Jump to content

User talk:Ponyo/Archive 22

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15←Archive 20Archive 21Archive 22Archive 23Archive 24Archive 25

A barnstar for you!

The Admin's Barnstar
You continue to be the hardest working admin on UTRS answering over 2500 unblock request. I just wanted to particularly thank you for cleaning up shop today, I haven't seen UTRS this up to date on tickets in 6 months. v/r - TP 04:58, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Smauritius

I think our friend is back. I've reopened the case with three possibilities two I think it's possible the third I'm relatively sure based on edits and behavioral evidence. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 16:34, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Updated this sockpuppet investigation. YOu may have already had interactions with them based on their userpage. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 05:22, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
I've responded at the SPI.--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 23:17, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

IMDb

Hi Ponyo, thanks for the info on using IMDb.SpiritedMichelle (talk) 20:00, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome! Since it's included in the EL section of most entertainment-type BLPs it's isn't always obvious that it shouldn't be used as a reliable source.--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 20:02, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

About a Sockpuppet

User:Gabucho44 is (Redacted). How I know is because on http://disney.wikia.com, on the Chat there, (Redacted) said she was the sockpuppet of Gabucho45 (Wikia) and Gabucho44 (Wikipedia). The Wikia account Gabucho45 is globally blocked, and her previous Wikipedia account Gabucho45 is blocked as well. (Your latest edit was March 27, so I'm hoping you'll read it).172.1.4.91 (talk) 19:04, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Please, do block me, i,m not (Redacted) (Lie)

Gabucho44 is now blocked as a blatant sock of Gaubucho45.--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 15:49, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Yet another case...

Hello Ponyo, hope you're doing fine. Please note this. It seems we're having another case of an editor that is prone to adding unsourced content. All the best.--Jetstreamer Talk 22:47, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Since your note here it appears Wind of freedom has only made one edit, and it included a source. Hopefully they will continue to do so.--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 16:52, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

CheckUser request

Since you were the admin who performed a CheckUser to confirm Mark2017 a Reece Leonard sock, could you perhaps perform CheckUser to verify if Andthenwebecamenothing is another sock? Homeostasis07 mentioned this account on admin DangerousPanda's talk page as a suspected sock, but the focus on IP's likely lead to this account not being examined. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 00:58, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

The named account is Red X Unrelated to Reece Leonard.--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 15:55, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Just thought I'd make sure. Thank you for giving the result. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 17:06, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Does CheckUser spot a Reece Leonard sock within Rjm241? XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 23:28, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
It's more likely a throw-away account intent on stirring the pot. Any additional edits resembling this will surely lead to a block. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 17:32, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm sure such edits would, though the request had been made before the BodyBuilding edit was made. Keep a close watch on that account. Something tells me that the BodyBuilding edit was made to try and distract others from quacking on Artpop reception. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 19:13, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
The account is unrelated, and as I noted above, likely a throw-away created to cause trouble.--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 19:21, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Very well. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 19:23, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

PilotManChase

This user, whom you blocked as a VOA three years ago, seems to have grown up a bit and is now requesting unblock. Do you have any thoughts on this? Daniel Case (talk) 15:29, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

@Daniel Case: three years is a long time; I have no concerns with unblocking the account. Thanks for checking!--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 15:58, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

Thanks for your time re Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Balaenoptera_musculus. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 17:03, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Thank you!--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 18:05, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

CheckUser

I'd like to request a CheckUser case for numerous IP accounts: 130.68.239.208, 190.108.66.2, 94.193.139.22, 5.68.224.77. A few users have convinced themselves that these accounts are all connected to me because they are experiencing a significant amount of backlash for an edit they've placed on the page for G.U.Y., a song by Lady Gaga. I'd like to clear my name on this issue and avoid similar accusations from these users in the future. Reece Leonard (talk) 17:42, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Checkuser cannot be used to prove a negative, nor would a checkuser link IPs to an active user account under most circumstances. From WP:CHECK:
  • "...a negative finding by a checkuser rarely precludes obvious sock-puppetry" and
  • "CheckUser is not magic wiki pixie dust. Almost all queries about IPs will be because two editors were behaving the same way or an editor was behaving in a way that appears suggestive of possible disruption. An editing pattern match is the important thing; the IP match is really just extra evidence (or not)".--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 18:04, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
So there is no way for me to prove that I am not these IP accounts at all? Reece Leonard (talk) 19:03, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Not through checkuser, and you sorta shot yourself in the foot as far as credibility goes by socking in the past.--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 19:07, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Socking on one instance doesn't mean that someone can accuse multiple IP accounts geolocated in different countries of being operated by myself. That obviously doesn't make any sense. Reece Leonard (talk) 19:09, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
When dealing with IP socking, "making sense" of it needs to be done by the admin reviewing the evidence; the checkuser tool is of no help in this instance as already explained above. You can read more about the limits of checkuser at WP:CHECK.--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 19:15, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Well, thank you for taking the time to explain this to me. I'll just have to hope that this group stops making accusations based on nothing other than the fact that numerous IP accounts are posting edits contrary to theirs. Reece Leonard (talk) 19:19, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Ranvijay Singh married on 16th Apr 2014, its a authenticated — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suhailstar (talk • contribs) 04:25, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

DeRay Davis DOB in Feb 26

Good Day My name is Sylvia Hillman, I worked personally for DeRay Davis for over 11 years and his birthday is February 26th - I was trying to correct this at his request because of this info: "Born: August 5, 1968 (age 45), Chicago, IL" Although he is an actor and would prefer his real age stay his Hollywood acting age he was not born in August - he was born February 26th in the 70's - you can go to his IMDB Page as well as My IMDB page and see that I have been on screen credited working for him and with him since around 2007. He is from Chicago IL although he wasn't officially born there and although his first name is spelled incorrectly he doesn't mind it since he uses his middle name for acting and the public anyway. Thank you in advance and have a wonderful day/evening.

Sincerely, Sylvia V. Hillman 76.171.120.209 (talk) 08:20, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello Sylvia, in order to add or change information in biography articles, Wikipedia policy requires that reliable sources be included in order to allow readers to verify the material being added. In this case there is no source meeting the reliable sources criteria that verifies his date of birth, and this is why it no longer appears in the article. IMDB consists mostly of user generated content and therefore is not a reliable source for biographical statistics (you can read more about this here, here and here). With regard to the spelling of his given name, it is spelled "Antwan" is reliable sources, including an interview with the Chicago Times which is included in the article. If there are equally reliable yet conflicting sources for the spelling of his name then that fact can be included in the article, however personal knowledge of a topic is considered original research and cannot be included. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 16:43, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Winx Club

I might need your help. There has been a user who repeatedly kept on removing information from the Winx Club page and when I reverted their edits they resorted to edit warring, sock-puppetry and threatening me with police to press their point although their edits disregarded WP:IRS. This user and many IP addresses and accounts used by them have been blocked many times for threatening other users with police and Sock puppetry but they keep on coming back to remove the information although according to WP:IRS the information does have a source and therefore must be on the page.

When User:Auric and User:Tutelary told the other user that the information meets all criteria to the page, that user resorted to repeatedly concealing the information because "not everyone wants to see future information", although according to WP:SW there is no rule forbidding the adding of information about the future of a show.

I also suspect that user of trying to impersonate me through sock puppetry since I see an account User:DragonFire8000 that has reverted my edits on the Winx Club page in the same way as the previous sock puppet accounts have repeatedly reverted my edits. I suspect that User:DragonFire8000 and User:KendallandLogan of being sock puppet accounts of another user, User:LoganHermann123, who was also blocked for threatening other users who didn't agree with them.

I am only trying to make the Winx Club page as informative as possible, but this other user keeps on removing important information and engaging in disruptive editing without any reason valid according to Wikipedia's rules. DragonFire900 (talk) 09:52, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I've created the relevant sockpuppet investigation; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/LoganHermann123#24_April_2014 Tutelary (talk) 10:26, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. I'm starting to be fed up of having to go through edit wars every now and then against someone who obviously is doing only whatever they want while disregarding the rules, and who now is attempting to impersonate me. DragonFire900 (talk) 10:31, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
I am sure, however, that this will not be enough since this user has, according to their own words, been contributing since 2011, and it is clear from the revision history of the Winx Club page that they have effectively bullied all other users who disagreed with them into stopping their contributions to this page. DragonFire900 (talk) 10:34, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
You should read the edit warring policy. Especially the three revert rule. Even if you're entirely right, you could still be blocked for it. I'm not trying to hinder you, just to let you know. Tutelary (talk) 10:34, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
I have read it, thanks. I'm only trying to help and I will certainly try my best not to end up having edit wars. DragonFire900 (talk) 10:45, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

It appears that DoRD was kind enough to take care of this whilst I prepared my morning coffee (or tea in this instance).--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 14:36, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

NPOV

CBI Edit. If you care to read what's going on, this is not "personal analyses". It is fact, that is being suppressed by the CBI & BBC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FatBoaby (talk • contribs) 21:44, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

You are clearly not neutral on the topic if you believe that there is some kind of conspiracy here, and that it is your job to expose The Truth. Your edits add commentary that casts aspersions and is contrary to policy. I suggest that you use the article talk page to discuss controversial edits you intend to make and get WP:Consensus for the changes; if you continue to edit war you will likely find yourself blocked.--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 21:55, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

The Wiki page Flurbenhurgen

Garbage in. Garbage out.

I don't understand what you mean by saying that the page Flurbenhurgen is inappropriate. Please explain a solid reason as to why it is so inappropriate and therefore has to be removed. If you haven't noticed already Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia and there is no reason why an article with the title of my alias should not be in it. I have seen many articles far more childish than mine but those don't get removed. I have a right to be public and if you are going to take that right away from me then you can suck my **** and die in a hole. It is not like I am posting my address on the page and telling people to go to that place and kill me so there is no reason why the page should get removed. So once again, if your small dumb brain hasn't already noticed, give me solid reasons why the page should get removed. If you don't then you have no reason to remove the article. I will also send my Asian mafia after you so watch your butt, they like to anal rape people. (-.(-.(-.(-.(-.(-.(-.(-.(-.(-.(-.(-.(-.(-.(-.(-.-).-).-).-).-).-).-).-).-).-).-).-).-).-).-).-).-).-)

Love, BloopFTW — Preceding unsigned comment added by BloopFTW (talk • contribs) 23:40, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello P. I hope that you are well and that spring is progressing nicely in your part of the globe. I noticed that this Talk:Flurbenhurgen was left after the three deletions of the article. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 02:27, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Spring isn't just progressing nicely, it's in full glorious bloom! Thank you for the note regarding the talk page, which has been deleted. It should come as no surprise that the account has also been blocked. Have a fantastic weekend! --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 15:09, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

"William AAAAA" socking as IP

Re: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/William AAAAA/Archive#19 April 2014 this block, the user is back as 205.189.94.13, restoring the edits by the most recently blocked accounts. It was mentioned that the user is editing from a public terminal, and the IP is from a library, so quack quack. If you see this, or any other admin stalking this talk page, a swift soft block is needed. Thanks. Nymf (talk) 21:37, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Alfonzo Green

Hi! Folks like me who don't know all the acronyms don't understand UTRS or BASC. With effort, we can probably find them, but it would be nice if you could include links. Lou Sander (talk) 19:22, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I've added the links. Cheers, --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 19:25, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! Lou Sander (talk) 20:54, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Proposed Indefinite Ban on Daustinc2

Hello, you've twiced banned User:Daustinc2 for disruptive editing. Well, it seems as though despite a total of three blocks, said user continues to bombard articles with false information and is clearly a vandalism only account. I think it would be in the best interest of this site should Daustinc2 be given a indefinite ban. Beast from da East (talk) 18:12, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Dustinc2 hasn't been [[Wikipedia:Banning policy|banned], but he has been blocked before. I have left him a very clear final warning that continued addition of unsourced material and unsupported genre changes will result in a significant block.--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 18:50, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Mail call

Hello, Ponyo. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Bishonen | talk 18:47, 1 May 2014 (UTC).

Noted and replied. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 18:58, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Revision delete request

Hi,

I saw you're listed at Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to handle RevisionDelete requests. Could you take a look at these edits? Seems about as egregious as it gets. I don't think I've requested a revision delete before, and the instructions say to leave a message for an individual rather than draw attention to the edits elsewhere, so I haven't posted to BLPN. (The edits have been reverted by another user). FYI I am leaving an identical message for one other admin from the list, Malik Shabazz. Thanks very much. --— Rhododendrites talk |  01:19, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Update: Malik got it within a couple minutes. Thanks anyway, though. --— Rhododendrites talk |  02:00, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Are u angry at me?

Venustar84 (talk) 23:47, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Angry because I noted in the SPI findings that you should be held to logged-in editing via a single account and blocked if you deviate from it? No. Slightly frustrated that you are creating work for other editors by creating multiple accounts contrary to policy and seem to have little understanding, despite 9 years of editing experience, of why this is disruptive? Perhaps.--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 15:23, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

I did come clean though. Venustar84 (talk) 17:10, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, once someone started an SPI due to suspicious edits. Please stick to one account.--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 17:13, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
Can you be my mentor on wikipedia? because I'm not good at editing and I have been warned I could be blocked from editing? Please help me. Venustar84 (talk) 19:28, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm juggling enough hats as it is and simply don't have the time to provide the mentorship you need. It's a good sign that you're seeking it however. This link is the best way to get started.--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 23:33, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for reverting and blocking 172.56.10.248. After creating almost 900 articles, and being called for notability exactly once, it was a shock to wake up today, check my watchlist and find all those comments on the talkpages. I'm sure the IP involved thought it was all a jolly prank, but it did give me a bit of a scare and made me feel as though I was being targeted. Tigerboy1966  17:48, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

No problem. If you notice that I missed reverting any of their edits, please feel free to revert them yourself. Cheers, --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 18:02, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

FYI - ANI

Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#IP-hopping_sock --NeilN talk to me 02:45, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Noted and responded. Thanks for all of the reverts!--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 23:31, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Gears SPI

Was there an SPI somewhere for that user? Or did a CU (you?) just do something on their own initiative based on my report? Gaijin42 (talk) 21:11, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I actually haven't seen your report. I was reviewing unblock requests and my SPIdey SenseTM went into the red zone when I read through his page and reviewed some contributions.--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 21:21, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Rezvani Deletion

Hi Ponyo,

A fan created a wikipedia page for the Rezvani and Rezvani Beast supercar and someone told me it's been deleted. I noticed the reason is G5 - blocked user. There are many references for the company. Could you tell me why it was deleted and how it can be brought back. thank you. could you please let me know at (Redacted) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.164.216.202 (talk) 02:38, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

The articles were created by a blocked user while they were using an alternative account to evade their block contrary to Wikipedia policy. The articles were deleted under the the CSD G5 criterion as 1) they were created by a blocked editor in violation of their block and 2) they were not edited substantially by any other editor. This does not mean that the articles can never be created by other editors (there is no protection on the articles preventing their recreation), only that they cannot be created by editors who are engaging in block evasion to edit. As a sidenote, I have deleted your email address from this page; for privacy reasons it's never a good idea to post your email address on Wikipedia.--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 16:13, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
@Ferris3001:, could you explain to me how you managed to obtain the material to recreate the articles verbatim to those created by the block-evading account NLZ06. Do you realize that editing on behalf of another editor is also against policy?--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 16:25, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi Ponyo, I am relatively new to Wikipedia so thank you for your guidance and wisdom. I just donated and I think your service is valuable to human knowledge. thank you for removing username - I didn't realize I did that.

@Ferris3001:, I need you to answer the question I asked, specifically how you managed to obtain the material to recreate the articles verbatim to those created by the block-evading account NLZ06? --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 16:43, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi Ponyo, I asked a freelancer to help me learn wikipedia and the syntax. She helped with the editing of the article. little did I know her account got blocked. so I uploaded the article myself this time. it's my article but she helped edit it and originally helped upload it. I don't know her other than the work I asked her to help with on the editing of the article. I am hoping to learn the writing style and usage now. please let me know if you have any other questions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ferris3001 (talk • contribs) 16:48, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

If you have any affiliation with Fardees Rezvani or Saber Automotive you need to be aware of our conflict of interest guidelines, that is you shouldn't be creating or directly editing articles on subjects you are closely affiliated with.--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 17:25, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm taking a short break for Wikipedia for everyone's best interests

I think a break for about a week or 2 would be in Wikipedia's best interest. Plus I have alot of sports I'm doing lately.Venustar84 (talk) 20:50, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

That's fine, please ensure you only use the Venustar84 account when you return. Have a good break!--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 21:12, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

UTRS

Hi, my little pony. Since you asked for UTRS volunteers to pitch in and help with the backlog, I picked you to pester about this, I hope you're pleased. I tried to create an account at labs for UTRS, but apparently they don't want me… I edited my talk to confirm the request, supplied the diff, and filled in everything else, but all I get is "The response you provided to the captcha was not correct. Please try again." :-(

There is no captcha. Might they mean the diff wasn't correct? It's the diff to where I edited my talkpage to confirm the request, wasn't that it? Is it supposed to be some other diff? Bishonen | talk 11:26, 16 May 2014 (UTC).

PS, the fishy smell from the section one step up is stinking up your page. Bishonen | talk 11:31, 16 May 2014 (UTC).
It may be the Darwinbish filter I set up there; was she tagging along when you tried to gain access? After those thinly veiled threats she made via email I had to protect myself! You, on the other hand are completely welcome. TParis, can you provide some insight regarding Bishonen's difficulties with the captcha?--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 15:57, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
PS I do apologize for the off-smell around here. The whiff of dirty socks and week-old meat is an unfortunate side-effect of my condition.--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 15:57, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
Sorry Bish - that must've happened when we converted to HTTPS. I've fixed it now - the reCaptcha should be visible.--v/r - TP 16:50, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
Yup, all's good now, thanks. Darwinbish will proceed to decline 'em all. And would it be all right if I invited Lady Catherine to help? Bishonen | talk 17:26, 16 May 2014 (UTC).
It's somewhat of a sweaty claustrophobic venue, and if you think my talk pages stinks, wait until you open a few of the appeals awaiting review. Not much of a place for the First Lady of Wikipedia.--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 17:45, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Untitled

Thanks for your note. Unfortunately I don't know how to cite an article. We'll just leave the fact out of the article, then, and let someone else update it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Perm Dude (talk • contribs) 19:19, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

@Perm Dude:, I can add it for you. Which website or article did you get the information from?--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 19:42, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Happy now?

Why didn't you just ask me first, before you go around naming names? I have been open with the fact that I am willing to cooperate, but now you are outing all my and other accounts which I have already pledged not to use anymore and which I have never used for abusing purposes and I some which are not mine. Using the same Internet account fot more than one Wikipedia acvount is not socking as long as there is no abuse., so your conclusion is wrong. What kind of horrible person are you? :'( Bandy boy (talk) 22:27, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

You are using many accounts to edit the same topic area without disclosing the affiliation (and outright claiming to be separate people on some of your user pages) and only admitted so (and only those that had been exposed at that point) when an SPI was raised. This is all contrary to Wikipedia's polices regarding multiple accounts. Please feel free to point out which exception applies to you. I would rather be editing articles, but unfortunately, due to editors such as yourself who believe Wikipedia policies don't apply to them, I'm stuck trying to clear the backlog at WP:SPI. You reap what you sow, and you seeded your field with socks. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 22:47, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
I have come clean with what account was mine and what accounts was others and that I have been using other accounts in the past which I am not using anymore. I have not abused any accounts and I have declared that I am willing to cooperate and answer any questions, but I don't know why I should be forced to out accounts to anyone which are not in use anymore and which have never been ised in any abusive manner. IIRC, it is not forbidden to use multiple accounts as long as they are not used for abusing the guidelines of Wikipedia. You could have just asked me and I would have told you which accounts I have used before, but no, you are not interested in solving things, you are just interested in hanging out people without any trial and without letting them explain themselves. I have waited and waited for some admin to come along to judge in the matter, but you have not acted like a judge, you have acted like an inquisitor-prosecuter and punisher. Bandy boy (talk) 23:04, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
Again, which exception listed here regarding the use of multiple accounts applies to you? You were abusing multiple accounts to vote in a deletion discussion just last week. As a checkuser I was asked to investigate your account and posted the results of the investigation accordingly. An admin or clerk will review the findings and likely block the majority of the accounts indefinitely. You have done this to yourself, and have only yourself to blame. You can take your over-the-top persecution accusations elsewhere, I'm really not interested. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 00:12, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Sockmaster TweetiePie1947

The issue was raised here that site banning for all WMF projects ought to be considered. Socks are now uploading copyvio images to commons.

Link: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TweetiePie1947

Guidance? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:13, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

@Anna Frodesiak:, my suggestion would be to request a global lock of the account if the disruption is ongoing cross-wiki.--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 14:08, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Fair enough. Many thanks for the guidance. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 19:30, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Untitled

Hi Ponyo, I was hoping you could look into the "AdvisorShares" Wikipedia page. I have attempted to add content related to the firm several times and it appears that some of the "users" are the same user. Let me be clear: I am perfectly okay with back and forth changes between other users - after all, that is the power of Wikipedia community editing! But, I suspect some of these "users" are in fact the same user: "Etfcanadian" "DasKapital1867" "Fedayeen5768" -- and there may be others. While I may disagree with some of "their" changes, it is my understanding that editing from multiple user names is prohibited. Look forward to hearing from you. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by UserNameUnderConstruction (talk • contribs) 16:23, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Sockmaster Gololour

Hi,

I am writing to you regarding Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gololur and your knowledge about sockpuppeting. The sock has once again opened a new abvoius sock named User:Sinevikfuk that has to be blocked. Do you know what I should do when I discover new socks? Should I open a new SPI under the old one for Gololur? QED237 (talk) 17:24, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

You can open an SPI, or tag one of the CUs or clerks that are familiar with the master if the socking is obvious (as in this case). I've blocked the account and noted as such at the SPI page.--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 20:59, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Liallis

Hi Ponyo. Thank you for blocking the recent sock. I saw you renewed the block of the master. However when I hover the cursor over Liallis's username it also shows as "LOCKED", so I think Liallis has been globally blocked, but I'm not sure how to verify the length of the global block. This is just fyi, if you want to check into this. Take care. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 21:55, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

If there's a global lock on the account (as in this case), then it will be indef. I've adjusted the local block accordingly.--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 22:03, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Thank you very much. I just got the link of the global lock. All the best. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 22:07, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Sockpupperts

How much we must to wait? Please see: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rtuftrbsee. This person has many sockpuppets only to controversial changes and edit-wars, nothing more. Still create new sockpuppets (for example User:Slimmilky51) and create new conflicts, see Talk:List_of_tallest_buildings_in_Europe#Socks. Some sockpuppers by this person has been blocked by administrator Darkwind, administrator CambridgeBayWeather semi-protect article but Slimmilky51 today (how?) again restored own controversial changes [1]. How much we must to wait? How many must be edit-wars and nerve of users before the case is resolved? Please, react. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 17:06, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I understand your frustration when dealing with sock accounts, however there is currently a lengthy backlog at SPI and the number of Checkusers and clerks available is limited. The best advice I can give is to provide clear evidence in the form of diffs in order to allow the reviewing clerks and admins to make the call as to whether checkuser is required. In this case multiple reports have been opened under different names, and there appears to be confusion as to who is the master. At the end of the day  CheckUser is not magic pixie dust and, once endorsed for checkuser, complicated cases can take hours or even days to work through.--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 17:20, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Siddharth Varadarajan

Noticed your recent edit on this page. To give you an understanding of reasons for my edit. I recently read articles by the subject and his brother. This lead me to wonder about their parents. On checking, found their parents are notable personalities. This I felt would be an interesting information for reader and proceeded to include parent's name in the info box. Also, WP:BLPNAME allows us to state name of immediate family members of subject. Regarding your request on the sources, I have now included the source for the subject's parents name. Do let me know if you have any concern. Prodigyhk (talk) 01:52, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

WP:BLPNAME states that "The names of any immediate, ex, or significant family members or any significant relationship of the subject of a BLP may be part of an article, if reliably sourced, subject to editorial discretion that such information is relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject" (emphasis mine). In this case you added the names of individuals that are not mentioned anywhere in the article itself, do not have associated Wikipedia articles to show any type of context or notability, and without including a source, which is why the edit was reverted. Thank you for your explanation and the addition of the citation.--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 15:27, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Milowent#Looking_at_deleted_article

Igottheconch (talk) 07:46, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

You can rant against Wikipedia's copyright policies as much as you want, but you won't convince me to violate them in order to satisfy your requests. Your talk page shows a history of disregard for said policies, such situations rarely end well for editors such as yourself. You're welcome to discuss why your personal opinion on the subject should override the safeguards that the Foundation has endorsed in order to protect itself from lawsuits, but it would need to be done here, not on my talk page. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 17:45, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Deleted revisions

Hello sir, I've a question, Actually few months ago i was tagged PROD on BLP article as fails WP:V and article deleted after no sources were present in 7 days, but That time i was forgot to notifying the user and i created article in 2 hours after the deleted! So my question is that The user can claim that the article was created by his/her and deleted without notifying? And if user send a request to admin for restoring the deleted revisions, Then?

Please reply me. 115.245.220.198 (talk) 11:47, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Could you please provide me with the article title in question? It's hard to respond without context. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 17:47, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Mexican Puppeter In The House.

Request for a ban-evading Mexico-based IP whose scope of activity encompasses EDM articles: first David Guetta, trance, dance-pop and now even house music. I see you dealt with them before hence I forward this issue to you. Other socks are Andrewbf, Pulum34, Purrilla and now Collinorra. Their latest entry: 201.102.177.155 (May 21). ItsAlwaysLupus (talk) 20:10, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

I've blocked Collinorra as a  Confirmed sock. The IP hasn't edited since yesterday and Andrewbf has since cycled to a new address, so there's no point in blocking it. I've also semi-protected a couple additional target articles.--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 20:30, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Meaghan Jette Martin

I am not sure if I want to unrevert those links. Her "official website" is not active (unpaid, for sale, whatever) and the YouTube link is also a no-find. I left those out but if you think they should stay, or are able to update them it would be great.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 18:05, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Gotcha. I thought perhaps you didn't realize how far back the blanking went as the IP made multiple sequential edits. I've reverted my restoration of the two links. Thanks for the note! --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 18:12, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Herbert L. Becker

Hey there, I'd just like you to know that I am the son of Herbert Becker, and am trying to edit his page as accurate as I can. I am frustrated by your attempts to sabotage it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thefriendlyelephant (talk • contribs) 18:22, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Thefriendlyelephant, as the son of Herbert Becker you have a very considerable conflict of interest and shouldn't be editing the article directly. Contrary to your note above, I'm not trying to "sabotage it", I'm actually trying to ensure that Wikipedia's policies are upheld at the article. As I noted on your talk page, the content you added is unsourced, has included copyright violations, and has introduced manual of style errors. As advised in the Conflict of Interest guidelines I've linked to above (and on your talk page), please use the article talk page to propose edits to the article. An uninvolved editor will review the request and implement the changes in adherence with Wikipedia's policies regarding proper sourcing and neutrality.--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 18:59, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Princessruby

I'm in the process of reporting them of violating the 3RR/Edit-war policies. Is there anyway you can try and talk to this user before I officially submit? She has continually shown anger towards anyone who dare touches "her" pages, and I've tried explaining that I understand their edits and page additions are in good faith, yet she cannot see the same, despite my telling her such. I'm merely trying to keep the notability of soap pages, since many would like to see them shut down. livelikemusic my talk page! 20:03, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Other than asking her to stop removing all the tags (and Good Lord there are a ton of them!) in one fell swoop, and to explain why she believes each does not apply, I'm not sure what else I can do. She strikes me as a younger user and seems wound pretty tight at the moment, hopefully my note will convince her to use the talk page instead of blanking the tags.--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 20:11, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
And she is continuing to violate your own warnings as an administrator. She won't even talk things out and if she does, she attacks you. livelikemusic my talk page! 20:07, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Sigh, ok, I'll take another look.--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 20:11, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. And all tags (or 95% of them) are valid; soap articles have always been looked down upon, and select editors (such as myself) have been attempting to increase their creditability and notability, something the T. J. page is really missing. livelikemusic my talk page! 20:14, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Ok, I've started a discussion on the article talk page where Princessruby (and others) can discuss each tag on an individual basis instead of wholesale blanking. I'll see if I can help address some of the issues as well.--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 20:26, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Hopefully it does work, but I have a strange feeling that she will ignore us and revert them again. livelikemusic my talk page! 20:30, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I give up. --Princessruby (talk) 20:31, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

You don't need to give up editing, just give up edit-warring. I left you a link on your talk page; please continue the discussion at Talk:T. J. Ashford and we'll see if we can't pare down some of the excessive tags on the article.--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 20:34, 23 May 2014 (UTC)


Hi, Ponyo. The T. J. Ashford page was deleted. It was classified as a start page article. Is there a way to get it back and maybe clean up some of the problems? Kiraroshi1976 (talk) 04:25, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sashby98 oops

Sorry, I seem to be wasting people's time here recently. Dougweller (talk) 18:08, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

@Dougweller: It wouldn't have been a waste of time if the check had shown that the two accounts have been editing from the same IP/computer, it just so happens that in this instance there wasn't enough information available via the CU tool to determine if there is a technical connection. No apologies warranted! --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 16:34, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. Neither has edited again. Looks like throwaway accounts. Dougweller (talk) 13:51, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

T.J. Ashord page

Hi Pony,

I have made some major edits to the page. I think some of the tags can now be eliminated hopefully. Please let me know what you think when you get the time to look at them. Thanks! Kiraroshi1976 (talk) 06:42, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

It would be best to discuss the removal with the individual who originally place the tags; I was only helping out for a brief period in the hopes of extinguishing an edit-war. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 18:49, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I would not want an edit war either. Much appreciated 17:27, 28 May 2014 (UTC) Kiraroshi1976 (talk) 17:28, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

SPI note

Hello, Ponyo. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Reece Leonard.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

He's persistent, I'll give him that. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 14:00, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

XXSNUGGUMSXX, I understand that you are frustrated with socking at the Lady Gaga articles, however it would be appreciated if you could dial back the personal attacks and persecutory comments at the SPI page. In addition, I don't understand why you would suggest removing Reece Leonard's talk page access when he hasn't even posted there since April 22nd. I also don't understand how you can equate the sage advice provided by Mr. Stradivarious to WP:BEANS; on the other hand edits such as this, this only serve to throw more fuel on the fire. I'll take a look at the latest SPI, but please consider ratcheting down the vituperative commentary, it doesn't make any difference as to the outcome of the SPI and only serves to add to the drama.--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 19:05, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Are you referring to the "NOTHERE" bit? My mistake, I'll remove it. Certainly didn't mean to attack. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 19:51, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Moreso the sentence starting with " Although he once claimed...". It's a bit over-the-top. I get that your angry, but please consider taking a step back. Clear and concise SPI reports with diffs are appreciated, but let the clerks and admins deal with any necessary warnings, tagging, and escalation. When you feel the desire to lash out rising, I recommend a strong cuppa.--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 19:59, 27 May 2014 (UTC)--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 19:59, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Now removed. Sorry for frustration taking me too far. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 20:03, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi Ponyo. What exactly does technically unrelated mean? Could you elaborate? — Status (talk · contribs) 02:59, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

It means that there is zero technical evidence (i.e. data available via the checkuser tool) that shows any correlation between the two accounts. In this case they aren't even editing from the same continent.--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 04:38, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Request for comment

Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:46, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Page delate

Dear Ponyo, It seems you have delated the Lloyd Bancaire Page. Their is sock puppet or someone keep connecting us to chalkajob which firm had externally. But, since no connection. Now we have 50 people in the IT department. Seeing and wathning this this happening over and over. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.56.17.235 (talk • contribs)

You continue to create new accounts to evade blocks and recreate deleted material - this is absolutely disallowed.--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 17:57, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Seeking advise

Hi Ponyo. I recently read the report on the sockpuppet case of Keysanger and Chelios. Thank you for clearing it up. Nonetheless, I am still concerned by the behavior of these users. Their contribution history is filled with combative nationalist behavior in controversial articles (please see [2]). Even the "recommendation" Keysanger wrote to me on the sockpuppet investigation page is, with its sarcastic tone, a bait for conflict ([3]). Meanwhile, Chelios' role in this matter continues to confuse me as, after the investigation, he again has gone inactive from the project. My brain tells me that none of this is a coincidence. I would appreciate hearing what you think is the best approach to take in this matter? Regards.--MarshalN20 Talk 20:44, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

The checkuser tool is limited insofar as the data it provides is technical only, therefore two accounts can appear technically unrelated (as in this case) but still be acting in concert to cause disruption (e.g. WP:MEAT). Behavioural evidence of collusion to cause disruption pretty much trumps CU findings, so I would suggest that you follow the DR steps, and if there are actual policy violations you report them at the appropriate admin noticeboard. Disruptive editors are often emboldened by "inconclusive" or "unrelated" findings at SPI, but that doesn't negate their requirement to abide by Wikipedia policy and guidelines.--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 21:00, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Ponyo. Much appreciated.--MarshalN20 Talk 21:06, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
Hopefully it made sense, I'm in desperate need of some caffeine.--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 21:08, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Sock alart

Hi Ponyo, I found that you blocked this user user:Bigidilijak for sock puppetry [4]. After his block, another user account user:LucrativeOffer start doing his job, which is his probable sock. You will get an idea about their disruptive editing after reading these [5] [6]--FreemesM (talk) 01:12, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Freemesm has been removing vast amount of properly sourced parts of the article even after his block, see this edit where he blanked a large part of Later incidents section which was properly sourced. In this edit, he cleverly distorted a source by completely changing the title (original title is "Children in violent politics" and false title "Noted personalities express concern") as well as putting a fictional quote. And he is putting false allegation on me, I don't know how to warn people for edit warring or other things, I saw a warning section on Freemesm's talkpage that suited my purpose so I copied it and posted on the talkpage. LucrativeOffer (talk) 10:48, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

dear LucrativeOffer, here I am listing my points-
  • Why didn't you ask me for the source? Here it is [7] and [8]. You didn't bring it to talk page, but removed the content. As now I provide you the source, bring it back. Check links which I provided, your title confusion will be solved. I mixed up those two links.
  • this editThis is clear violation of WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE. How Mr. Ziauddin's involvement in ICT is relevant here in this article? He is an expert lawyer , that is why his comment was quoted. Moreover in that diff you will see I removed repeated words and arrange them according to time line. Check this reference [9], this is a propaganda website and don't have minimum credibility.
  • In this diff [10] you merged two sections, to reduce due weight of using children in violence and here [11] you putted a statement blaming law enforcement agency in wp:npov way without any discussion. Why?
I am requesting to self revert all the disruptive edits of yours. Both you and LucrativeOffer or you are alone playing sock to edit this article in your planned way. Which is beyond wiki policy. Moreover you started the edit war again in this article.--FreemesM (talk) 15:10, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

There is no technical evidence linking LucrativeOffer to the Aldota sock group. Please follow the steps for dispute resolution with regard to your content dispute.--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 15:28, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Ponyo.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:33, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
No problem!--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 17:37, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Dear User:Ponyo, thanks for your reply. But I am not talking about Aldota. I am concern about LucrativeOffer and user:Bigidilijak link. Please check their edit sequence.--FreemesM (talk) 00:53, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
Please check this [12], where admin user:Black Kite warn them about their team up activities.--FreemesM (talk) 00:57, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
Freemesm, I'm not sure what you mean by "I am not talking about Aldota" as Bigidilijak is Aldota. There is no technical evidence to connect LucrativeOffer and Aldota/Bigidilijak. Again, if you have a content dispute, please take advantage of the dispute resolution options. If Black Kite is familiar with the situation, and the disruption is continuing, then perhaps you could drop them a note? --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 16:26, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
thanks.--FreemesM (talk) 17:24, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Andrewbf/Pulum34 returns to make unsourced edits to Acid House page as IP 176.110.224.101

I have noticed that the Acid House page has today been subjected to an edit in exactly the same vein as those made by Andrewbf/Pulum34 (sock puppeteer). I have reverted the change (I was not logged in at the time) and the page is now fine, but I wonder if the protection level can be raised for Acid House for a while to deter this persistent sock puppet? Otherwise, edit wars, etc, will probably arise as he/she is amazingly persistent.

(Etheldavis (talk) 17:26, 30 May 2014 (UTC))

Given geolocation this doesn't appear to be Andrewbf, and there really isn't enough disruption at Acid House to justify protection. This is likely just a random anon updating the genre to what they believe it should be as opposed to targeted disruption. I've left the IP a note on their talk page.--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 17:36, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for that. What made me wonder was the fact that the edit was illogical to anybody with any knowledge of the house music sub-genres, and entirely the same as one persistently favoured by Andrewbf's sock puppets. The Acid House page was targeted by Pulum34, etc. That editor is amazingly persistent. I will keep you posted if that's OK with you. Thanks again.

(Etheldavis (talk) 18:07, 30 May 2014 (UTC))

A barnstar for you!

The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
Thank you for protecting List of programs broadcast by Qubo page. In the past, there was a lot of vandalism by an anonymous person (without a Wikipedia account) who kept continuing putting PBS shows onto the Qubo lineup without the proper source. Thank you very much for your help. Cbears22 (talk) 02:25, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Thank you!--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 18:10, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

False accusations & personal interests

Hello, can you please explain your accusation here?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Portal_talk:Justin_Bieber&diff=611598710&oldid=611598276

My 1st edit may of been questionable (i am new) but i fail to see how suggestion for a new section detailing Bieber's racist video (which made headline news world wide today) is in breach of wiki's terms and conditions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.28.149.162 (talk) 23:35, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Duplicate of this discussion.--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 21:51, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Would you mind?

Would you mind commenting on Here please? It stems from an noticeboard report I opened, and I feel it should be brought to the attention of you. livelikemusic my talk page! 00:51, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

User decided to open another ANI case about this. You can find it here. livelikemusic my talk page! 03:27, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

FYI You've Got Mail

Hello, Ponyo. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

EvergreenFir (talk) 19:38, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

That's odd, nothing has come through yet. I'll keep an eye out...--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 19:58, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Guess it can just be said here since it won't linger: asking for REVDEL on both edits by Special:Contributions/91.115.72.212. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:16, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
All gone and the IP is blocked w/o talk page access.--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 20:20, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Thank you! EvergreenFir (talk) 20:20, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
No problem.--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 20:21, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Manggahan High School Deletion of Texts

Hello,

I just want to clarify that it has references, and if there's a reference, there is no plagiarism, therefore, I did not violate. So, please, don't delete texts and pictures (as Wikipedia law stated that we shouuld put references in texts and pictures). If you have replies, please send it to https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Starofthiscentury&action=edit&redlink=1 . Thanks.

Regards,
Neilvin John Aventurado (Real Name)
Neilvin John Aventurado (Wikipedia user who created the article)
Starofthiscentury (Current User made also by Neilvin John Aventurado)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Starofthiscentury (talk • contribs)

The material is a cut and paste of the wordpress document and is a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policy. You cannot just stick a link to the website where you pulled paragraphs of material from and claim that it absolves you from having to follow the policy. Even if the text wasn't a copyvio, it is completely inappropriate for inclusion as it is replete with promotional jargon and puffery, which is contrary to the requirement that material be presented neutrally. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 19:57, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Also, please sign your posts with four tildes (~) and link your accounts to each other in order to avoid concerns of inappropriate use of multiple accounts.--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 20:01, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Jacob Zuma

Extend PC time? --George Ho (talk) 11:39, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I tacked on an extra six months. Given that there is still quite a bit of disruption at the article, and the state of his presidency, continued protection is a good call.--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 16:17, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

New

Thank you for the info on Shelby Young's page. Updated it differently this time. New to the site so still figuring things out. -Ollie

The material you added is very promotional in nature, giving the appearance that you have a conflict of interest with the article subject. Are you affiliated with Shelby Young in any way? I don't have time to review all of the changes at the moment, but from a glance the additional text does not appear to adhere to the neutral tone required by policy and contains quite a bit of puffery.--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 22:41, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
information Note: any (talk page stalker) willing to take a look at Shelby Young with an eye to NPOV? I'm swamped IRL and may not be online for a day or two. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 22:41, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Nope, I'm not. Just a fan of hers and Guy Wilson's (from Days of Our Lives & The Midnight Game which is coming out this year!) Re-worded it so hopefully it's all good now. Thanks - Ollie — Preceding unsigned comment added by Obtusetea (talk • contribs) 19:22, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

General Hospital Original Cast Members

Hi, I have been looking into why a character was added to the original cast section on the wikipedia page of General Hospital. I can't find anywhere where Calvin Klien was apart of the orginal cast. I did find a wiki page that had a list on there (History of General Hospital#Original cast). I don't know what do as I had asked on the talk page of List of General Hospital cast members. No one has gotten back to me about it. Is there something you could do? Kiraroshi1976 (talk) 21:28, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

If you have reason to believe that the content is incorrect and cannot verify it, then I would remove the name with a quick note on the talk page explaining that you cannot verify his appearance. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 21:33, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. I shall do that. Kiraroshi1976 (talk) 22:40, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Question

Hello JP. I took a stab at closing a thread that I had opened at AN/I Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#We have a situation here. It seems okay except for the fact that the time stamp isn't showing. If you click on edit you can see it right next to my name in the editing field. I typed four tildes just like always so I am guessing that there is something unique to the archive templates that I am missing. I know that you are busy so please don't worry about dealing with this until you have the time. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 02:15, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

@MarnetteD: Hey, Marnette, this is actually a problem with your signature, and it isn't just the archive templates; weird things will actually happen pretty much any time you put your signature in a template. The thing is that your signature right now contains the "|" character (i.e. the pipe character); it's a special character in template code. When you sign your signature, the pipe in it gets interpreted as this special character, rather than just normal thing, and that'll cause problems. I've fixed it in your close, but you should go into your preferences and replace the | with &#-124; (be sure to include the semicolon, but remove the dash first!), the same way I did here; this escaped version will display exactly the same on the rendered page, but it won't break templates. Cheers! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 03:40, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Followup. Writ Keeper got it for me. Turns out I left off the &#-124;. Always a good thing when I get to learn something new!! MarnetteD | Talk 03:44, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Well as I was posting the above you left me the info I needed to know. Many thanks WK. MarnetteD | Talk 03:44, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
I am pretty sure that I set my signature over 9 years ago so there is no wonder that it can cause code problems. I did as you instructed WK so lets see if this works now. Granted it isn't in another template so I may have to track you down if my edit messes something up in the future. I certainly appreciate you taking the time to explain things. MarnetteD |Talk 03:52, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
We all remember what happened when I tried to close an ANI thread...and lookie here, the same admin superhero to the rescue!--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 16:04, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
I like it. Writ Keeper keeping our (wikicode) writing up to date and useful :-) Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 16:34, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

SPRING BREAKERS page

Hi there. I see you edit protected the page for the film "Spring Breakers". I have never edited on this page but I noticed that the "Home media" section is entirely erroneous. Not only does it use twitter posts and amazon as references, it says the film was "released on DVD and Blu-ray on July 4, 2014". Today is June 14th 2014 and the film has been out on DVD for a long time now. Perhaps the entire section should be eliminated due to its falsehoods and terrible citation quality? As I can't do this, I am appealing to you as the person who edit protected the page. If this is not appropriate to ask of you, please disregard it. Nynewart (talk) 03:49, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

The article is only semi-protected; as an auto-confirmed account you should be able to edit it.--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 23:19, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/187.211.106.72

Sorry for interrupt. Can you ban him/her? Along with User:Andrewbf.

183.171.170.127 (talk) 07:47, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

It's blocked.--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 23:17, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Daustinc2

Obviously you've twice blocked User:Daustinc2 twice before for disruptive editing and you've issued a final warning to the said user. Unfortunately the user continues to add false information to countless articles and I think the time has come to issue a permanent ban if possible.Beast from da East (talk) 00:44, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm keeping my eye on their edits. The most recent ones have been pretty minor in nature, I haven't seen any of the same level of disruption that led to previous blocks and I don't see anything within the last few days that warrants an indefinite block. I'll keep an eye on the account to ensure the disruption doesn't escalate. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 18:26, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Possible Sock Puppet Again

Hi Ponyo, I may have come across 2 other sock puppets of Etfcanadian (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Etfcanadian/Archive). Please look into these two users (Donthaveacowman76, Deepthroat57) as they are editing similar pages, and in some cases, appear to be vandalizing other pages. Donthaveacowman76 keeps linking back to the AdvisorShares Wikipedia page on unrelated sites. Some of these include the below (see the edit history).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Securities_fraud https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratton_Oakmont,_Inc._v._Prodigy_Services_Co. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Milken

What recourse can you take for this particular user? Can you publicly identify the user, assuming this is another sock puppet of Etfcanadian? Look forward to your response, thanks for the help.

UserNameUnderConstruction (talk) 14:21, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I've blocked both accounts and added semi-protection to many of the pages that were being bombarded by socks of Etfcanadian. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 19:06, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Andrewbf's new account again

Can you sockpuppet Special:Contributions/Buchilla? He/she created many accounts to edit warring again... 183.171.175.37 (talk) 06:30, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Along with Special:Contributions/Bubunilla. 183.171.173.195 (talk) 07:20, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
I've blocked both accounts; thanks for the note.--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 15:28, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Possible new sock of Stern review

Mount Manisty4 (talk · contribs) - comes out of nowhere to create a number of moth articles. Didn't think I had enough info for an SPI, so since you've dealt with a few, I thought I'd ask you. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 16:09, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

It's definitely him so I've blocked the account and CSDed the articles. Thank you for bringing it to my attention and please let me know if you see any other suspicious accounts.--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 16:56, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry/and a question

Hi, I am sorry if I have disappointed you with not going through with that 0 revert thingJune 8, June 10 and June 18 but I really don't think I need it I have been a Wikipedia user for a while now and have only been blocked a small number of times, if I feel like reverting I won't and I will ask that you apply it then, is that OK? And the question I wanted to ask you is acoustic a genre. Lukejordan02 (talk) 23:37, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Four blocks in less than four months of editing is not a "small number of times" by any stretch of the imagination. There's nothing for me to "apply" with regard to the 0 revert rule, it is a voluntary restriction. If you have a question regarding genres, then I would ask the folks here.--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 15:42, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
I have been blocked 3 times not 4 and 2 of them are both to do with a very large disagreement with Retrohead which as I have said is now sorted and we are working together to improve pages. I have learned my lesson and have started a discussion on a matter I disagree with at present Talk:Damnation (album) and people have been agreeing with me, I told you you wouldn't regret unblocking me and so far I have stuck to that and I am going to continue to. Lukejordan02 (talk) 15:53, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
You have been blocked four times (on May 5, June 8, June 10 and June 18), but whatever. Good luck with your editing.--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 16:03, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Fair enough (June 8, June 10 and June 18) are all to do with that 1 massive disagreement with Retrohead and the other one was really stupid on my part, like I said I have started a discussion rather than reverting and people have agreed with me so thank you for teaching me the right way to edit, kind regards. Lukejordan02 (talk) 16:11, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pass a Method

Hey, Ponyo. Regarding this, did you base the Pass a Method connection on WP:CheckUser information? Or was it on both WP:CheckUser and behavioral information? And did you check for WP:Sleepers? DeltaQuad closed the case very soon after you marked it for close, so I didn't get a chance to ask these questions on the case page. Flyer22 (talk) 19:42, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

There wasn't anything particularly conclusive about the technical data, and sleepers are difficult to detect on highly dynamic IPs. In this case the behavioural evidence you presented was fairly overwhelming, and at the end of the day that is more damning than anything I could have discovered via the CU tool.--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 19:54, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Hmm, if sleepers are difficult to detect on highly dynamic IPs, then perhaps that's why DoRD missed the AnarchoGhost account if AnarchoGhost is Pass a Method? I know that you did good with the case, and I don't mean to imply that you didn't; it's just that I'd feel better about this particular case closing with Pass a Method as a WP:Sockpuppet if the technical data connected him in some way. Do you mind me asking for a second opinion on this matter? For example, by pinging DeltaQuad via WP:Echo again or Alison? I know that more than one WP:CheckUser checking a sockpuppet matter can sometimes help spot something that may have been missed. Also, is it best that the Pass a Method account stay unblocked? How many more times of him using an alternate account in an appropriate way would it take for that account to be blocked indefinitely? Either way, I do thank you for your help on this case. I don't mean to be a pest. Flyer22 (talk) 20:21, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Any other checkuser is free to run any additional checks if they believe it is warranted. I was only trying to clear the very large backlog of non-CU cases at SPI; in this case the technical data was  Inconclusive but the behavioural evidence was strong, so I blocked on that basis. As you noted that Pass A Method was using the wikibreak enforcer script until 2020, I guess I just didn't see the point of blocking what is essentially an abandoned account, but have no qualms with another admin doing so. I'm sure that if the shenanigans keep up that will be the inevitable outcome.--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 20:36, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Here purely as a CU, I back Ponyo's result of  Inconclusive. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 23:00, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
One more question: The IP locations. Are they both from the United Kingdom? Or is it not okay to confirm via the WP:CheckUser tool that Pass a Method is from the United Kingdom, even though he's stated so before on Wikipedia and uses British spelling? Flyer22 (talk) 23:58, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Unless you can provide a diff where Pass a Method has explicitly identified the country he edits from I can't answer that question.--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 17:28, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
See here, the post dated 14:22, 18 December 2011 (UTC). And here, here and here are the diff-links showing that he made that post. I didn't link to that in the WP:Sockpuppet case because I thought he'd made that comment in the Wording section shown lower in that archive, and that Wording discussion is an embarrassment for me because of WP:Civil issues (I mean that I'm embarrassed by my WP:Civil violation, not Pass a Method's) beginning at 17:54, 25 February 2012 (UTC) (a Pass a Method post) and my mentioning my brother (the IP) before I knew that my brother was stalking me in addition to stalking Pass a Method. So, as you know, I instead stated that a WP:CheckUser can confirm whether or not both registered accounts are from the United Kingdom. Flyer22 (talk) 18:15, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
So is it a no when it comes to confirming whether or not both of these editors are from the United Kingdom? Or have you discussed this matter with others and they have advised you otherwise? Flyer22 (talk) 20:01, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
The technical data gives no reason to doubt Pass a Method and Anarcoghost are editing from the region they claim to be living in. That is the most explicit statement I'm willing to make, and I've only done so because both accounts have openly stated it on Wikipedia.--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 15:50, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks

Great many thanks for the special status. It will not only help me to work smoothly but also reduce tension. Cheers. - Chandan Guha (talk) 12:16, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Your welcome Chandan Guha, hopefully it will help you log in without any additional issues.--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 17:29, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Help

Ponyto please tell the other users that Funnycoolman means no harm to other users and that he's a little confused about Wikipedia and didn't mean to harass anyone. He was just trying to explain what really happened. 24.191.109.165 (talk) 22:03, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

You are not allowed to edit while you are blocked; I have blocked this IP for the duration of Funnycoolman's block. If you continue to use IPs to evade your block, the duration of the block on your main account will be increased. Solution: While you are blocked read through all of the messages on your talk page, including the links provided. When your block expires use what you have learned to ensure you don't make the same mistakes. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 22:12, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Proxy vs. SPI

Heya, so I'm looking at some IPs that I believe are socks of vandal Fidelis ofoajoku, but I'm not sure what the best approach is here. He has been editing from a variety of IPs that are labeled as static (188.29.165.106 188.29.165.72 188.29.165.3), but I have also noticed some behavior from other IPs that could be him. Since I know CheckUsers don't link accounts to IPs, it seems silly to ever include IPs in an SPI. Should I start a new SPI for all the suspected IPs? On the other hand, I believe one of the IPs was tagged as a suspected proxy server at whatismyipaddress.com--does it make more sense to submit the IPs for a proxy investigation? (I've never submitted a proxy investigation.) Your guidance is appreciated. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:28, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

(tps) Don't trust what whatismyipaddress says with respect to proxies and static vs dynamic. Those IPs belong to Three mobile, and mobile IPs are, by definition, dynamic. I haven't looked at the range in a while, but if memory serves, it is far too busy for a rangeblock. Blocking individual IPs in this range is pretty ineffective, so you might want to ask for page protection of the most affected articles. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:37, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict)If you have reason to believe an IP is acting as an open proxy you can report it at WP:OPP. Websites such as "whatismyipaddress.com" may note that an address is a "suspected proxy", but that doesn't necessarily mean that it's an open proxy that can be exploited by socks, only that it is an intermediary relaying information on behalf of multiple users (e.g. large offices or universities). --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 16:45, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Good notes from you both, thank you. I appreciate the advice. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:54, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

June Carroll

What seems to be the problem with changing the birthdate for June Carroll based on information from Findagrave.com? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bourneworks (talk • contribs) 20:04, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

As I explained in my edit summary "Find a grave is not a reliable source see Wikipedia:External links/Perennial websites". I also left a note on your talk page expanding on the reasons which I will reiterate here: "Note that I have again reverted your edit at June Carroll as it added information is that based on information found in an unreliable source. Even more concerning is that the date you are attempting to add contradicts two very reliable sources, Variety (which states she was 86 when she died) and Playbill (which also states she was 86 and gives her year of birth as 1917). Please don't change the date to a poorly sourced and contradictory date without first gaining consensus via the article talk page. Thank you,"--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 20:08, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I have submitted the correct birthdate for June Carroll at Findagrave.com to read June 22, 1917 [the edit is pending review]. Would you kindly edit the birthdate on the Wiki page to read June 22, 1917. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bourneworks (talk • contribs) 20:33, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I can't edit the birthdate on the Wikipedia page as no source meeting the necessary criteria has been found to confirm the date. It is more important that we include accurate/sourced information (i.e. the year of birth) than to add unverified information (i.e. the day and month of birth). I'll dig through some archives to see if I can find the exact date, but it cannot be added until it's verified.--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 20:43, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Andrewbf's new IP Special:Contributions/136.169.189.120

I just found out (I doubt) he/she has a new computer via new IP. It was the last edit was June 20. Can you please block him/her for one year? 183.171.162.1 (talk) 07:29, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

It's not a new computer or new IP, just a proxy that I've now blocked.--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 16:10, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

DragonTiger23 sockfarming again

Just after his latest wp:SPI here Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DragonTiger23/Archive was closed, he is socking again: After a failed attempt in his talkpage [[13]], protesting about my edits in Izmit massacre, he created a pov fork of this article (Execution_of_Turks_in_Izmit) with a newly created account [[14]]. I believe a quick CU is needed in this case.Alexikoua (talk) 15:07, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the note Alexikoua. I've blocked the sock account (plus two additional socks I missed in the first check) and deleted the new article under CSD G5.--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 16:25, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Poudar sock

Thanks for your review and I'll try to remember to let you know if any more pop up, although Nepal-related articles are not something with which I have much involvement. The big question is what we do with the many new articles that the various accounts have created. I CSD G5'd some a few days ago and have just done the same for Nepawl, which seems to me to be a ridiculous alternate spelling but is perhaps some archaic version. Ann Poudar probably should be deleted as G5 or as a recreation of an article previously deleted at AfD but I can't see the sources and I cannot see the previously deleted version, so that definitely needs admin intervention.

I've got the feeling that this person is not going to go away and, just as I periodically search for "jatland.com" (an open wiki), I think I will need to find some phrase in their commonly-used user page and search for that. Going off the history, I might be pinging you quite frequently. Assuming that my memory remains intact! - Sitush (talk) 23:01, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I deleted Ann Poudar under A10 as it was a verbatim copy of List of supercentenarians from the United States#Ann Pouder. If there are any additional admin-y bits I can help with, let me know. It's the least I can do to help with the heaps of ridiculousness you deal with on a daily basis --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 23:16, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. I'll sift through all of their creations later today and probably will G5 them. - Sitush (talk) 06:15, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Bambifan101

Hey, Ponyo, you blocked and tagged DrRobotnik046 (talk · contribs · count). You did it right when you reverted him at Frankenweenie (1984 film). I'm troubled by SouthParkIsCool2014 (talk · contribs · count), who most recently edited the article (not to mention the IP activity). You might also look at the edit history at Return to Oz. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:48, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Hey @Bbb23: CU-wise SouthParkIsCool2014 is extremely  Likely to be DrRobotnik046 (talk · contribs).--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 15:52, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, indeffed and tagged. Best.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:03, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of pages attributed to DragonTiger and his aliases

I noticed you deleted List of Cossack raids against the Ottoman Empire. Is it procedure to remove article(s) made by blocked editors? Would you be inclined to allow me to copy it and possible re-add it to mainstream Wikipedia at a later time? Just curious. --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:50, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Articles created by sock accounts in violation of the master account's block or ban are deletable per the policy on block evasion. If you believe that the article should not have been deleted and wish to continue to work on it then I can restore it, however this bears some responsibility as you are essentially vouching for the material of the blocked editor. In addition, the recreated article may entice the blocked editor to continue to create new socks to maintain the article. Note that there is nothing stopping you from creating an article under this name you believe the topic is notable. If you think it would be helpful I can email you a copy of the deleted text so that you can review the sources to assist in writing a new article.--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 18:00, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
That would be great. Thanks.--Kansas Bear (talk) 18:42, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
@Kansas Bear: on its way to you now.--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 18:47, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, sir. --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:26, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Untitled

I am Shahid Ahmed Rajput of PDI. YOU MAY REMEMBER ME AS ONE OF YOUR TEACHERS, HINA — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.186.131.113 (talk) 07:15, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

No clue what this is about...--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 17:09, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Archive 15←Archive 20Archive 21Archive 22Archive 23Archive 24Archive 25
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ponyo/Archive_22&oldid=1190255270"