left him a note too. Overall, I don't see as much negative feedback as I've seen w/ some Hugglers.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 19:51, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
He's learning and gaining experience... and I know this because this is an example of the exact same mistakes that I've made using Huggle a good handful of times in my "RC patrolling history". He just needs to recognize these kinds of edits and distinguish how he handles them from what you'd normally do on Huggle to revert blatant vandalism. While the edits themselves may have had their problems (I'm speaking in general here, not specifically about this situation), reverting them and warning the user... essentially treating the user exactly the same as someone who goes and trashes articles up "for fun" will absolutely generate frustration and push-back from those who have this happen to them. Like I said: I've done this many times and understand how it happens, and this was something I had to adapt myself and do what was needed to stop the mistake from being repeated. Going slower, taking your time, knowing that it's not a race, and holding off for a second with edits that make you concerned (but aren't vandalism) to handle it differently is how you start improving and stop frustrating others like this. Pablomartinez just needs to communicate with the IP user on his talk page, try and explain things and diffuse the frustration, and do what's right in order to remedy the situation and learn from it. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 20:12, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Hi there! I hope I'm not butting in, but I wanted to add input to your concerns regarding Pablomartinez and the reverts and warnings that he's left you. I see that you've asked about a couple of reversions he made to your edits on his user talk page, and also mentioned another edit here. Regarding the edits you mentioned on his user talk page: I believe that your edits that add "accused of sexual harassment" isn't necessary regarding your edits here and here. If I saw them, I certainly would have removed that portion and messaged you and talked to you about it. I do agree with you that the edits were not vandalism, and I understand that you'd be frustrated and perhaps upset over having the edits reverted entirely and being warned for vandalism regarding them. Being warned as a "vandal" when you're not doing this at all is certainly something that would understandably caused frustration. I believe that this is what Pablomartinez saw as problematic with those specific changes, and I believe that this is what he was trying to fix and convey. I agree that the edits don't need that statement at all, but I do agree that the execution of those reverts and the warnings left could have gone much better and should have been performed differently than what happened.
I'm not trying to outright defend everything that Pablomartinez has ever done, but as someone whose made this mistake a handful of times - I understand both how it could have happened on his end due to how easy and quick Huggle reverts occur and (literally) at the push of one button, and also understand how the execution and warnings made you frustrated, upset, and feeling that your edits weren't given much thought beyond one second of glancing. It was perfectly acceptable to message him and express your frustration and ask about these edits - just make sure to give the guy a chance to explain himself. He's learning, and he's going to mess up... and will need to continue to learn and improve how to properly remedy such mistakes and make sure they aren't repeated (just like I had to do from the many mistakes that I've made here before). I'm not asking you to let this go completely and to walk away... I'm just asking you to understand and give him a chance to try and make things right and communicate to you. That is all :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 19:54, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the input Oshwah. This is the revert I was asking for clarification on. It all appears resolved now.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:15, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
You're welcome, and I saw that edit as well. I didn't make a response to address it because (as I explained to Pablomartinez) - this was something that he'd need to explain and remedy. I think I've done a great job smashing up your talk page and ruining my welcome here, so I will depart and leave things be unless I'm specifically asked for here. Thanks for letting me try and help; I hope I did so. Regards - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 20:54, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, we all make mistakes, especially with power tools. When we saw someone's fingers off, the thing to do is apologize and move on.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:00, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
And maybe offer them a bandage for the hand that he's now missing all of his fingers from ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 20:03, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
Oshawah - yeah, I hear you. And if he had done what you said, that would have supported the idea that that was what he was trying to do. But to be honest, because of the other evidence of what he is doing elsewhere, including his last reverts just a few minutes ago, and his reaction to being questioned on them ("don't post on my page", "you are harassing me by questioning my use of anti-vandalism tools to delete years of birth and death", "you are stalking me if I revert your edits and you show up on my page asking why"), it seems he is acting in a way that makes that initial assumption unlikely. Even if I start off assuming he is doing the right thing but just making a we-all-make-them-mistake, if he gives me lots of evidence that it ain't so, well ... --2604:2000:E016:A700:B49B:7B31:1E5:3777 (talk) 20:10, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I appreciate your honest and civil response very much. Over the last half hour, I spoke to Pablomartinez through Huggle's chat. He asked for help regarding the messages you were leaving him on his talk page and felt that they were piling up on him... I believe that he was simply overwhelmed with how to handle the situation - your (understandable) frustration, your questions about the actions he took, and how to respond to you, answer your questions, diffuse the frustration and expressions of such, explain his thought process, and commit to doing what's needed to move on and avoid the issue in the future. As you can probably understand, that can be a lot for someone to try and handle if they're not experienced with handling tough disputes and conflicts and communicating in the right manner to diffuse frustrations. I did respond to his initial message within Huggle to "mention WP:STICK if you feel that you're being harassed", but this was immediately before I read about what was going on. I think he took my advice and before I could tell him "wait... nevermind, hold on...". If anything, I'm the one who should be held responsible and paced at fault for the response he made just now telling you to go away, not him. He was simply following my guidance when I had made what was an initial "If this, then do that" response and hadn't yet looked at the situation. I'm hoping that he'll follow-up and try to remedy things with you. I'm not trying to be his "lawyer" nor am I trying to be his "body armor" and "take the hits" for Pablomartinez. I am, however, telling you this in order to be honest and because it would be wrong for me to let him take the full blame for the response. Sure, he chose to take my advice, but I was the one who may have initially caused it and by presenting that response to him on Huggle. I apologize and hope that you'll allow yourself to look past the response. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 20:27, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
Thanks to all of you for your help. And Osh - I understand how you felt, since you had given him advice without looking at the edits, he was sort of your editor-to-explain. I hope you are right as to how this will turn out going forward. And you all got it - it wasn't even the error (we all make them) as far as what was said and done after the error when I expressed myself (which stunned and concerned me). 2604:2000:E016:A700:F03A:225A:2486:4BD2 (talk) 07:51, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
  • I just realized -- are Student and Pablo the same editor? It's not just that they both showed up, 3 minutes apart, making the same "vandalism" (even though its not) revert (and giving pile-on vandalism warnings) on the same, super-obscure page (only one other edit to that page in the entire prior year). But Student cleans up Pablo's own talk page, deleting posts by other editors. See here. I don't get it. 2604:2000:E016:A700:B49B:7B31:1E5:3777 (talk) 20:17, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
I'm sure that they are just active Twinkle users; editors who are active in counter-vandalism tend to trip over each other often while using the tools.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots
I see. Maybe that explains also the tag-team edits here. But I don't see how it explains one editor (Student) deleting third party editors non-vandalism comments on a talkpage, as though it is their own talkpage, when it is actually Pablo's talk page. And of course, odd that they both call non-vandalism vandalism. Still a little confused. 2604:2000:E016:A700:B49B:7B31:1E5:3777 (talk) 20:27, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Nagendra NJ

Hi P, could this guy be a sock of Nagendra NJ? I see a flare-up at Pooja Gandhi, which was a Nagendra hot spot. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 08:05, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

 Unlikely/ Inconclusive.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:03, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
Thanks Bbb23. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:43, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Samyo and new IP

Hi @Ponyo and Bbb23: Samyo and 120.61.1.91 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) seem to be related. Could you please help. Thanks. — Jakichandan (talk) 22:11, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

@Jakichandan: Due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy, a checkuser won't publicly connect IPs to an account except in rare circumstances. If you believe there is a violation of WP:SOCK, please start a case at WP:SPI.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:05, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for thee!

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
This is for fighting vandals and sockpuppets. Thanks for your work! Do the Danse Macabre! (Talk) 20:43, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
  • I also want to thank you on teaching me how to welcome new users, that was helpful. Thanks again! Do the Danse Macabre! (Talk) 21:36, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
You're welcome! --Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:42, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Unable to save my edit.

{{Unable to save my edit in the page Ilaiyaraaja}} RajaYuvan (talk) 06:35, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Given your socking and promotion at that article, your inability to edit the page is probably a good thing for the encyclopedia.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 17:11, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Teresa Scanlan protection

Looks like you semi-protected Teresa Scanlan back in November 2016(!) mainly due to people trying to write that she was divorced. I tracked down her own post confirming as much, so I think we can unprotect. --GRuban (talk) 19:07, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks for letting me know! --Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 19:10, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

lol

I was literally just about to ask you to block that ip and you did it as I was typing the request. Thanks, 💵Money emoji💵Talk 23:05, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

No problem.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 23:07, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Revert a category move

Could you help me in reverting a category move? A user decided to move it from Category:Films based on Pride and Prejudice to Category:Films and TV series based on Pride and Prejudice. As you can see film already suffices every aspect of motion picture. Plus, all other novels adapted to any form of motion picture uses this form of naming; i.e Film based on..." I've tried to revert the page move but I could not.

Thank you in advance. Nyanchoka : talk 2 me 23:16, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

@Nyanchoka: Perhaps you can explain your concerns to Philip J Fry and ask him to undo his move?--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 23:23, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
I tried to move it myself but only to be told it is not possible. That I should ask an administrator. Nyanchoka : talk 2 me 23:27, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
Before moving it, perhaps you can discuss the change with the person who moved it initially? If you choose not to you may find an admin who is willing to undo the move at WP:AN, but I have one foot out the door at the moment. Sorry! --Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 23:33, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
It's OK. Thank you. Nyanchoka : talk 2 me

Socks at Deepak Chopra

Hello, my little pony and CU stalkers. On 17 March, a new account, Omkar khalipe, proposed a change at Deepak Chopra,[7] which was resoundingly rejected. A week later, another account, Jovanatomin, performed the change on the semiprotected article, having first put in some pretty meaningless edits to achieve autoconfirmed status. Same person? I feel silly even asking, but we mustn't bite the little ducks I guess. Bishonen | talk 17:47, 25 March 2018 (UTC).

Never mind, I just actually counted the edits Jovanatomin made before going to the Chopra article: exactly ten. That's a little duck quacking into a microphone AFAIC. I've indeffed the sock — Jovanatomin — and blocked the master Omkar khalipe — actually a sleeper since 2015 — for a fortnight. It might be worth looking for further sleepers, I guess. Bishonen | talk 18:20, 25 March 2018 (UTC).
I blocked a mass of likely sleepers. You can see them in my block log if you're curious.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:56, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
I am, I am! Wow. I suppose it's all the "mass creation of accounts via open proxy used by sock account" plus also Jovana0101? Is Omkar khalipe still the oldest? Do you think there would be any point in creating an SPI? It's kind of chilling to imagine this determined character returning to Deepak Chopra with a new lot of socks; we might want a record if they do. Or not..? I was going to offer to do it, but extracting all the accounts from the log would be a bit of a business. Yes.. never mind.. let's forget about the SPI. Bishonen | talk 21:28, 26 March 2018 (UTC).
Oh, hey, I just realised Omkar khalipe isn't indeffed. Should I do that? Bishonen | talk 21:31, 26 March 2018 (UTC).
Your assumptions are correct! I can't say for sure that all of those accounts are related to Omkar khalipe as the majority of them have never been used and the creation via proxy makes connections tenuous at best; I don't think you need to do anything further or make any changes to the current block. That laundry list of accounts were certainly created for some nefarious purpose and I'm confident in blocking them regardless of the connection. --Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:42, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Old deletion of Distrelec page

Hi - I'm looking to add a new page, but I see that a previous one was deleted by yourself: 21:20, 31 March 2016 Ponyo (talk | contribs) deleted page Distrelec (A7: Article about a company, corporation or organization, which does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject).

I wondered if there was any way to see what was deleted so I don't make any of the same mistakes. Thanks. robotmaker 09:23, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Replied at editor's talk page.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:43, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

11 years of editing, today.

Hey, Ponyo. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee!
Have a great day! Chris Troutman (talk) 12:40, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Logged-out edits on my talk

Ponyo, who in my talk was added on March 9, 2018. View in here and search for your name. If I log out of my account and try to vandalize Wikipedia, it can be blocked, but the time is running out forever or time runs out on my account. Answer here. EverythingEpan (talk) 14:22, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Time ran out. Blocked as NOTHERE and CIR and cross-wiki abuse and ... should really be globally locked. --Bbb23 (talk) 15:03, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
He just posted the following message to his Talk page: "This user is no longer active on Wikipedia because it is blocked indefinitely..This is given because I was blocked from here. If you can unblocked my account then I can be active again as usual. Answer here if you want this account removed my blocking. If not, then I move to id.wikipedia.org." He's already blocked indefinitely at the following wikis: ru.wiki, tr.wiki, and here. He's also blocked at Commons until April 26, 2018, for uploading unfree files. Finally, he's edited other projects. I think it's time to put him globally to rest. Green Giant?--Bbb23 (talk) 15:25, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
Wow, a lot of excitement transpired whilst I brewed my morning tea. Thanks for the clean-up as per usual Bbb!--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 15:40, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
@Bbb23:  Done. Yes, I've been vaguely aware of this user since deleting some of their Commons uploads a couple of weeks ago. I agree they are not here to contribute to any project in a meaningful sense. Cheers for the ping. Green Giant (talk) 16:26, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
@Green Giant: Thanks for the thoughtful analysis.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:35, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ponyo/Archive_40&oldid=1190253594"