User talk:Ponyo/Archive 37

Archive 30

←

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

Anthony Hudson page and sock puppetry

Hi Ponyo I see you did something in the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Hudson_(footballer) page around sock puppetry. There is a bit of ongoing changes being made to the page and it appears the changes are being made on both sides one from people inside NZ Football to make this persons record look better and other from people that are a fan of the manager but are trying to make his record show how he is actual tracking with his manager record.

What change does the sock puppetry do? Can it stop some users making edits (Sorry I'm new to wiki editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yakcall (talk • contribs) 21:42, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

@Yakall: Many of the edits being made on that article were actually being made by a single person who had created multiple accounts against Wikipedia policy. This is what we call socking and it's why I protected the article briefly. The semi-protection prevents anonymous IPs and new users from editing the article directly in order to help prevent ongoing disruption. --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:55, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

On this page again, NZwhiteout keeps removing a line that they see as unflattering to the person however the article is public knowledge and has actually run in national news paper and should stay there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.97.110.123 (talk) 08:21, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Please use the article talk page to discuss concerns you have with the article content.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:53, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Ponyo, what is the evidence that there was sock puppetry here? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.57.59.107 (talk) 11:12, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Sock investigation at Xboxmanwar

Please go here to see an investigation. You may also want to see an ANI discussion here. SportsLair (talk) 23:07, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

I've replied at the SPI page.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:53, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Long Eaton page

"no corresponding article - additions needs to meet notability requirements" How do I meet notability requirements? Other rowing clubs (Nottingham and Derby) have mentions on their corresponding wikipedia pages. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pknottm (talk • contribs)

@Pknottm: The notability requirements for organanizations and clubs can be found here.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:22, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

New baba

Is this related to New baba? — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:10, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

It sure is. Blocked and tagged and SPI updated.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 15:38, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

New article: 4 de Abril Bridge

Hi Ponyo! Please check the article created by me, if there's something wrong. Contreiras45 (talk) 20:23, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Contreiras45; there are some minor grammar fixes that could be made, but that can always be improved over time. I'll work on it a bit for you. Thank you for your contributions! --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:27, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. I don't write and not speak very well the English language. I'm using translation tools, to translate from Portuguese into English, and vice versa. Contreiras45 (talk) 20:35, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Understood. It need not be perfect, the entire point of the project is to improve articles over time.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:41, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

All right! Thank you for understanding. Contreiras45 (talk) 11:38, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

I would like some advice

I am a new editor here on Wikipedia. I am hoping to contribute constructively the encyclopedia, so that we can help people out and improve Wikipedia for editors and non-editors alike. Since you have been on this site for around a decade now, I would really like to know how I could help out Wikipedia. I await your response. Thanks. --RockMusicFan 2002^| 16:34, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Horhey...

...created a new account, Ice Cold Nuka Cola, mere hours after you blocked the old one, in order to continue editing Foreign policy of the United States.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:28, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

@TheTimesAreAChanging: It sure is. Blocked and tagged accordingly. --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:35, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Rotherham child sexual exploitation scandal

Those cases are regularly linked in the UK, due to the issue of fear of being branded as racists affecting police and local authority action in them. It seems odd to just link to a far more general grouping that includes cases from other countries and ones in the UK that do not have that common thread.

For example, see this BBC article http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-28934963 with the relevant paragraph "Rotherham was not the only community in the North and the Midlands to have uncovered such abuse. There have also been arrests or prosecutions of groups of men in 11 towns and cities, including Oldham, Rochdale and Derby."

These cases as a whole created a huge scandal in the UK, as it stands the page does not reflect that, with only a link to the Rochdale case left, therefore I will revert back to my change.

DoubleDoubleDouble (talk) 03:30, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

More socks at Puthandu?

Hello my little pony. After I blocked Dipendra2007 for disruption and sock puppetry at Puthandu, see [1], three newly created accounts and some IPs, that you can see in the article history, have edited it in similar ways. The article is topical — the new year is today — so they're not necessarily all socks of Dipendra2007, but I would guess some of them are. Check, please? I've semi'd the article, but I still believe it's of interest, because if Dipendra is socking yet again, it's surely time for indef. Bishonen | talk 15:47, 14 April 2017 (UTC).

@Bishonen: Ponyo is on Easter holiday. I'm her poor substitute. I can't tell who Dipendra2007's sock was triggering the block. I also don't know which specific accounts you're suspicious of. So, I just picked the recent new accounts in the article history and checked them against Dipendra. That would include Tharun 0203, KJ sivakumar, and Prakash Balasubramaniyan. They are  Unrelated to Dipendra2007.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:57, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Those were the ones I meant, Bbb23. Thanks very much. Bishonen | talk 20:05, 14 April 2017 (UTC).

Tazmin Daytime

Tazmin Daytime's reply to you wasn't helpful, neither was her reply to someone else that tried to reason with her. I'm not saying she needs her talk page privelege revolked, but maybe keep an eye on it, she's getting there .  Ҝ Ø Ƽ Ħ  17:42, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

"Someone else" here. I concur with Kosh's assessment. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:56, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

WP:ROPE. Stop posting to her talk page. Either she'll change her editing style when her block expires or it'll be an easy re-block. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:20, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

No argument here. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:10, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Category:Upcoming video games

I have a quick question if you are available. When a video game that has been in the"Upcoming video games" category has been released, how soon should the category be updated accordingly? I ask this because the"Upcoming video games scheduled for 2017" category has a good amount of articles in it for games that have since been released, some for about a month now, and nobody seems to be updating them. I understand that categories aren't a high priority, but it feels more like nobody is doing it at all. Sorry for any inconveniences this causes. (Chocolatejr9 (talk) 15:37, 16 April 2017 (UTC))

@Chocolatejr9: What I would do is add a line and a reliable source within the article that verifies the game has been released and then update the category accordingly.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:20, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

A quick question

Is this related to the user mentioned? RockMusicFan 2002 (talk) 9:25, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I would suspect so, it's an odd edit to make otherwise. That being said, they were blocked at the time and no edits have been made from that IP since.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:24, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

User Pakistanpedia

Hi Ponyo - I see you have been off for several days - hope it is an enjoyable break, and nothing serious.
On 13 April you left this message at User talk:Pakistanpedia. That user has ignored your message and continued to promote ARY Digital - including creating several new, unsourced, articles such as Bewaqoofian to promote individual ARY programmes. - Arjayay (talk) 13:55, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

@Arjayay: There is no way this is not part of the same promotional and paid editing sockfarm I've tripped across again and again. Given that they completely ignored my explicit warnings to start communicating I have blocked the account. I expect they'll pop up again in short order, they always do.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:27, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the block, I know these TV promoters well - I have battled similar problems at Astro TV, MediaCorp and HUM TV in the past and now have one at GeoTV. I tried WP:AIV but was told it was not vandalism, I started Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ANASKHAN777 but that has just sat there.
As with User:Pakistanpedia, the promoters seem to be playing a slightly improved game, rather than just making promotional edits to their main pages, (Programme guides, unsourced "coming soon" additions, and information on the cost and content of TV packages) which are easily reverted, they start numerous articles on individual programmes. These articles are usually poorly referenced, or unreferenced, with promotional content and claims, but SPEEDY A7 does not cover TV programme (although some admins turn a blind oye), unless the promotional content is excessive allowing a claim of G11. Provided the promotional content can be removed, and references provided, I suppose it benefits the project, but it is hard work chasing them around and rewriting the stubs. - Arjayay (talk) 16:54, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Anyone working in these areas rife with promotion deserve unending baskets if kittens and beers, so thank you!--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:01, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt action on User:Polutar - I'll take the beers, but am allergic to kittens - thanks again - Arjayay (talk) 17:11, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Good to see you're back, yer Ponyoship, given Wiki's Chronus-like habit of devouring its own. Anmccaff (talk) 17:14, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker). Geez. And we already lost Laser brain over this debacle, too... GAB^gab 18:56, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

One troll or two?

Hello, my little whinny. Not-a-parted-haired-libertarian and Mr.Election keep editing each other's userpages in rather odd ways. Are they the same person? If the little pony is offline, maybe the "poor substitute" can help? Bishonen | talk 12:30, 20 April 2017 (UTC).

Hello User:Bishonen: I don't know if you'll believe it ;) but this is the what is said... — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 12:45, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Yeah. Not the only weird thing. I think you meant WP:BROTHER, right? (I stared at the film for a while, trying to figger an allusion, till the penny dropped. I'm a bit slow.) But the little CUs will know, I'm sure. Bishonen | talk 12:52, 20 April 2017 (UTC).

Cheers I've adjusted my WP:SURREAL link :) — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 12:57, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

• The two users claim they are friends, not relatives. There is no page overlap between the two except in their userspace and one other editor's Talk page. I don't necessarily accept the friend claim based on my check, but, even if so, it's unacceptable. I've blocked Not-a-parted-haired-libertarian indefinitely and Mr.Election for one week. We'll see if he can behave.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:15, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Bbb23. The little brother was trolling, too — check out my page. God, AGF hurts sometimes. Bishonen | talk 15:18, 20 April 2017 (UTC).

Question: Is it OK to delete another editor's comments from my own Talk page?

Another editor and I often debate edits on various articles in the relevant Talk pages. Sometimes, he decides to scold me for edits I have made to an article and does so at User talk:Peter K Burian

Is there any obligation for me to retain such items on my own Talk page? Or is it ok if I delete them? I have already told the other editor to debate edits on the article's Talk page, not on my own Talk page.

What is the actual protocol in this regard? Thanks, Peter K Burian (talk) 17:57, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

@Peter K Burian: You are free to blank just about anything from your talk page - see WP:BLANKING. You may want to consider including a summary as to why you're removing it (e.g. "remove discussion more appropriate for article talk page") or something similar.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:02, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, User:Ponyo. Cheers! Peter K Burian (talk) 18:13, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you

Hello dear ponyo I appreciate that you solve my IP addressed block, certainly I will have effective and positive act in the Wikipedia Sincerely yours Poya-P (talk) 00:29, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Commander1987

Hi Ponyo. While checking on some non-free images, I came across Draft:Commander1987. The creator User:Commander1987 has been indefinitely blocked as a sock account, so I wondering if this draft needs to be kept. I don't see it ever having a chance of becoming an article per WP:NOT. Sending it to MFD seems unnecessary, but perhaps speedy deletion is an option. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:21, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

• @Marchjuly: There's no upside to keeping that draft around, so I speedied it as G5. Thanks for letting me know. Cheers, --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:28, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for checking Ponyo. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:20, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Padma

Hi P, any chance you could do a basic check for Padmalakshmisx socks, or is that so vague that an SPI needs to be set up? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:42, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb:, I don't see any new accounts since the March 8th SPI on their typical IP range. That being said, they do often resort to webhosts, so I would need a specific suspected account(s) to be certain.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 15:34, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Kannadigey is a possibility, with a user page that is identical to this and this. Lots of one word edit summaries that fit the general shape of Padma, and though he's been around since only April 9th, he seems aware of "POV" jargon (note edit summary). Padmala has edited at N. T. Rama Rao Jr.[2], so has Kannadigey[3]. I can look for more later if that's not enough. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:49, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb: Clean-up on Aisle 2.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:21, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks P! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:52, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Another: Suvvisuvvi I'll indef, but could you please look for others? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:56, 28 April 2017 (UTC) (I've opened SPI just for thoroughness) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:05, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

There was another sock lurking. SPI updated.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 15:42, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! For general convenience, I've created a shortcut: WP:PADMASOCK. I don't have the brain space to remember the correct spelling of this person's name. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:51, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Cyphoidbomb It's much easier to remember if you're a Top Chef fan.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:15, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Oh riiiight, her... I probably don't want to guess what "sx" means. Eeew. She can do better. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:06, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

• Larklycra is another. Restored content previously submitted by Padma. I've indeffed on suspicion, but another look might be helpful. Thanks Miss P! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:00, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb: There was also Vursvurs which I've now blocked.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:10, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Another...

Hi Ms. P. This guy is a sock of someone, but I'm not sure who yet and I don't have time at present to dig around, but I thought I'd drop the seed of inspiration...

• Exasperated edit summaries
• Full mastery of citations despite being a six-day-old account.
• Lots of mobile edits.
• Lots of "box office" summaries.
• Mix of Indian and US films.

The reasonable money is on Joseph Fanai per the edit summaries here. If you get a chance to look at it, sweet. If not, I'll try to dig up more dirt later. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:21, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

• Spot on as usual Cyphoidbomb; blocked and tagged accordingly.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:40, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Ms. Ponyo! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:41, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello! Happy Spanish Number de Mayo! Opened another SPI on this guy. I think it's pretty ducky, but maybe there's some value in a look? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:15, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

...aaand blocked.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:06, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Seems neverending but this reversion is questionable, given the crappy POV it restores. User has a fair amount of pissy edit summaries, and happens to go way back to 2008. I don't see the Indian intersection, and overall I can't say I have a very strong feeling about this one, but it is a suspicious reversion. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:40, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb: I don't think there's enough overlap to consider running a CU. They seem to more of an SPA with a long-term interest in a very limited set of articles.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:44, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks boss! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:47, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Maybe a sock, but

I still felt compelled to restore most of their edits [4] to this film. The fact is their additions were fixing bad grammar, as well as adding up to date content written more or less how I would have written it. It felt a lot easier than writing basically the same thing myself in a few days. If you still wish to remove it per WP:DENY I won't stop you. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 18:22, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: If you can verify the content (including that the sources used in the "Release" section actually support the material added) then you can restore the material. Note that by doing so you are taking responsibility for its accuracy.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:34, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, the content checks out. Like I said, I'd come across it elsewhere (on the BBC, in fact) just earlier in the day. Vanamonde (talk) 04:35, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Flag vandal

User Special:Contributions/121.207.82.6 is on a tear dropping flags into articles.

Cptmrmcmillan (talk) 19:12, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

@Cptmrmcmillan: Are flags not used in settlement infoboxes? Or are your bringing this to my attention as its recurrent behaviour that has led to previous blocks?--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:52, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Needs to be blocked. He's dropping random flags onto pages (more than 100 so far) that have nothing to do with the article, e.g. a town in Kenya may get a US Department of Energy flag. The vandalism bots will probably catch this, but that tags the talk page with a "needs to be checked" message. Thanks Cptmrmcmillan (talk) 20:12, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I've reverted them all. As no one has ever warned them I've left a clear warning on their talk page.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:27, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Cptmrmcmillan (talk) 00:25, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

169.239.180.163

You might want to remove their talk page access too. Cheers. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - State of the Union ‖ 18:34, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Done, thank you.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:38, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Cinderellahood

Hi Ponyo, how did you already block the user Cinderellahood? Was it after I reverted them at my talk page? Ss112 20:33, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

I blocked them before you reverted the message.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:39, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Stephen A. Smith

Can you remove the pending changes on the article? Indefinite semi-protection has no effect on pending changes since all edits will be accepted. —MRD2014 📞 contribs 18:04, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

@MRD2014:  Done Thanks for the reminder.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:12, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Pakistanpedia

I agree that it appears to be some sort of paid editing ring. This user (Fdsgbhgjjgtfyjm) popped up in the last few days with a pretty significant overlap of the above mentioned account...may want to take a look. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 10:51, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Nabbed by the excellent Katie. Thank goodness she's back to pick up the rest of our slack!--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:15, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Email sent.

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 at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Thank you Jeandré du Toit. Note that for the removal of non-public personal information you will nearly always receive a quicker response by emailing the oversight team.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:03, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you

For this [5]. This could make an impressive SPI; it began at least in the fall of last year with edits to Idaho schools and drum-related articles. On occasion the user follows and reverts my edits. Some of the accounts can be gleaned from this edit history [6]. But you may already be up on all this. Cheers, 2601:188:180:11F0:D0A6:5E03:5171:548F (talk) 00:13, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

This is the first time I've run into this unpleasant M.O. Please let me know if you see them pop up again in the future as their edits sometimes require oversighting.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 15:47, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm certain they're popping all the time--I'll forget for months, then find an edit from one of dozens of the block evasion accounts. The first ones I encountered hailed from the University of Idaho, so that's probably still home base. Mostly I'd like to get the most commonly disrupted articles on the radar/watchlists of several administrators. It's fairly easy, if time-consuming, to follow the multiple trails from there. Thanks again, 2601:188:180:11F0:41E8:3E22:766:8808 (talk) 21:22, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Poorna

Poorna: Courage Has No Limit has been deleted because it was created by a banned user. However, I was the one who initially created the page as Poorna (film) and I am not a banned user. I assume the banned user moved it to its Poorna: Courage Has No Limit name. I think the whole article should not be erased when I actually was the one that created it originally. Can't it just be moved back to version I created? I typically just edit and do not involve myself in the administrative bits of Wikipedia so I have no idea how this works. Yamada Taro (talk) 20:25, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

@Yamada Taro: The article has been moved from various titles and somehow was caught up in my deletion of similar articles. I'm not sure exactly how that happened as I'm pretty careful about my G5 speedy deletions. With that being said, I've restored the article and apologize for the error. --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:30, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks

For all the BSaK64-related blocks. I swear, keeping up with it is almost a fulltime job. Cheers!  :) --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Repel All Boarders ‖ 21:14, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Btw, can User talk:38.135.32.22 be blocked from IPs editting too? It's being used by more of the socks. Thanks. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Repel All Boarders ‖ 21:16, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected for 1 year (which is the duration of the global proxy block).--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:21, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! And welcome to the club. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Attract and Repel ‖ 21:22, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

So many clubs, so little time...--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:30, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Ponyo, might a rangeblock of 2600:1000:B0 or something like that be possible? Or you could just protect your talk page for a while. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Repel All Boarders ‖ 21:50, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

The range is too large, though I have blocked a smaller one. We'll see how it goes, though I'm a little distracted by the fact that the US President just fired the Director the FBI.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:57, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

I only vaguely know how rangeblocks work, but it was worth a shot. Though maybe it's better not. I'm doing a search in my watchlist of 2600:1000:B0, and finding other articles they've been editing. I'm undoing that damage too. If they edited one or two articles occasionally, they would probably not be noticed. But they just can't seem to help themselves. Fun fun fun. ;) --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Union of Opposites ‖ 22:04, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

For blocking those socks of The fashionable baby

EvergreenFir (talk) 05:58, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Football at the 2017 Summer Universiade

I would like to create a new page for "Football at the 2017 Summer Universiade", because the draw for the team sports had already come out on May 11, 2017, according to the FISU official website. So can you reopen this page? WE WANT TO CREATE THIS PAGE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Younis7435 (talk • contribs)

@Younis7435: The page isn't protected, there should be no issue with you creating the article.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:23, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Block evader...

Not sure if you want to issue a block here as well - this IP appears to be in the same group as the others. Home Lander (talk) 22:59, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

I saw it but they'd already cycled to a new IP. The semi-protection should help.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:01, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Good enough, thanks. Home Lander (talk) 23:03, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Wayne Allwine

Could this page be blocked as well? As I suspected, they are posting there about the changes they cannot make on the article page. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Opposites Attract ‖ 22:04, 15 May 2017 (UTC)`

Look what's back...

Draft:Graduation... CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 23:44, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Yikes. Official steps after graduation!?!? I think I stumbled before I could take the first one. Please Note: This post is an attempt at humor. It could be moved to WP:BJAODN except for the fact that it isn't funny enough. MarnetteD|Talk 01:22, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Good Lord. I've applied a bit of IAR and deleted it again. I have a feeling they think it's all a bit of fun, but an individual's personal essay and musings regarding post-graduation are not encyclopedic and that draft has zero chance of making it through an AfD or MfD.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:02, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Biographical source question

Hi, Ponyo. Does this source adhere to WP:BLP? It seems so to me, but I thought I'd ask before adding it because of recent debates. Franzboas (talk) 16:28, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

@Franzboas: I would say that's a good source as it demonstrates the importance of Soloway's religion with regard to her life and works (meeting the "defining characteristic" requirement) in her own words (self-identification).--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:41, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Great, thanks. Franzboas (talk) 16:49, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Acbraughlerauthor

Hi Ponyo! It's a pleasure as usual to run into you once again ;-). I saw that you revoked talk page access from Acbraughlerauthor - was there a specific reason for this? Just making sure I'm not missing something that I should have caught ;-). Thanks - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:28, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

*Sigh*, neeeeeverrrrmiiiiiinnnnddd...... I just now noticed this... lol ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:47, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

That was indeed the show stopper. There's venting and then there's using the unblock template to attack others.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:10, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Sandbox

Hello! Could you take a moment and check my talk page discussion? I would like to have my material back. NocteAnime (talk) 15:38, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

I've replied at your talk page.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:11, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Please don't report me to the checkuser goon squad

[7] --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:43, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

We'll look the other way. This time. ;) To be honest, though, the first CU should have recognized the account for what it is. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 12:06, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Sock?

I indeffed Masoomulla in March, after they had been doing literally nothing but promoting Makau W. Mutua ‎in 8 [sic] years of editing. Is the new editor Barack Muluka the same person? Young Bbb23, it seems Ponyo is away for a few days, hint hint. Bishonen | talk 19:31, 19 May 2017 (UTC).

@Bishonen: The new account is  Unrelated. There's a small possibility that the person moved from one continent to another based on some of the technical details, but you'd be hard put to block based on the technical evidence.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:54, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Cool, thank you, Beeb. Bishonen | talk 19:59, 19 May 2017 (UTC).

109.150.177.221

109.150.177.221 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Hi, would you mind reviewing this IP's edits again? They've continued their disruption after two of your check user blocks. Thank you. 172.58.46.236 (talk) 21:14, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Reblocked. Thanks for the head's up.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:37, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Yet another sock?

Hope you had a good break and frolicked and whinnied in the meadows! (Have you seen the placid horse in the flowery meadow on my page?) I indeffed Onlylove18 on 12 January 2017 for egregious image copyvio recidivism. I just noticed another account, Nem18, created in November 2014 and having similar problems, making a set of strange edits to Onlylove18's userpage.[8] Basically they asked for speedy deletion, and then, on Onlylove18's talkpage, endorsed the deletion (I think). Is Onlylove18 too stale to tell whether they're the same? If they are too stale, do you think I should sockblock Nem18 anyway, per the strange recent edits and the "18" coincidence? Bishonen | talk 22:23, 23 May 2017 (UTC).

Onlylove18 is beyond stale, but I don't see that precluding a block. There are too many "coincidences" linking the accounts, and the constant copyvios by Nem18 merit a block even if you were to discount the behavioural overlap. --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:34, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, blocked and tagged. [Gives the good pony an apple.] Bishonen | talk 22:58, 23 May 2017 (UTC).

Neigh!--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:04, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Block evasion "Best known for-IP"

Hello. I'm going to bed now so I can't follow-up on it, but could you please take a look at this report I filed at AIV? Cheers, - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 22:40, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Oshwah blocked them. Nighty-night.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:44, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Thomas.W - Later gator. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:50, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Reply

What is your aim? I wasn't picking an edit war, I was just getting her DOD verified. One source was rejected so I offered up another. That's all. I'm aware of my restrictions and yes I got carried away in some instances but in the three years since my last block I think I've been keeping a good handle on my track record and am trying to simmer off this attitude I tend to needlessly develop. Rusted AutoParts 22:55, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

@Rusted AutoParts: My "aim" is to ensure that you are aware that your 1RR restriction is still active. You removed content here even though the source doesn't support your edit, then you removed it again here, again without an explanation or source. You removed it again here, with a link to a blog that does not meet WP:RS in the edit summary. Finally, you removed it here, again with a so-so source in the edit summary along with a rather uncivil remark. Meanwhile the date of death is not supported by the corresponding source in the entry, thereby not meeting WP:BLP. This is edit warring and I don't believe that providing you with a reminder that you are under restrictions is a bad idea in such circumstances; I've seen editors blocked for much less blatant violations of such restrictions. --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:09, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

I'll keep that in mind. I understand, I have had history. I'll keep myself in check going forward. Rusted AutoParts 23:17, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

@Rusted AutoParts: Cool. The restriction has been there a long time and it's completely possible you even forgot about it. It would be a shame if you were to be blocked without at least someone tapping you on the shoulder to remind you. --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:21, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

ID'ing long term abusers

Nice work on stomping those latest socks of Gabriella~four.3-6. I incorrectly surmised that the socks were Bambifan, but I don't have enough experience/history with long-term abusers to know who's who. I wish there was a talk page template for articles repeatedly targeted by socks. If there was some kind of note on Talk:Monster High to say that "this article has been repeatedly edited by sockpuppets of Gabriella~four.3-6", then I would have filed my SPI under the right name. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 14:40, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

@Drm310: Sometimes a quick review of the article history will make the sock apparent. I have a script that shows blocked accounts with a strikethrough, so they're easy to spot in the history (linked here if you're interested). Having a template on the article would only provide the sock master with more of the attention and many of them (sadly) crave. --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 15:47, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

That would be great, but where is the monobook.js file located? --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 17:21, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

You create it as a subpage in your userspace (ie User:Drm310/common.js) then plop the scripts you want in there. You can see mine here. There's a pretty comprehensive list of available scripts here.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:35, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Also, the "importScript" is technically deprecated, though it still works at the moment and should for the next while; the new official way of installing this script would be by adding the line mw.loader.load("/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Gadget-markblocked.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript"); to the common.js subpage that Ponyo mentioned, instead of the importScript thing the page mentions. Not strictly necessary to worry about right now, but the WMF doesn't seem to mind removing things flagged as deprecated without further warning, as shown by recent events, so it doesn't hurt to be prepared. :) Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:45, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

And that↑ is why we pay you the big bucks, Writ Keeper; you're an absolute star! I apologize in advance for the wailing and gnashing of the teeth I will demonstrate when my scripts all stop working, though you have clearly advised me in an advance that the end is near and I did absolutely nothing to mitigate the potential damage beforehand.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:51, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

This only works with monobook? Also, it's very faint, I find it hard to see. But still, it's great! Doug Weller talk 18:18, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) It works with Vector for me - Arjayay (talk) 18:57, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks everyone! This is a great tool. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 18:59, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bsnwisbr

Hello. Could you please take a look at it and see if there's technical evidence enough to connect them, or if they're meat puppets and not sock puppets? I feel I can't formally request a CU-check, since it's one named account plus a number of IPs (that don't geolocate to the same area...) that I connect to each other based only on "behavioural evidence" (i.e. all quacking in unison...). - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 20:44, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

NeilN has (smartly) semi-protected the article in question, so I don't really see a need to check the IPs. Also, it's pretty simple to switch user agents if one is so inclined, so checking the IPs against each other wouldn't likely wield much information.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:50, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Clean-up help

Hello! I hope you can join in cleaning-up K-drama pages and their international broadcast sections as they are in violation of Wiki guidelines (Wiki is not a catalog/ TV guide). It's also a breeding ground for promotion from streaming sites, legal or not. It's an exclusive feature of these series, US/UK shows don't have it.

For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_Lovers:_Scarlet_Heart_Ryeo#International_broadcast If that's not a list Wiki opposes looks like, I don't know what is. Thanks! Chiefyuks (talk) 03:15, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

I already have an overflowing plate of responsibilities and activities, but I wish you luck on your clean-up project.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 15:59, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

The Wiggles

ok thank you and Yes the Edit was right .. the 2 Albums are right Jena (talk) 23:04, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Madhesi people

Dear Sir, Please check all these references from independent journals, there is no where that Madhesis are Indian origin people. Only Indian women who marries Madhesi man are Naturalized nepalis or Indian origin people (27.34.19.186 (talk) 15:40, 2 June 2017 (UTC))

references unneeded here
REFERENCES : References

• As I noted when I was pinged to the talk page, this is a content dispute that I have no intention of getting involved in. See this page for suggestions as to how to resolve the dispute.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:07, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Abuser advice

I'd like some advice on dealing with Atomic Meltdown. I'm contacting you as an IP to avoid alerting him to it, because he's now wikihounding me. Lately, rather than bothering with accounts, he's been editing via dynamic IPs. I haven't dealt with very many cases like him, and I've probably spoiled it by trying to treat him like a person, because now he's making it very personal, retaliating against me (whose most powerful tool is rollback). I appreciate the help of admins in executing blocks when I report a sock, but I'm wondering if there's any more institutional support for dealing with him, especially with his current modus operandi (which doesn't even try to hide who he is, so it really isn't even socking). AIV requires "warning" him repeatedly, which just gives him more strokes and wastes my time. Page protection has helped a little, but 1) he knows how to get around it and 2) he knows how to outwait it... and it's useless when he just decides to troll whatever pages I'm working on, like he's doing now. Reporting to LTA sounds right, but the form there is intimidating as hell, and almost sounds like a reward. Any help? -JAQ 208.54.40.213 (talk) 20:52, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

The best advice I can give, should semi-protection and WP:RBI fail, is to keep a subpage in your userspace where you can track the IPs they are using. You can link to this page at AIV (or other venues) to easily show reviewing admins that's it's an LTA. I find that when admins, especially those who may not be aware of the antics of a specific sock, can easily see the pattern of disruption and block evasion they are more likely to take action. I can't think of any examples off the top of my head, however MarnetteD may know where we track the IPs from Northern Ireland who plagued film articles. --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:08, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

There are any number of LTA's to use as a template. The one Ponyo mentions is Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/109.151.65.218. Others include Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Best known for IP and Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Cebr1979. It is possible that you could ask for help in creating one at the help desk. Of course you can also file reports at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Atomic Meltdown if he isn't hiding who he is. One point - as far as I know IPs can't use rollback. Ponyo will correct me if I am wrong. Best regards. MarnetteD|Talk 21:32, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

I knew pinging you would reap benefits! And no, IPs do not have rollback. Their only option is to "undo".--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:49, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

I am happy to help. It looks like chicken is the meal of the moment. See the delightful posts by Softlavender here User talk:Softlavender#Editor of the Week. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 22:23, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

"me (whose most powerful tool is rollback)" meant that I have rollback (when I'm logged in). It's a weak advantage, and I mentioned it to underscore the fact that the few tools that I have against his edit-warring, block evasion, and personal attacks... aren't very effective. Hence my request for help. -JAQ 172.56.11.241 (talk) 22:36, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

I hear, and empathize, with your frustration.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:42, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

One big problem with me compiling a list of his IP addresses in my userspace is that it would just make things worse for me. Every time I take or ask for any action against him, it redraws the target on my back. He doesn't see any of this as Wikipedia telling him to go away, he sees it as his battle with me, because I've been foolish enough to try to help. And frankly I'm getting tired of taking the brunt of it. -JAQ 208.54.40.155 (talk) 02:39, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Well, reporting the IPs to SPI (as suggested) turned out to be a waste of my time.[9] -JAQ 208.54.40.216 (talk) 18:51, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

The close was correct; no admin will block a dynamic IP that hasn't edited in days as it will have zero effect in limiting disruption.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:58, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

So why was I encouraged to do it? -JAQ 208.54.40.216 (talk) 20:35, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

I've reread our discussion here and I don't see where I suggested opening an SPI to list IPs that were used days and weeks ago. I'm also not entirely sure what it is that you expect of me; you asked for my advice and I gave you advice. You seem very frustrated by this issue and note that you're "tired of taking the brunt of it". If that's the case perhaps you'd consider stepping away and recharging? Maybe rediscover what drew you to editing in the beginning?-Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 15:48, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Marnette suggested it. The IPs weren't all stale, but apparently they were by the time someone finally looked at the report. As for what I expected? I kind of expected you to care. I've put a lot of time and effort into keeping an eye out for that bastard and reporting him, and now I'm getting hounded and harassed for it. I thought that might raise the stakes a little, beyond just another blocked editor refusing to get the point again. But instead your advice is to just let him disparage me and vandalize the articles I've worked on? What drew me to editing WP was an environment where it was safe to contribute... no amount of "recharging myself" will fix that. -JAQ 172.56.11.166 (talk) 00:54, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

So I guess that non-response confirms that you don't care. Which probably means you also won't care that he's not just hounding me on-wiki, but also researching me off-wiki to better harass me here. My question is this: is there anything anyone can do to help me, or am I just another victim of Wikipedia's institutional indifference to the people it uses? –JAQ 208.54.40.175 (talk) 03:15, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Anon user in reverting spree

Hello! This IP editor has caught my attention when they keep on reverting edits by users they deem as sockpuppets (not proven yet, and the geog location are scattered) just because they edit a page she monitors. I hope you can intervene as I think it's disruptive.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/112.198.73.9 91.192.88.181 (talk) 04:07, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Excuse me but, is this 91.192.88.181 the same person as 96.48.254.221, 46.237.104.190 and 191.205.214.6? It looks like same agenda of posting same messages on admin users? -112.198.73.9 (talk) 01:08, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Mom (film)

Hi P, I'm seeing quite a bit of marketing-style traffic at Mom (film). As I look through the history it's like a who's who of sockpuppets: Mnaqvii, Ishq Hawa Mein, Barthateslisa, then more recently AdnanAliAfzal (April 24 as Enaya Afzal). Momthemovie was an obviously promotional account as is Zeepicture (Zee films is the prod company). Wikimarple appears to be there to drum up promotions.[10][11] SPA Bollyfreak signed up to tell us how many views the film's trailer received. JaiHoHeisenberg came out of a year's retirement to upload a poster and rearrange the cast list. (WTF?, really? That was really bothering you, dude?) Anyhow, something's fishy, but I'm not sure what can be done other than checking some of the old socks for new socks? Opinions appreciated. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:06, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb: I blocked Bollyfreak and Wikimarple without tags as  Confirmed to each other. I also checked JaiHoHeisenberg. I don't believe that any of these accounts is related to Mnaqvii, Barthateslisa, or AdnanAliAfzal. I'm not familiar with Ishq Hawa Mein. Ponyo may be able to do more if she wishes.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:07, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb: No, the JaiHoHeisenberg CU info isn't lining up with anyone obvious for me either. Is the socking bad enough the edit-confirmed protection might be needed?--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:14, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for looking guys. B, was there any reason why you omitted the tags? Is that just because no SPI was filed? Should I add 'em? P, I've semi-ed for a week. The film is being released in a month, so I guess the promoters are scrambling. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:59, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb: A lot of times when I'm checking outside an SPI and I find a couple of straggling socks unconnected to anyone else, I don't tag.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:17, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

@Bbb23: Okay, thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:24, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Re: Renato Margaça

Hi there PONYO, from Portugal,

fair enough, you don't think he falls into the "Cypriot people of Portuguese descent" category when it is sourced in the second ref that he was called to the Cyprus national football team (in order to do so, he would have to naturalized, period). I'll avoid any further edit warring over that, don't want to be a nuisance even though my edit was 100% correct.

However, he has been capped twice by said football team, so i am going to reinstate the "Cypriot footballers" category (sources? Here it is, external link #2 https://www.national-football-teams.com/player/67486/Renato_Margaca.html). Furthermore, i'll take the matter to WP:FOOTY, revert me again and the onus will not fall on me anymore, as i won't be adding the (CORRECT) category anymore, article stays incomplete. I will also be highlighting your name in said thread, so that you can drop your two cents if you wish to do so.

Attentively --Quite A Character (talk) 20:17, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

the content/cat clear enough. It was supported by http://www.cfa.com.cy/Gr/news/29840 (use google translate) Matthew_hk tc 20:53, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

@Quite A Character: and @Matthew hk: The categories were removed in compliance with WP:BLPCAT which states "Category names do not carry disclaimers or modifiers, so the case for each content category must be made clear by the article text and its reliable sources" (emphasis mine). The categories can be restored as long as there is content in the article supporting their inclusion along with reliable sources verifying the content.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:02, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Our IP hopper

Hello P. The N. Ireland ip hopper is now 31.48.57.179 (talk · contribs). MarnetteD|Talk 21:31, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Their ears must have been burning as a result your post a few threads up! Blocked now.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:05, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

"Plonk?" Usenet victimveteran? Anmccaff (talk) 22:42, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

"I respectfully invoke my rights under the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution on the grounds that answering questions may incriminate me."--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:51, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

No fairs! You're from Alta Washington, not Baja BC! Anmccaff (talk) 23:54, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

• (talk page stalker) <pcmode off> I use "plonk" too, and have done so since before the floodgates were opened and the uneducated masses started to infest invade the 'Net. <pcmode on> - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 22:17, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

@Thomas.W: This line from the article is awesome "Whereas the regular September freshman influx would quickly settle down, the influx of new users from AOL did not end". Whilst reading it I imagined scenes from World War Z where they zombies piled up so quickly they could scale walls and buildings.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:24, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

That is exactly how it felt, a never-ending flood of new users more interested in disrupting and destroying everything than discussing anything... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 22:32, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Powers Boothe

I knew Powers personally. He was married to Pamela Cole until the time of his passing. He only had two children. The divorce and remarriage is sourced from a tabloid and is completely fabricated. Can you please remove the false information from his Wikipedia page. If you need additional information verifying that my edits are accurate I will be happy to provide it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.177.184.141 (talk) 20:51, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

As material added to Wikipedia must be verifiable, what you know personally is not relevant. What is included in articles is material that is supported by reliable sources. In this case the source is The Guardian, which meets Wikipedia criteria for reliable sourcing. If you believe the article is in error, please open a discussion on the article talk page. Thank you, --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:13, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Disruptive editing related to Islamic State

Hello. An IP-editor using 2605:E000:5B0D:9000:* (static broadband connection: Time Warner Cable, Inglewood, CA; all IPs in that subnet are obviously the same individual, see contributions) is repeatedly, and very disruptively, adding the Islamic State, with flagicon and everything, to the infobox of virtually every recent terrorist incident (see Special:Contributions/2605:E000:5B0D:9000:F46D:1A12:7755:A396, one of the IPs in the subnet) in spite of no such connection having been confirmed. And has been doing so for a while, so would it be possible to slap a range-block on them? - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 21:44, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

@Thomas.W: Although I'm not thrilled that only one warning has ever been provided to any of the IPs, this type of drive-by disruption is nearly impossible to quell without an attention-getting block. I've soft blocked the range for one week with a note that the block can be undone if the editor chooses to discuss their edits. Hopefully this helps. --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:57, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

All of their edits have been reverted, by multiple editors, but unfortunately most editors don't seem to see any point in issuing warnings to IPs, assuming that they will use another IP next time, and never even see the warnings they get... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 22:01, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

I definitely understand the frustration of dealing with such edits (and editors). --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:06, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Question '?'

Because I have you and Materialscientist on my watchlist to see your amazing edits I found where you said it was RD2: Grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material, a few moments after I reverted the IP address's discussion. What exactly did you do though? Dinah Kirkland (talk) 21:54, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

@Dinah Kirkland: I removed the content from view using revision deletion.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:00, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Oh that's why I couldn't view it afterwords. I'm glad I wasn't the only on who saw it. I followed it word. I think we need a notice for newcomers saying: Be careful what you say. Someone may be watching. Creepy but useful. Dinah Kirkland (talk) 22:02, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Legal threat

Hello Ponyo. Since you seem to be the one who recently blocked 136.152.142.35, I also wanted to let you know that this editor also made a legal threat here (just in case you have not noticed and this may require further intervention). Appears to be the same as blocked impersonator Duffbeerformee and possibly is McCauley (I of course can't confirm this)... Thanks, —PaleoNeonate - 09:26, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I saw the "legal threat" which is what drew my attention to them in the first place.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:47, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Super. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate - 23:00, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Block evasion by Shingling334

Hello. A month ago, after a discussion on WP:ANI, you range-blocked IPs in Ipswich, UK that were used by Shingling334 (who's apparently studying there...), which has kept them off air for a while, but they have now resurfaced in Turkey (school's out, and they're Turkish...), doing their signature edits on the 212.108.137.0/24 range (a range with no collateral damage since all edits from 2017 seem to be Shingling), see Special:Contributions/212.108.137.60 and Special:Contributions/212.108.137.162. A place which isn't a surprise since a check of the page history of some of their favourite targets shows that they edited from the exact same geolocation last summer too. So could you please block that range for a few weeks? - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 12:47, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

• Two more IP-ranges used by Shingling334 with no collateral damage at all since the only one using them is Shingling: 185.24.80.0/24 and 185.24.81.0/24, the latter having been used by Shingling on Tzatziki today, continuing the edits of Special:Contributions/212.108.137.60 after that IP got blocked. The two ranges are both static IPs belonging to a company in Crowborough, UK, and are most probably being accessed through VPN or because of being a web host, since Shingling apparently is in Turkey right now. And, in case you wonder, there's no doubt whatsoever about it being Shingling... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 14:42, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

• He has also been active on 212.108.138.0/24 (only three IPs in that /24-range have ever edited en-WP, one of them this summer and the other two last summer, all three of them with all probability being Shingling...), i.e. right next to the IP-range mentioned in my first post above. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 14:54, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

 Tom | Thomas.W Could this possibly have anything to do with wjat happened here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/784751725 (you can see it anymore) on https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Materialscientist page or could that just be random vandalism or personal attack by a random IP address? Dinah Kirkland (talk) 14:56, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

@Dinah Kirkland: No, there's no connection between that IP and the IPs above. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 15:22, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Alright then. If I see these IP's your discussing I'll let you know. Dinah Kirkland (talk) 15:27, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

• @Thomas.W: I've blocked the following ranges:

• 212.108.137.0/24 appears to be used solely for socking so I blocked it for 3 months
• 185.24.81.0/24 blocked three months; it's being used currently and there doesn't appear to be any collateral
• 212.108.138.0/24 only one IP address has been used on this range and it hasn't been used in weeks. If he returns to this range I will block it at that time.
• 185.24.80.0/24 only one IP address has been used on this range and it it is now stale. If he returns to this range I will block it at that time.

• I chose three months as the block duration as this will cover the summer holiday period.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:06, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

• He's now on 185.24.82.0/24 (same company in the UK as the ones listed above). No collateral damage there either... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 19:18, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Got it.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:57, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

• And he's now using 185.24.83.0/24, also same company as above (who apparently have 185.24.80.0/24 to 185.24.83.0/24), and with no collateral damage there either. See Special:Contributions/185.24.83.150. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 09:59, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

@Thomas.W: blocked.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:23, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

• Now editing as Special:Contributions/212.108.138.228, i.e. the 212.108.138.0/24 you commented about above, saying you would block the range it he returned to it. No collateral damage there either, since the only one who has used that range on en-WP is Shingling... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 13:00, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

@Thomas.W: It looks like JamesBWatson has taken care of it.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:06, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Bomis

Hello, Ponyo! I notice you revdel’d some recent vandalism at Bomis, which you also semi-protected. When I wandered by just now I found some pretty ugly stuff that I think must have been missed by accident. I reverted to the last clean version—which was also the last visible to me—but you may want to have another go with mop & scrubbing brush, as what I reverted will still be visible in the history, and I guess it was in a similar vein to what you found revdel-worthy.—Odysseus1479 15:57, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

P.S. I got confused by an intervening revdel followed by a few presumably useful bot edits, and although I restored a more recent one I think it may still be a couple too far back. Rather than restore a third one and further complicating the history, I’m asking you to make sure the most recent good version is shown. Sorry about the mess; I plead insufficient caffeination. (16:17, 10 June 2017 (UTC))

Thanks Odysseus1479, I've rev-deleted two additional entries.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:15, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Airkeeper and G5s

I see you blocked Airkeeper for block evasion of an indeffed account when I came across their pages in the New Pages backlog. How would you suggest moving forward with their article creations all of which were created in violation of the original block. Just bringing it up to you first before assessing for G5 since you were the blocking admin. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:54, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Any of the creations that do not have significant edits by others are eligible for G5 deletion, though I see another admin has gone through and declined the majority of the G5 requests despite the articles meeting the criteria. That's their prerogative, of course, though I'm sure it just entices the sock master to continue creating accounts as there are zero consequences in doing so.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:12, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

One person? Three?

Hi P: what do you make of this edit history? Are we talking about one person on an office chair shuttling around the NYC Health & Hospitals Corporation using multiple computers, or are we talking about three people editing simultaneously? I don't think I've seen this style of editing in a while. Unique! I imagine it's hard to juggling bedpans and promote a non-notable Indian film at the same time. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:18, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Technically, the IPs all appear to be a single person spinning through a dynamic range like a Tasmanian devil. If necessary, you could anon block 64.251.40.0/24 for a short period (e.g. 1 - 3 days) without worrying about collateral.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:27, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

67.248.187.171 misuse of talk while blocked

• 67.248.187.171 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Hi there. This IP, which you recently blocked, may need its talk page access removed. Thanks. Murph9000 (talk) 18:42, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Done, thanks.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:44, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

JulianRonald

• Kevinschaffer (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• JulianRonald (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Hi there. This new user's initial activity seems somewhat odd and possibly worth a look from you. He has created a LTA case and tagged a bunch of old blocked accounts as socks of Kevinschaffer, who seems to have had a thing with you in the past. I can't see how he has connected all of the accounts without having personal knowledge of them. I couldn't see an existing SPI case for this one, otherwise I'd have just flagged it there. I used the CU template above not as a request for CU (unless you or someone thinks that is needed and appropriate), just as a convenient no-ping link with admin links. Murph9000 (talk) 19:20, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Who the hell is Kevin Schaffer? New account blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:41, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Someone who is not nearly as clever as they think they are. Thanks for stepping in with the block.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:24, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Recent block of Alyssa Nutter

Not sure if this changes anything, but the user account was created following a 48-hour block of 69.47.136.111. This user then proceeded to make the exact same edits as the IP did, swiping across the same articles once every 24 hours or so. While I agree a block was needed at this point, I think a longer one (perhaps a week) is probably called for. --GoneIn60 (talk) 22:40, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

I did note that they were likely the same user, but I'm hoping the 24 hour block of their named account will be enough to dissuade them for continued edit warring. If after the 24 hours they return to edit war under any account or IP I'll definitely extend the block length. If you see them pop up anywhere else, or if the disruption picks up again when the block expires, please drop me a note.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:46, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

OK, will do. Thank you. --GoneIn60 (talk) 23:05, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Sorry to bear bad news. She's baack.... as 69.47.136.111 just edited Pirates 4-D, same exact edits as before. Oddjob84 (talk) 23:24, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I've blocked the IP as well as the associated account for 1 week.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:33, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Re: Block

Thanks for blocking that troll, Save.the.pepe (talk · contribs · count). FYI, this is a sock of D.Pearson (talk · contribs · count). Thanks, GAB^gab 23:22, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I knew I had seen the "Morty" bit before but didn't want to waste my time trying to connect the dots. So many socks, so little time! --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:26, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

More India issues

Hi P. This guy is causing me some concern, already because he's such a problematic editor, but also because I think he could be socking, and the account I suspect of being a puppet has Naagin stuff in their user page. I don't know. Maybe I'm getting old and paranoid... If you have time, your expert eyes would be appreciated, but no pressure. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:12, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Cyphoidbomb It's  Possible it could be this master, though I haven't done a close behavioural check.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:07, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Love is in the air...

Hey P, This appears to be Ishq Hawa Mein but I'm not familiar enough with the farm yet as I don't dwell in this area these days. Could you take a look please? cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 15:31, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

That would be affirmative, SpacemanSpiff. Blocked and tagged.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:00, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Second opinion + suspicious SPA cluster

Hi,

Hope all's well. Just wanted to get a second opinion on this guy. The day after he started editing, he received an urgent request from a sock of Mandalesshwar Singh (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki). Both this new account and the master/previous socks are interested in Indian media and pop culture. Furthermore, one of the account's articles, Paritosh Tripathi, has a cluster of suspicious SPAs:

• Group 1 - Adding details on the subject's love life:
  • Kunal.kumar84 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) [12]
  • SurajSingh1988 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) [13]
• Group 2 - Removing details on the subject's love life:
  • Akash.singh81 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) [14]
  • JeevanKumar2009 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) [15]

Similarities between these two groups are obvious in terms of username format: Firstname.lastname8* and FirstnameLastname****. Plus the repeated use of the surnames "Singh" and "Kumar". This is also worth noting.

I'd appreciate your insight and advice on whether this is worth pursuing further. Thanks,

GAB^gab 23:30, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

GAB, I've run a check and there are some connections. Can you copy your message above into an SPI and I'll lay out my findings. Thanks, --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:15, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

 Done - Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MrRock9. Thanks again for your diligence. GAB^gab 16:52, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

SPI updated and marked as checked.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:57, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Back

A sock of someone. One word lowercase, Indian films, intersection at Telugu cinema with Padma. Expertise demonstrated in early edits, aaaaaand the same perfunctory user page formatting as Padma. My guess is: Padma. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 13:32, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

• Hate to throw a spanner in the works (or monkey wrench in the works for you Cyphoid) but this could also be Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/RajtheEmperor in which case CU may be time sensitive :) cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 14:37, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

The technical data aligns more closely with Padmalakshmisx. The geolocation and ISP spot on and the behaviour dovetails with other socks.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:34, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

And they have also now created Avalandhaan4 which is  Technically indistinguishable. It should be blocked as well.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:42, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Just some of the re-creations were from the Raj account, but then I guess it happens quite often when multiple farms compete for the same business as is being done at Draft talk:Kobi Arad where Earflaps seems to be losing business to another group! —SpacemanSpiff 03:37, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Exactly. This is what makes paid editing so hard to pin down via SPI; you have multiple groups and individuals vying for the same paycheck which throws off the technical data. Behavioural evidence is crucial in such cases.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:16, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

SPI

Could you please take a look at the following SPI [16]? No idea why it is being "backburnered" (or outright ignored), but it hasn't been touched since filed. Thanks. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 18:52, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

A quick glance provides plenty of likely reasons as to why it has not been acted on yet. For checkusers and clerks unfamiliar with the case a reading of the SPI archives to familiarize themselves is daunting due to the extremely long threads there, the accounts in question have thousands of edits between them, and the master and the confirmed socks are all  Stale. If a clerk reviews the evidence and endorses it for checkuser I will take a look if another CU doesn't get there in the meantime. I will copy this note to the SPI as well.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:12, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Can you help me understand how are either of the suspected socks in this case stale? -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 19:27, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

I didn't say they were ("the master and the confirmed socks are all  Stale").--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:29, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

I see. Thanks. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 20:16, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Jeremy Meeks (model)

Why was "Jeremy Meeks (model)" deleted without an AFD if the speedy deletion tag was disputed and removed by multiple individuals? --Jax 0677 (talk) 20:51, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

It did go through an AfD here and the newly created article 1) didn't address the original reasons that resulted in the deletion and 2) was more poorly developed and referenced than the article that was originally deleted. If the article creator wants it userfied to improve on it to get it over the WP:CSD#G4 hurdle that's fine.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:54, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi Ponyo. It looks like G4 doesn't apply. G4 states that it excludes "pages to which the reason for the deletion no longer applies." The AfD consensus in 2014 was to delete because Jeremy Meeks was famous for a single incident, his mug shot going viral. The article written in 2017 was still a stub, but about half the content was about his modeling career. The references were primarily about his working as a model, because Jeremy Meeks has gained notability in the last year through his frequent and well-received work as a model. So I'm not sure how to proceed. Should I request to have both versions userified and just make sure that a new combined version has more current references about his current modeling work than the most recently deleted version had? Or can only the person who created the article request userification?--DavidK93 (talk) 01:43, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Or would it be appropriate to initiate a deletion review, in light of new information (Jeremy Meek's modeling career subsequent to the AfD)? --DavidK93 (talk) 01:47, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

@Ponyo: Just trying to get clarity before proceeding. As an admin, can I just ask you to undelete the main Jeremy Meeks article (rather than "Jeremy Meeks (model)"), in light of the new developments on the topic? If not, should I proceed with a deletion review? Here are some references that I believe show that Jeremy Meeks has achieved notability as a model and public figure, and is no longer famous for one event as he was at the time of the AfD in 2014:

• http://www.tmz.com/2017/06/22/jeremy-meeks-pays-tribute-bella-hadid-postmates-spoof-amber-rose/
• http://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-news/jeremy-meeks-hot-convict-mugshot-9815772
• http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/hot-convict-jeremy-meeks-banned-enterting-london-article-1.3098760
• https://www.forbes.com/sites/declaneytan/2017/06/21/hot-convict-turned-male-model-jeremy-meeks-talks-milan-fashion-week-and-lee-daniels-meeting
• http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-4625874/Hot-Felon-Jeremy-Meeks-continues-look-good-Malibu.html
• http://www.cosmopolitan.com/uk/entertainment/a10046706/hot-felon-jeremy-meeks-shirtless-milan-fashion-week/
• http://www.intouchweekly.com/posts/jeremy-meeks-hot-felon-model-135010/photos/jeremy-meeks-mug-shot-165929

--DavidK93 (talk) 19:40, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

@DavidK93: When we are dealing with BLPs it's imperative that we do so with an eye to neutrality, sourcing and balance. Both articles hung their hat on Meeks' criminal history and his "hot" mugshot followed essentially by "...and now he models sometimes too". The newly deleted article was even sparser and more poorly sourced than the original. Of the references you list above, only the Forbes article really meets WP:BLPSOURCES. So as I stated before, I can userfy the newly deleted article, however it will need to be improved significantly before being moved to article space in order to avoid another G4 or AfD deletion.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:46, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

@Ponyo: Thanks. It's difficult for me to comment further, since I can't see the older article at all. For now, can you please userfy the most recently deleted article for me? Can you also userfy the most robust revision of the older article? What is the subsequent procedure to move (or seek to have it moved) it to article space? The userfication essay provides information on how and why to userfy, but nothing I see about next steps, especially for an article that was previously deleted by AfD consensus. --DavidK93 (talk) 12:21, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

@DavidK93: The most recent article is here. I can't restore the original article as the page is a current redirect, so I've emailed you the content.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:12, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

@Ponyo: Received! Thank you. --DavidK93 (talk) 23:01, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

No problem, and good luck. Please ensure your sources are solid.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:06, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

• For the record, for Jax0677 to come here and claim that there was no AfD is completely dishonest. Not only was there an AfD, he participated in it. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:50, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

I think there may be some issues with interpreting nuance, which is more of a "you have it or you don't" sort of thing which can't be improved by boning up on policies and guidelines. I don't think anyone was being purposefully untruthful.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:54, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

• The claim was that it was deleted without an AfD discussion. There clearly was (and Jax knows that). Merely changing the title of the article doesn't negate the previous discussion. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:29, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

R/D

Hello P. The Ref Desk troll was at it again. I think that these need looking at to see if the should be R/D'd. Hopefully someone will have gotten to it before you see this but I wanted to let you know just in case. Thanks for your time. MarnetteD|Talk 04:27, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi MarnetteD! The diffs were still there, so I've rev-deleted them.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:47, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you P. MarnetteD|Talk 20:54, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi again. I just came across this. It is nonsense of course but it IMO it also has WP:BLP implications. I wanted to see what you thought. Best regards. MarnetteD|Talk 01:10, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

What is wrong with people?! And the patroller left some ridiculously soft "please leave a source next time" message without actually putting any thought into what the content they were asking the IP to source actually stated. (Sorry to Huggle/Twinkle new changes patrollers, but this is a pet peeve of mine). I've rev-deleted the content under CRD#R2 ("Grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material").--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:48, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you P. I get a sense that some editors do not realize how serious BLP violations have become over the years. They might think "Oh this is just teenage puerile nonsense" and revert it. Now this is WP:OR on my part :-) and there is probably more to it than just this. I always appreciate you taking the time to check on this - and so many other things. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 18:28, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Anum Fayyaz

You might like to have a look at this in the light of Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2016_May_24. PamD 17:53, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you - sock now blocked.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:12, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

NI Block evader

Hello Ponyo, regret to inform you that our Northern Ireland block evader has surfaced yet again under 81.104.74.28 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Can you do the usual please? Best regards and thanks, David, David J Johnson (talk) 21:29, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Got it!--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:14, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks for your help. David J Johnson (talk) 21:25, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

IP: 82.40.178.163

Hello Ponyo, Could I just bring to your attention the activities of 82.40.178.163 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who is making many unsourced, unreferenced, edits to TV news and TV articles generally. They have been warned on their Talk page numerous times by other editors, as well as myself - all of which have gone unanswered. May I suggest a short block in the hope that this might bring them into line with Wikipedia conventions? Your help and advice is much appreciated. Regards, David J Johnson (talk) 21:00, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

@David J Johnson: Could you please double check the IP? The one you provided has no contributions.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:02, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello Ponyo, Cannot understand why this has happened, IP:82.40.178.162 is correct - see BBC News (TV channel) for examples. In haste, David, David J Johnson (talk) 21:12, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

It's .163, not .162. I'll take a look.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:16, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake (mastike!). Regards, David J Johnson (talk) 21:20, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

No porblem! I've issued them a short block in the hopes of catching their attention to start sourcing their edits and to communicate with others.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:23, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks for your help, glad it was no "porblem"!! Going to get a early night! David, David J Johnson (talk) 21:25, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

• I regret to state that the IP is back again with the usual unsourced, unreferenced additions, They have also not replied to any comments on their Talk page. I'm afraid a longer block may be necessary. Best, as always, David, David J Johnson (talk) 21:51, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

65.122.245.242

• 65.122.245.242 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Hi,

Given this IPs long history of vandalism, I would argue a longer block for this IP address. It belongs to a school (and school kids are probably Wikipedia's #1 source for vandalism), and there doesn't seem to be any good edits from them at all, as far as I can see. So the likelihood of a good faith editor running into this IP address is very slim, at best and the collateral damage would likely be very minimal... Thanks. 176.67.212.44 (talk) 00:12, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

The IP has been used on a single day in 2016 and a single day in 2017. It's blocked for 72 hours which takes it through the end of this school term. If the next batch of kids through the door carry on the disruption in September then it can be reblocked.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 15:43, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Clarification

Can you explain why you started this on my talkpage? An open discussion was running, so user contact was not needed. Why did you not join the open discussion? It also triggered DoRD within 2 minutes! Can you clarify? -DePiep (talk) 00:57, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Are you asking me why I contacted you on your user talk page to explain why your continued posting to a bot instruction page was incorrect? If so, that's because that's sorta what your talk page is for...communicating. I have no idea what you mean by "an open discussion was running". Where was an open discussion running? On the bot instruction page that clearly states it's not to be edited? Or elsewhere (please provide the link). As you reverted DoRD who had also provided you with the correct talk page to post your message, he was likely going to your talk page to leave precisely the same message I had already left for you.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 15:49, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Never mind, I see the links here and here where you continue your baseless insistence that you must be able to leave messages on the bot instruction page.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:04, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Protection needed

Persistent edit warring by IPs https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nam_Joo-hyuk&action=history — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.243.213.111 (talk) 02:22, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

It's been protected by another admin. The correct venue for requesting protection is WP:RFPP.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 15:51, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protect

Can you semi-protect No More Sad Songs, Feel the Love, Love How It Hurts, My Name (song), All Summer Long (Kid Rock song), Boom Clap, Draft:Music for Cars (album), Galway Girl (Ed Sheeran song), Power (Little Mix song), Malibu (Miley Cyrus song), Disconnect (song). Persistent Long-term abuse of Wikidesctruction vandal. 183.171.183.155 (talk) 18:35, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm heading out for a while. Note that WP:RFPP is the correct venue to make these request.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:39, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

June 30, Talkback

Jhoven Sulla (talk) 04:04, 30 June 2017 (UTC)Hello Ponyo I'm sorry, i was busy and i tagged it to my Jhoven Sulla i can not respond longer and to now, if you warned me and if you want not to come back in Wikipedia, No probs and its ok, i made my mistakens spoken to english, so dissapoint, If you question to me, the User:Bucal, Calamba and User:MarkHerson i answered yes is it correct, No No i do not understand, i replyed to the User talk you that youv'ed tag.

Archive 30

←

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37