User talk:Ponyo/Archive 27

Archive 20

←

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

GabuchAlt

Hi Ponyo, I'm confused by this. Did these findings suggest that Gabucho and Finealt were the same user, or that they were different, or something else? "Justina Sh*t Biebergas" seems like a basic ducky Gabucho ploy, but I thought you had posited the rampant redirections were indicative of Finealt as a unique vandal. Confused! And my head is all swimmy because here I reported Fshvdudbd as a sock of Gabucho181, my edit was somehow moved to the Finealt SPI after you said you thought it looked like Finealt, but then it somehow pointed back to Gabucho in the end and Evergreen said their hunch was correct? I'm totally confused and I'm sure I'm mixing up different things. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:01, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

As you probably know there are a number of socks active in the cartoon arena with plenty of cross-over in interest. Gabucho and Finealt have such similar interests and cross-over, yet they edit from different continents. It could be that one of them is consistently using proxies to obsfucate the connection between the accounts, however as long as there is technical evidence to separate the two it makes sense to keep them as two distinct sock masters. --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:24, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Bunny Meyer

@FreeRangeFrog:, so I wanted to ask you both about this seeing as how it's been speedied twice, both for A7 criteria, and one just only last week. If you take a look at the draft I created Draft:Bunny Meyer, I feel like she meets WP:GNG, and she also passes WP:ENTERTAINER with the following she has. Thoughts? Does she pass the test or should I get the draft deleted? LADY LOTUS • TALK 14:46, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

@Lady Lotus: That's certainly a lot better than what has been deleted so far, but I wouldn't go so far as to say she meets GNG... on the other hand I'm a really bad judge of these outside-mainstream-entertainment bios. It seems it's always the same sources covering them, much like the tech startup walled gardens. But again, much better than what was deleted. I have no problem with recreation. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 16:45, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I see we now have Bunny Meyer, so this appears to have been sorted in my absence. --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:26, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

ACC Request

Please take a look at #137085 in the CU queue. Thanks, DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·ʇuoɔ) WER 18:19, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I've sent DQ a note in response.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:41, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Theryx7

Hi Ponyo, I have a strong feeling that User:Spawn3000 is a clone of blocked User:Theryx7, editing in the same topic area under different name. Spawn3000 started editing 14 hours after Theryx7 was blocked and is pursuing the same agenda and in some cases identical edits. Best, -- Tobby72 (talk) 21:46, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Wow, it's so incredibly obvious I'm surprised no one noticed until now. There is also technical evidence to back up the behavioural match and I've blocked and tagged the account.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:20, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Catching up post-Wikibreak

"You have 11,267 pages on your watchlist (excluding talk pages). Below are the last 393 changes in the last 336 hours, as of March 13, 2015, 10:16." Ummm, this may take a while. --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:19, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

You here?

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Instalok - this is a bit beyond me because of the scale. There are a lot of Fairyspit puppets(including Instalok) and some sleepers so far as I can see. Dougweller (talk) 19:30, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

I posted a  Likely finding at that SPI. If you checked a large range I wouldn't be surprised if the kitchen sink fell out of the sock drawer - the ISPs in that region are ridiculously dynamic, prone to proxy abuse and are a hotbed of sock activity as a result. You can email me with specifics if you'd like. --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:16, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I've done that. Dougweller (talk) 20:25, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Acquanetta

I appreciate that you think I am adding unsubstantiated untrustworthy material to the webpage of my Aunt, and I will continue doing that. If you bothered to read the material, you might be able to make sense of it. My aunt, my mother's sister, with four sisters whom I can provide a picture for which you can examine. My aunt, who at a similar age looked identical to my cousin - a Professor of medicine at Stanford University, among her other achievements. You may seem to think in your arrogant usurpation of "the truth" that you are somehow protecting something, when in fact you are covering up facts which are true. And which I will continue to post, and continue to document fully. So, if you would like to discuss my sources, feel free to contact me. But, perhaps you might actually check and confirm what I posted. Acquanetta had a far more illustrious and accomplished family than the fiction she invented at a time when a racist Hollywood did not want to know that a Black Woman (who is of MIXED ancestry) was co-starring with Johnny Weissmuller in Tarzan. That's exactly why the bigoted columnists at the time tried to "expose" her for their own gossip exploitation and profit. I have the material put together by my grandmother - Acquanetta's MOTHER - and kept by my mother - Acquanetta's SISTER. Her own children know the truth, but aren't trying to broadcast it. They've met my son and all their cousins. So, if you persist, so will I. Feel free to contact me, but I will be changing the information back. Why don't you get off your high-horse and cut the crap. I can document and verify every single claim I make. And, my uncle, Judge Horace A. Davenport, is still alive, in his 90's, but quite coherent. Omnist (talk) 00:42, 14 March 2015 (UTC)omnistOmnist (talk)

I've never had someone so clearly make my argument for me as you did above. Every single thing you have written here is original research and synthesis and it is for these reasons that the material you are adding continues to be removed in accordance with Wikipedia policy. If you read the links I've provided to you, both here and on your talk page, everything will be illuminated for you.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:54, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Hina Khan Edit

Hey Ponyo...the edit you made on Hina Khan's Wiki is incorrect as the 2014 results clearly show that Hina Khan's rank went from 31 to 23...so currently she is 23 on the Top 50 Sexiest Asian Women list.Shayaks (talk) 18:50, 14 March 2015 (UTC)http://www.msn.com/en-in/lifestyle/style/50-most-sexiest-asian-women/ar-BBgkgmhShayaks (talk) 18:50, 14 March 2015 (UTC)http://www.indiawest.com/entertainment/bollywood/priyanka-chopra-named-sexiest-asian-woman-in-uk/article_2a0a9d60-7be4-11e4-ad3d-8fe7b8729e9d.html?mode=jqmShayaks (talk) 18:50, 14 March 2015 (UTC)http://www.dnaindia.com/entertainment/report-priyanka-chopra-beats-katrina-kaif-becomes-the-sexiest-asian-woman-in-uk-again-2040906

@Shayaks: then you need to include a new source in the article when updating the ranking. What you are doing is changing the ranking but leaving the old source which puts her at number 31. This should all be moot as including a woman's subjective "sexiness" ranking in their encyclopedia article is trivial and demeaning, but that's a battle for another day I suppose.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:27, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

found an error

I found another error in WP. Should I correct it? I feel that I should not because some bully may block me. I may correct it in a few hours because usually bullies have short attention spans so if they don't block me soon, then they might not for at least a day or two.

The logic is "why help WP if their representatives (admins) block me?"

Wowee Zowee public (talk) 20:46, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You need to stop using the word "bully" to describe any editor you don't agree with or who provides you with criticisms regarding your editing; you are using it as a personal attack and it is disruptive. If multiple unrelated editors are telling you there is a problem with your editing then there is a problem with your editing. You'd be better served looking inwards as opposed to flinging muck.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:59, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

FYI, Ponyo, I've blocked this user. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:57, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

It was inevitable. "Self-fulfilling prophecy" comes to mind.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:00, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Ponyo. Well I hope your time away was restful or at least useful. Did you miss craziness like this? I suspect not. FWIW the "not being allowed to edit is a death sentence" in WZp's unblock requests kept ringing a bell and then I remembered this brouhaha Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive872#Block evasion by Claudia McHenry.3F from a couple months ago. Especially the "I don't want to be convicted of a murder I didn't commit" stuff. Now this could just be a coincidence and I am not sure that there is any other evidence to tie these two together. Also, I am not asking you to spend any time pursuing it. I guess I am only mentioning it as food for thought and in case the same kind of thing comes up anytime in the future. Enjoy the rest of your weekend! MarnetteD|Talk 00:53, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the dramatics are similar. In this case I have to wonder if we're just dealing with a young misguided CIR user as opposed to outright trolling (though when the result is the same level of disruption the indef block is the inevitable outcome). It's unfortunate how quickly editors are willing to shout "bully" these days. Bullying, both online and off, is very real and very hurtful. Those using it to gain an upper hand in situations where it doesn't apply just dilute the gravity of the issue. --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 01:59, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

So very true. Whenever the right v wrong stuff happens I go back to User:Antandrus/observations on Wikipedia behavior. Even before the online world bullies took advantage of peoples loathing to point it out. In many ways it is worse now that the piling on can be global. Rats. I didn't mean to get on a soapbox. Thanks for being there to listen. MarnetteD|Talk 05:47, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Have you looked at the talk page edits by User:Stephanie Bowman, who jumped in and restored WZP's edits on The Sound of Music (film) during the edit war? Some appear quite mature and thoughtful, but some have thematic elements very similar to those of WZP, notably bullying. WZP edits on aviation-related topics, which also appear on SB's edit list; read this short discussion or this comment about American Airlines, and see the similarities. But most telling are these comments regarding a recall of Guillero. I hear ducks quacking. --Drmargi (talk) 15:48, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Good eye Drmargi! You may be interested in my findings here.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:32, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Well how about them apples? The more I looked at Stephanie Bowman, the more similarities were apparent. At first I wondered if it was a parent allowing a child to use their account, but now it's obvious they're all the same person. SB is likely WZP's home account. MarnetteD and I were chatting about setting up an SPI, but I thought I'd wait until I heard from you; glad you too the bull by the horns and got them all blocked. --Drmargi (talk) 20:55, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks to you Drmargi and you Ponyo for your research. I fear that this wont be the last we see of this person - tho I could be wrong as hope springs eternal - so we will need to keep our spidey senses open to future tingling. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 21:27, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

You're probably right. On the upside, she's so easy to spot. On the downside, it's a lively game of whack-a-mole we're in for! --Drmargi (talk) 22:16, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

There's a fairly solid technical trail now, as well as an SPI page, which should help when following the behavioural breadcrumbs.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:21, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Patronymic name

Hi Ponyo, noticed this edit on Priya Anand's page. It's right that usually the surname should be used in Wikipedia but this rule does not apply to South Indian names since those last names are not family names but patronymics. WP:SURNAME, in fact, says, "where a person does not have a surname but a patronymic...then the proper form of reference is usually the given name". Anand in this case is not a family name, it's the person's father, and therefore the given name should be used here. Veera Dheera Sooran (talk) 16:23, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

That could very likely be the case, however if it's going to differ from the standard practice it should be noted and the deviation confirmed on the talk page. This will save the article see-sawing back and forth for those unaware of the distinction. If the issue where to arise in the future you (or others) could just point to the talk page consensus that the article is a patronymic exception.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:56, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Usually this template is just put at the top of that article so people would know. I will add it to this particular page and that should end this issue. Veera Dheera Sooran (talk) 23:28, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Ponyo. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Brikheshsharma.
Message added 20:01, 16 March 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

This is  Possilikely (a mix between possible and likely) Admirenepal based on behaviour IMO but we'd like your input. Thanks! ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 20:01, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

@Salvidrim!: I've left a note at the SPI as requested. Cheers, --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:51, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Mail

Hark! An electronic parchment has been dispatched to you! Cheers! EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:59, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Zapped.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 00:04, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Javier93h's socks

Hi, you took action almost a year ago at this SPI request I initiated and blocked another sock puppet in a follow-up in November. I would like to bring this very active and extremely suspicious IP to your attention, related to the IP 79.108.144.61 I flagged in the original request. Cheers, --Hvd69 (talk) 11:39, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

That's pretty obvious block evasion; the IP is stable so I've blocked it for a good bit.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:57, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! --Hvd69 (talk) 16:02, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

User talk:EmmyTop24User

Just FYI. Cheers ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:02, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Mujhideen101's socks

Hello, Ponyo. I want to inform you that, apparently, banned user Mujhideen101 returned once again via another sock puppet. You already banned his sock More1001 in February (his contributions - [1]), and now he's back as Lolooh45 (his contributions - [2])... IMHO, this is a clear DUCK. --Sundostund (talk) 13:25, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Lolooh45 (talk · contribs), Afghan233 (talk · contribs) and Afghanistan07 (talk · contribs) all  Confirmed and blocked. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 14:15, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, DoRD! --Sundostund (talk) 14:21, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, thank you DoRD! --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:37, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

D Y Patil

You have edited the page of honourable Dr.DYPatil last. Some changes need to made Firstly he has 2 more sons in Kolhapur City 1 elder son - Dr. Sanjay D Patil 2 younger son - Satej D Patil Many more details can be updated regarding this great man from Kolhapur India — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.66.22.39 (talk) 20:09, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia includes relevant and sourced material in biography articles. Unless the material is reliably sourced and the individuals are themselves notable, the additional names cannot be included. --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:39, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	When I saw the promotional material at Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects, I was going to remove it, but it seems you beat me to it. Good job :) ToonLucas22 (talk) 22:10, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

• Trying to keep promotional fluff off of (wow, I don't think I've ever strung those three words together before!) Wikipedia is like trying to clean the Augean stables without Hercules. Thanks for the thanks.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:16, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Another Request

Since you've just page-protected Gravity Falls (season 2), would it be at all possible if you could also page-protect Gravity Falls, to prevent the same sockpuppets from reinserting the same original research rumor-mongering into that page, too?--Mr Fink (talk) 23:00, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

The disruption there hasn't been as bad, so I'm hesitant to apply the same protection. As a compromise I've watchlisted the article and will go ahead and protect if there's an uptick in socking etc. Sound good?--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:07, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

You sure like delete people stuff on here huh!!

Dilip Shanghvi

Extend PC time? --George Ho (talk) 07:38, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Done!--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:13, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

YGM

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.

EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:40, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Got it.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:31, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

The user Black Jack

I also have him under another possible sockpuppet investigation, here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vamsiraj On another note-a AFD I put up oddly never got on the AFD page, here: 1st Demo not sure what happened. Wgolf (talk) 17:33, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I provided some info at the SPI. Not sure what's happened with your AfD - did you use Twinkle? If so I can't help as I've never used it. You may have to complete the nom manually using the steps at WP:AFDHOW2.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:05, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Curiosity, mostly

Hi Ponyo, Is this based on CU or behavior? I could smell Editless941 from a mile away (just didn't know who he was a sock of), but Marcos12 didn't strike me the same way. both already blocked indef by me, so I suppose it doesn't matter. But I'm a little surprised they're the same person. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:43, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

It was a combination. Behaviourally William Pina socks like to edit each other's pages and have an interest in tech/computer-related articles. The correspondence between Marcos and Editless941 (who is confirmed to the suspected Pina sock User:WhiteWindow) makes no sense. CU-wise they are editing from the same small geographic region in the same state. I left the tag as "suspected" though as there is room for error of course!--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:03, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Duck sock

Hello, you recently blocked undertaker2015 for checkuser block evasion. Sarah jolie2015 is a duck sock that requires attention. Thank you. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:38, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Got it. I suspect there is paid editing going on here so they will likely keep trying to recreate the same articles. Let me know if you see them pop up again. --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:49, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

your suspicion was correct John leo007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:46, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Blocked and tagged. Thanks for the head's up.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 15:59, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

49.244.239.31

I think 49.244.239.31 (talk · contribs) is Admirenepal. - Sitush (talk) 13:37, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Also 49.244.250.109 (talk · contribs) - Sitush (talk) 13:45, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Probably 49.244.236.182 (talk · contribs) + 49.244.234.115 (talk · contribs) + 49.244.232.144 (talk · contribs) too! This is getting ridiculous - I wonder how many more people are editing via Nepal Telecom from Kathmandu? No chance at all of a range block, alas. - Sitush (talk) 13:48, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Is that vandalism, what they're doing, Sitush? I mean, I'm ignorant of the significance of the different names for Paudel and such-like. But if it is, the range that you've indicated so far can be blocked. It's only a /19. I love blocking /19s. :-) But I'll let Ponyo reply. Bishonen | talk 14:34, 28 March 2015 (UTC).

If you look at my recent edits, you'll see a fair few other IPs being reverted, all of whom appear to be the same person. The problems have spanned many policy areas, including V, POV, DUE, PROMO. They seem to have decided not to bother registering accounts, probably because there have been so many already detected per the SPI reports. There are some BEANS in their current edit summaries. - Sitush (talk)

@Bishonen: Although it's a small range it cannot be blocked. The entire region runs all their traffic through a very very small network and that means there are literally hundreds of accounts/editors on each IP. The traffic is crazy, otherwise I would have been very happy to stick a cork in it much earlier. --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:13, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

@Sitush: I've applied some liberal semi-protection to a number of the most targeted articles. Let me know if there are more obvious holes that need to be plugged. --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:22, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Oh, wow, good job I consulted you, Ponyo. There are obviously wrinkles in this rangeblock malarkey that I don't understand at all. Bishonen | talk 16:29, 28 March 2015 (UTC).

The Nepalese range is certainly the exception to the rule from what I've seen as a CU. It's like shoving an enormous mound of Play Doh through a few tiny holes. --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:39, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

I should imagine that the terrain and the population distribution in Nepal lend themselves to this situation. That, at any event, was why I thought we couldn't range block. Thanks for doing what you have done, Ponyo - we're having quite a couple of hours of it, rummaging through the drawers! - Sitush (talk) 17:31, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, hopefully it provides a little bit of relief so you can get on fighting the good fight.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:39, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello, I got labelled a sock for making an edit to the India rape article and my IP is from Nepal, not sure what that means, I didn't create an account because I am new. But should I create an account? 124.41.243.167 (talk) 05:26, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

I've been in touch with the specific conversation that has been made on here. 49.244.254.146 has socked on Rape in India, an article that should be protected for blatant sock puppetry. I can affirm that 49.244 is a heavily abused extension. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 05:34, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

@Ponyo, OccultZone's comment has so much history, all of which I've learned this morning, and I don't have the energy to provide you with all the links (e.g., ANI, SPI, Callanecc's Talk page). Just a heads up.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:45, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

@OccultZone: is your comment meant as an FYI or are you asking for admin action from me?--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:18, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

It was just for your information, that these IPs are not single purpose, nor they are operated by only one sock master. Article had been protected by Bgwhite after a few minutes. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 16:22, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I realize there is more than one sockmaster on the range. But the problem is there's an entire region on that range and that requires some finesse when it comes to blocks. --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:05, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Is it {{U|Bargolus}}? Per self-admission it seems though. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 18:16, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

The IP he claims to be isn't blocked though and this topic is unrelated to the ones the other two sockmasters on this range are embroiled in. Given your note as well as Bbb23's above there's likely a great deal of history I'm not aware of, so if there are concerns they should be raised in the appropriate SPI.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:39, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Vandal IP

Since you may still be around, this is a poor attempt to say "Monkey Dancers". I've had to revert every contribution by the IP because of the usual Gurjar POV-pushing ... but this last example is well beyond that. - Sitush (talk) 18:36, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

I missed this one and they've moved on now. If they pop up elsewhere drop me a note.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:02, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

A likely sockpuppet of the user Tannis but didn't feel like putting it as a SPI since the user has been blocked for copyright issues

This user: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Rijuriju whose only contributes were to the unotable shows that the meat puppet made. But since the guy has been blocked for copyright issues I was not sure if it be a good idea to just add him to there as it felt pointless. Though he could be added to the sock puppets. (for the main page: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vamsiraj) Wgolf (talk) 19:15, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Checkuser isn't particular helpful when it comes to paid editing rings. The Mjabran2012 socks are easy to pick up for several reasons, but there are going to be many unrelated accounts that are editing the same articles as part of a promotional sock farm. CU won't be able to tie those accounts together, often the blocks need to be made based on behaviour (This case is a good example of how convoluted it can be). I'll make a note at the open SPI.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:10, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Revdel

Hi Ponyo, if you're around, can you please revdel: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:AussieLegend&diff=prev&oldid=653966414 Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:51, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Looks like Thehelpfulone took care of everything. Cheers to you both. MarnetteD|Talk 02:09, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

No problem. :) Thehelpfulone 02:10, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Akash Guhathakurta

The user did also just randomly put the pages on list of Bollywood films for different years and were never there before-might want to revert those edits? Wgolf (talk) 20:05, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

I used mass rollback to revert any edits they made that didn't have any intervening edits from others. If there is anything I missed please go ahead and revert.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:07, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

inre: Akash Guhathakurta, User talk:Akash Guhathakurta

You speedied a number of articles created by this user. I see by Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vamsiraj that he was suspected of being part of a paid editing ring (highly discouraged yes, but not disallowed) but I saw no checkuser confirmation of puppetry. Did you use WP:QUACK as a rationale to delete them, or are the final checkuser results still pending? And would you have issue with any of the more notable of the deleted articles being returned to service by a neutral editor? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 21:45, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I did note that Akash Guhathakurta was socking (not just editing promotionally), hence my comment "all technical indications point to Akash Guhathakurta being Ashutoshsinghkaulvalmiki". I can easily see how that could be missed though as the entire SPI is convoluted with several mini clusters of socks within the large promotional sockfarm itself. If you would like to recreate any of the deleted articles please do so (if you would like any of the material emailed to you I can do so, however the material in them was minimal). My only objection to the articles was the extensive socking used to create them.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:56, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm an Admin and coordinator at Project Film, and can restore and move deleted edits to sandboxes. I agree the stubs may have only had potential. I just wished to check with you before taking any under my own wing or in doing so for others, so that any's returning is not painted with that speedied brush. Thank you. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 22:48, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

So self-sufficient :) Good luck! (PS I believe there's been some issues with copyvios, so please be cognizant of that if you will be restoring any of the deleted articles). --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:03, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I look forward to perhaps adding a few to my growing pile of saves. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 00:19, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Jill kelley

Ponyo I'm sorry but think you have made a mistake. Please allow me to state that your allegation is untrue. I enjoy my voluntaty contributions to wiki and adding factual edits.

Thank you. 

00:51, 30 March 2015 (UTC)Kennsington (talk)Kennsington

The socking is crystal clear, I just forgot to block the accounts when adding my findings at the SPI. That's been fixed now.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 01:04, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Admirenepal duck

See contributions. Username alone does the trick, though. - Sitush (talk) 20:04, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Plonked.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:25, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I've just reported another at SPI, for reasons relating to account naming that I'd rather not explain here. A CU should be able to confirm/deny without me explaining anyway. It's probably not a bad idea to add a report to the SPI record anyway, otherwise a lot of stuff might drift off the record and then you'll get run over by a bus or something. I hope not! - Sitush (talk) 11:41, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I think that's actually the other master, Poojjan ccresta. There is plenty of cross over topic-wise, but they're more verbose in their edit summaries and touch on topics outside of Nepalese culture (e.g. movies and music). I'm sure there are some Poojjan socks tagged as Admire and vice versa, but at the end of the day limiting the disruption is what counts and a block will help us achieve that even if the tag isn't exactly right.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:02, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I saw the note at the SPI and will bear in mind the edit summary point. - Sitush (talk) 01:35, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Nberri Faycal

Looks like the creator is now adding transfermark via anonymous IP Nberri Faycal. Wgolf (talk) 20:30, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I've semied the article for 12 hours to match the block. This doesn't bode well for the creator editing collaboratively once the block expires.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:33, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Fairyspit

Since you, Mike V and I are so familiar with these socks, should I come to you two first when I suspect a sock or do I still need to go through the motions of SPI? LADY LOTUS • TALK 11:23, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

If the socking is very blatant and if I'm around please feel free to ping me. I'll make sure the socks are labelled correctly for traceability. It's good to list them at SPI occasionally in order to keep the trail fresh for other CUs who may not be as familiar, in case Mike V or myself fall off a cliff. I also have the SPI watchlisted so I get notification when the new socks appear.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 15:49, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

You're a gem, thanks Ponyo :) LADY LOTUS • TALK 16:25, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

The user BELGIUMAYT

well looks like they didn't learn there lesson and removed the BLP prod and put back tranfermark again as seen here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nberri_Faycal&action=history Wgolf (talk) 18:41, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

• Yeah, I saw that. Can't say I'm surprised, despite the advice I provided them. I've reblocked the account.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:00, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Michal Zadara

Hallo, why did you remove External links which I added tonight??!! (Page : "Michał Zadara") Czyz1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Czyz1 (talk • contribs) 23:58, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry about that, it came off when I restored the BLP source template. I've added it back in. --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 04:34, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Calum Best entry

Hi Ponyo, I live in the UK and yesterday, whilst surfing for other info, came upon an article about Calum Best in the tabloid newspapers as he is hard to avoid these days. I looked at his Wiki entry and felt that the whole Wiki entry for Calum Best was poorly written and edited. I made some quite fair and factual changes to the entry yesterday and they have been entirely deleted and the article has, instead of being edited, simply reverted back entirely to the previous text. I am not a Wiki editing expert and struggle with the basics but it looks like you undid all my changes. I thought my changes made the Wiki a bit more balanced and factual and I wondered why someone in Canada would want to put it back to it's raw state again. I didn't think my work was that bad!

Calum Best is only in Wikipedia because of his legendary father George Best. To describe George as 'a retired footballer' is like describing Melson Mandela as a retired politician. To say George was "well known for his footballing skills and drinking problems" is a poor one-liner for such an important figure.

Calum's "Career" implies that he runs a successful business when he is in fact a bankrupt and yet this has been taken out.

His personal life now just details 2 women he has slept with and a London nightclub he is seen frequenting with the paparazzi.

I really don't see what was so wrong with the facts I had edited into the Wiki and I thought they added updates and balance to the entry.

Here is a recent article where he is publicising a book about his relationship with his famous father: [3]

Best wishes, Andrew 79.78.81.228 (talk) 14:22, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

If you are approaching the article with the opinion that "Calum Best is only in Wikipedia because of his legendary father George Best" and use scare quotes to describe his career (as above), then your are also likely going to carry that point of view into the article contrary to Wikipedia's policy regarding neutrality. Wikipedia is an open project which people from all over the world can edit. Insinuating that only editors from a specific country can edit a topic related to their country contradicts the entire purpose of this encyclopedia. In addition, when adding and changing information in articles, you must also include reliable sources to allow readers to verify the content. Adding negatively-toned material sourced to unreliable tabloid sources such as the Daily Mail is contrary to policy, and Wikipedia cannot be used as a source for articles (WP:NOTRS). In essence, you approached the article with the intent to demean the subject and used poor sources to do so. In the case where a reliable source was used (The Belfast Telegraph), you used it to support negative statements not contained in the actual article. You wrote "Best's celebrity status is mainly based on having a world-famous father", yet the Telegraph article states "it's difficult to believe that Calum Best has survived drug and alcohol binges, lurid tabloid tales, bankruptcy and accusations that he is living off his father's name." (emphasis mine). Your edits were not neutral, where made to endorse a certain negative view you have of the subject, and were not adequately sourced with regard to our policies regarding living persons. This is why your edits were reverted.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:04, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi, OK thanks for your detailed reply. I realise that editing Wikipedia needs careful consideration and I agree with your points in general. I was not using the quotation marks as scare quotes I was just indicating that I was quoting from the current Wiki entry. Of course anyone can edit my work but I was surprised that my work on a UK-based minor celebrity was removed within 24hrs by someone from BC and I thought maybe it was some type of monitoring or bot system and that I had made some errors that had set off an alert. I would expect someone in BC to be surprised if I (living in rural Scotland) had removed an entry on Jody Claman within a few hours of it's edit. I agree that I did want to make the edits in response to the demeaning references about his father. His father is a much-loved 20th Century sporting legend and a tragedy and to see him described as simply a retired footballer when a) he is dead and b) he was one of the all-time greats of the sport - to me sounded rather trivialising, particularly when it later remarked that he was well known for his footballing skills and drinking problems. I suppose my problem is that I see Wikipedia as an encylopedia written in fairly formal, factual prose and that quite a few contemporary entries such as this one are, in my opinion, not up to the standards expected. The word success is used in the paragraph about his business exploits but no mention of his bankruptcy. Calum openly admits to problems with womanising, alcohol and drugs, and so the reference to being a member of a nightclub whose exclusive membership fee is very high and nightly bar tabs have to be £500 minimum is not very appropriate to a bankrupt with these problems who is a patron of an alcohol victim charity. Yes I agree this may or may not be be true, but is not referenced as Ref16 merely states (in a paparazzi article) that he was hanging around outside the club. He may also have a very small male appendage but that doesn't mean it needs to be in Wikipedia even if there is a citation. My intent was not to demean the subject, the subject is managing this fine on his own, I wished not to have his father demeaned. Anyway, thanks for the pointers and for pulling me up on the non-factual stuff. In future I will check every line for conformity to the 5 pillars before I hit the Save page button. Best regards and without malice, Andrew 79.78.81.228 (talk) 17:02, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Theryx7 & Spawn3000

Hi Ponyo, User:Southwest40 popped up recently, beginning 16 March 2015, with editing preferences very similar to that of User:Spawn3000. Best, -- Tobby72 (talk) 11:36, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

...and blocked. Thanks for the heads up.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:56, 7 April 2015 (UTC) (forgot to sign. Original response was 21:49, April 6, 2015‎).

Judi Shekoni

Looks like our friend again. I've protected the page, do you want to block him? Dougweller (talk) 13:17, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

The subsequent sports edits are odd. Hopped on a buddy's computer maybe? Anyway the semi-prot should hold him at bay. We'll see!--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:15, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Mentioned

You must have seen that I mentioned you on an SPI recently. Just letting you know that I will be back there soon. Thank you. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 21:28, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

I haven't received any notification. Do you have a link?--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:51, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Since those details are big and there are some requirements to be met, I have mailed you further details. Hoping to see your response over there. Thank you. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 08:46, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

@OccultZone: If you're referring to this, then you've been told by Worm That Turned, Callanecc, and myself to drop it. This looks very much like CU shopping to me, and you should be aware that you're skating on very, very thin ice at this point. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 12:54, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Remember that this is not really "the same issue" per adminshop, it is different. I've been told by Worm That Turned, "You can talk to the checkusers. If one of them believes I'm wrong, then I'll listen." I think you hadn't read his last reply. I have got to know about more IP addresses that are related with this case and no one is aware of the behavioral evidence that I have amassed in these 3 days. If you want to have a look, kindly inform me. I can affirm that you will agree. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 13:59, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I've replied on your talk page.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:35, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Admiring Nepal

Poudar (talk · contribs) ? - Sitush (talk) 17:52, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

'Tis one or the other of the two masters. Blocked.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:57, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Bridget Moynahan (Sources)

Ponyo,

Instead of removing something that is all over the internet, it would have been more productive to add a source. I'm reverting your edit and adding a source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbmas01 (talk • contribs) 01:13, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

@Mbmas01: Did you read the talk page discussion I noted to in my edit summary when reverting you? The talk page discussion where I explicitly note that IMDB is not a reliable source for personal info in BLPs and that no source meeting WP:RS had been presented to date? I also left you a note on your talk page explaining why the edit was reverted and providing you with a link explaining what constitutes a reliable source. The onus is on you to properly reference material you wish to add to articles, and I see your edit has again been reverted as improperly sourced. You've blanked the messages on your talk page, so I assume we're on the same page now? --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:59, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

OK... how about her official facebook page? https://www.facebook.com/bridgetmoynahan. Frankly, I don't really care one way or another. I thought I'd plug in a simple adder, to avoid further issues I'll just avoid making any contributions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbmas01 (talk • contribs) 23:28, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

As long as its a confirmed Facebook page, then yes, it can be used as a primary source per WP:SELFSOURCE. I'm not sure why you would stop editing Wikipedia simply because I took the time to explain some pertinent policies and guidelines to you, it's a collaborative project after all.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:38, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Untitled

Ponyo, please do not delete messages left on my talk page. I can do it myself, if I want. Thank you. --Nbauman (talk) 21:42, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I revert disruptive edits from confirmed socks as par for the course. I'll try to remember not to do so on your talk, however if I do forget and the situation arises again (however unlikely) you are of course free to undo my removal without any explanation to me.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:52, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

User:86.5.176.46

How can the IP be blocked and still edit?--Bbb23 (talk) 05:20, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Amazing! OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 05:34, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Software glitch? I don't know, but they're not currently blocked.[4] ​—DoRD (talk)​ 14:09, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

How very odd. Reblocked, for reals this time.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:34, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Ponyo, I was actually going to block them based on several hoax articles they created. That was the only reason I was even there.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:43, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Is this yet another?

Birat kolii (talk · contribs) ? - Sitush (talk) 18:00, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

The quacking is deafening; blocked.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:08, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for sorting out the one above. Parsiansdfg (talk · contribs) and Dr Ck Raut (talk · contribs) (former more likely than the latter). - Sitush (talk) 05:07, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I've reverted most of the edits by the last two named accounts. Even if not socks, they were not useful contributions, with one or two exceptions. - Sitush (talk) 08:13, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Both are  Confirmed to the Birat kolii account above and I've blocked them. I revisited the potential for a smallish targeted range block but the collateral remains insane.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:08, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

It's tough but I do understand that a rangeblock wouldn't work. It probably wouldn't work for people based in, say, Jersey either. FWIW, I suspect Demographer of India (talk · contribs) may be another that is just ramping up for action on the usual suspect articles. In any event, their contributions were useless and have been reverted. - Sitush (talk) 03:16, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

A new reference tool

Hello Books & Bytes subscribers. There is a new Visual Editor reference feature in development called Citoid. It is designed to "auto-fill" references using a URL or DOI. We would really appreciate you testing whether TWL partners' references work in Citoid. Sharing your results will help the developers fix bugs and improve the system. If you have a few minutes, please visit the testing page for simple instructions on how to try this new tool. Regards, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:48, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry MediaWiki message delivery, you lost me at Visual Editor. Pssst The Interior, you may have one-upped me in our kitchen gadget showdown, but I'm not buying what you're selling software wise :) --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:57, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Dang, almost had you ;) Maybe when VE has a checkuser tool? How bout visually blocking people? The Interior (Talk) 20:44, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Visually blocking someone you say? I imagine it would look something like this.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:59, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

P.S The only way I could have packed more CanCon into that post would have been to link to an SCTV clip instead of Kids in the Hall.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:02, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

That one was very formative for me. There are a lot of flatheads walking around my hometown. The Interior (Talk) 21:24, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

But not Cabbage Heads I hope!--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:27, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

So many cabbage heads. But they weren't terribly funny. 22:59, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Agha Ali

Extend PC time? --George Ho (talk) 08:40, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

I'd like to open it back up to see how it goes without protection. I'll be watching though.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:17, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

SPI question

Hello P. I hope that you are well and that spring has sprung in your neck of the woods. In the last couple of days Bullets and Bracelets (talk · contribs) was discovered to (and later admitted to) be a sock of CensoredScribe (talk · contribs). At one point B&B also mentioned Sockratic Method (talk · contribs) as another of the sockpuppets that they had created. My question is should these names be added to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/CensoredScribe. I know that it would only be procedural since the socks have already been blocked but shouldn't they be listed somewhere (other than the category page) to show the number of socks that this person is willing to create. Any guidance you can provide will be appreciated. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 22:02, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

The benefit to adding already blocked socks accounts to an SPI isn't so much to show how prolific a sockmaster is, especially ones who are already banned, but to maintain a breadcrumb trail in the archives for checkusers. As most of the CU data for CensoredScribe is stale, adding newly discovered confirmed accounts to the SPI would likely be helpful for future checks.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:29, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks P. I am about to file the new report. In it I mentioned this discussion so, in a few moments, you will get a ping there. If you wouldn't mind checking to see if I have done anything wrong and make any fixes it would be appreciated. MarnetteD|Talk 23:10, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Okie dokie. I'm heading out in about 10mins, so I'll take a look tonight.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:14, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

As ever thanks. Safe travels. MarnetteD|Talk 23:16, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello again. Everything went smoothly but I have a followup question. If a new report is filed about a CensoredScribe sock should the person who files the report ask for the checkuser to be run against Bullets and Bracelets? MarnetteD|Talk 20:54, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I took a boo at the SPI and noticed it was all taken care of. Lucky me! If the evidence is super ducky you can bring it to the attention of the admin who blocked the last sock and they will likely do the needy. If there's any doubt you can raise a new SPI and request Checkuser. At the end of the day it doesn't really matter which method is used as long as the sock gets blocked and their disruption is kept to a minimum.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:02, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. My apologies as something seems to have gotten lost in the translation in my last question. You had mentioned that "CU data for CensoredScribe is stale" so what I was wondering is in any future SPIs about CS do we ask for checkusers to be run again B&B (as the most recently caught sock) even though the SPI is about CS. Hopefully it won't come to this since there are now several admins who are aware of the editing pattern of CS and, as you say, the important thing is keeping their disruption to a minimum. Best regards. MarnetteD|Talk 22:13, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

With the SPI you just have to add the field checkuser=yes; the CU or Clerk reviewing the request will be able to figure out which account to run the check against even if you haven't stated it explicitly; if the Master is stale we'll look into the archives to find the last blocked sock to pick up the trail.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:23, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

That is good to know. It had been so long since I last filed a Sock report that I had forgotten some of the ins and outs and - even though the memory banks seem to gather more dust than they used to - this info will help down the road. I know I type it often but that is because I mean it - thanks for your help. MarnetteD|Talk 00:14, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Craig Walendziak

On this Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Craig Walendziak I think the closing admin will need to see that the IPs seem to be all part of spis as they are voting keep and repeating the same things over and over as well, wanted to point this out. Wgolf (talk) 20:01, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I've struck the vote, reblocked the IP, and reprotected the AfD for another 3 days. Hopefully it will be sorted by then.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:12, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Question

Hi Ponyo, this user has thanked me three times (today, April 11, and April 9) for the same edit, specifically this one. As you can see per their log, they've thanked a lot of people in a relatively short amount of time, and, suspicious fella that I am, I'm a little suspicious that it's some passive-aggressive irritant BS from a previous sock. Anyhow, I was wondering if you might be able to discern whether this is anyone we know. Thanks mucho, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:24, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I've checkuser blocked them. Regardless of who the master is (possibly BuickCenturyDriver??), they also created a couple of vandalism accounts that were blocked.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:00, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! I knew there was something fishy. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:26, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

As the saying goes, if it walks like a duck...

Hi Pon, a sock of this guy has sprung up. SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/GooseMail1996 in case you're underworked and have plenty of free time. ;) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:25, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Craig Walendziak

Ponyo... WGOLF has been on an aggressive and personal mission to remove Craig Walendziak and all the bands mentioned. There is no way that the Craig Walendziak page should even be nominated. I even tried to talk with Wgolf and he deleted the post and threatened me for 'vandalizing' his page. This is NOT what wiki should be about. After he nominated the articles he RECRUITED other friends to post on the pages to get them deleted. I'm very frustrated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Craig mack378 (talk • contribs)

Yet again... Got anything to add here or is it just more gum-flappin'? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:49, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

As they continue to deny the obvious  Confirmed socking I've blocked the account indefinitely.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 05:02, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Li Swang Chi

Li Swang Chi (talk · contribs) is another duck from Nepal. - Sitush (talk) 08:38, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Sitush. I just blocked a handful of socks.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:08, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Well the latest case on the SPI of Vamsiraj

Yeah another one that is going overboard! See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Ashiqaligg Wgolf (talk) 15:56, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks some still do remain-also there is still some pages from this guy: [[5] and also check out [[6]] as there are still some from last month even! Wgolf (talk) 16:15, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Some of them still have AFD's also that need to be closed and I did put some RPP's up for most of the pages! Wgolf (talk) 16:22, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

The problem with these articles, which I already noted in an earlier SPI, is that this is quite obviously undisclosed paid editing. There are myriad IPs listed at the SPI, none of which I can comment on, plus a number of editors who are in all likelihood being paid to recreate these articles but who are not always the same person. These type of paid editing rings need to be dealt with on a behavioural basis, the checkuser tool is practically useless in these cases, and given the number of large dynamic ranges involved range blocks aren't feasible. --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:33, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Well the pages probably should be salted I think. Wgolf (talk) 16:38, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

YGM - revdel request

You've got mail! EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:22, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Zapped.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 15:27, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Sending another. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 16:11, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Ugh, what is wrong with people?! Edit zapped, as well as the IP for a week.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:10, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you as always! :D EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:55, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Poojjan ccresta

Poojjan ccresta is apparently now using 49.244.248.178 as well it appears. Ogress _smash! 22:10, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I found a bunch of sock accounts and locked down some additional articles this afternoon. --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:13, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

They get almost top marks for persistence. If they're not on the list at WP:LTA, they probably will be before much longer.

I know that you cannot say much, Ponyo, but can you at least reveal whether you share your knowledge about the behavioural traits of the two Nepali farms with other CUs? Almost everything is now happening without recourse to the SPI pages and I'm wondering whether that is necessarily A Good Thing, even though I've done it myself. - Sitush (talk) 02:13, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm really starting to believe the two sock farms are actually related, with Poojjan using the "Admire" handles when editing Poudar stuff. The edits are so obvious that it's easier to just block the accounts rather than suck up more time at SPI. What I will do is create a page on the CU wiki in case I get hit my a bus or something. Cool? Oh, and I gave my first caste DS warning today. Now I'm off to doing something more fun and completely un-wikipedia related! --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:21, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

UTPs

What is the problem with this kind of edit? I am not even getting that why you removed it. If the matter is resolved it should be marked as such. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 00:24, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

You don't close discussions on another editor's talk page, it's plain rude. Edit-warring to restore it as you did was obnoxious was not cool. --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:18, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Let's see if I can use an analogy to exemplify why it's off-putting: it's like walking into a colleague's office and crossing items off of their "to do" list. When you did it on my page it was even worse as it was WP:POINTY - sort of like crossing something off a colleague's "to do" list because you convinced someone else to rush the job through. You don't need a Wikipedia policy to dictate common courtesies. --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:37, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Question about CU/SPI

Hi, Jezebel's Ponyo,
I came across User:Mosfetfaser and the message on the user page said that checkuser had determined that he was a sock of User:Youreallycan. But when I looked at the SPI linked to the user page (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Youreallycan/Archive), there is no mention of running the checkuser connecting these two accounts. The only reasons that I know of where this fact would be omitted is if this were an ArbCom ban or if this account was blocked due to WP:DUCK but neither of those situations are mentioned in the block log.
Is it common to run CU and not log the findings on to an investigation page? I'm just trying to understand the SPI process...there seem to be no follow-up talk page comments indicating that this was a controversial block so that's not in question. Thanks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:00, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

It is quite common to run a check without a new SPI being opened, especially if the Checkuser is familiar with the master. The relevant SPI and contributions pages are linked to in the sock template on the user page so that anyone who wants to review historical and behavioural evidence can do so. If upon reviewing the previous SPIs and contribs the connection remains unclear, you can always ask the blocking Checkuser to expand on the type of evidence used in making the block. Obviously they can't go into specific technical details, but they may be able to provide additional information not obvious in the historical record.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:10, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation, Ponyo. It seems like certain fact-checking steps are often skipped based on an admin or CU's personal knowledge and experience that I think that goes against principles of transparency and having a public record. But I also don't see a lot of active editors complaining about the SPI process. So I guess I'll have to trust that there are technical details behind these indefinite sock blocks and they aren't based on hunches but on facts that can not be disclosed. Again, I appreciate you taking the time to respond. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:05, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

The SPI process is used to assist with coordination of evidence; I don't believe it was ever intended to be used for transparency. Checkuser isn't intended to be some sort of impenetrable dark art, however the Foundation's privacy policy dictates what evidence can be shared on wiki, and if the policy conflicts with one's desire for transparency then it's the policy itself that may needs review, not the use of SPI on the English Wikipedia. I can't imagine a checkuser ever "confirming" (in the CU sense) a sock account based solely on a hunch - that could be a case for the AUSC if it is believed to have occurred. If you are ever concerned about any specific case, I really do think approaching the Checkuser via email is a good option. There may be additional information they can share that doesn't conflict with the privacy policy that they won't divulge at an SPI for various reasons, including WP:BEANS. --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:22, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Michael Ealy

If the critics have positive things to say about a TV show why not say so in the article. To take the word "acclaimed" out seems a bit petty and leaving it in might encourage people to check it out.Dont see how thats a bad thing.Pobtron (talk) 19:03, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

We don't leave peacock words in articles in hopes that readers may "check out" the related television programs - that's considered promotion and we have a policy against such things. In addition, the "acclaimed" comment is about the show, not about Ealy's performance, so its only serves as puffery. These are the reasons your addition was reverted.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:35, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Sensitive templating

Hi Ponyo, could you look at this, please? I dunno if a proper sock investigation is the right way to go. Atomic Meltdown retired himself here, then today SPA Mrs. Meltdown pasted a deceased template on his user page here. I reverted that as dubious, what with there being no actual info behind it and it would normally seem like a questionable thing to do. My edit was reverted without explanation by McQueen.30 in this edit, and I don't think either editor followed WP:DWG. I later received a note on my talk page from Mrs. Meltdown again. Since I'm not interested in stepping on toes, but preventing disruptive editing, I thought I'd run it by you. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:11, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I will also note that Atomic Meltdown and McQueen.30 have numerous intersecting interests, despite McQueen's account having been created March 21, 2015, a few days after Atomic retired. There are similarities between their user pages: Astronomy, atheism, science, equality, peace, an Apprentice star that McQueen hasn't earned yet... My guess based on behavior is that McQueen is Atomic Meltdown. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:39, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

To your first post Cyphoidbomb - I noticed the same thing and it was odd, to say the least. I went through WP:USERPAGE and couldn't find anything that specifically addresses the situation. It was also odd that someone who managed to get an indef would have such fond memories. Your second post shows your usual good research skills and you might want to start an SPI based on your findings. I notice that the edit has template has been removed a second time. MarnetteD|Talk 21:49, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment, MD! I'm a little swamped on real life stuff at the moment, so I don't know if I can start an SPI just yet. If it hasn't been resolved by the time I get some free time, I'll do so. Also, I'm now aware of the ANI report on the user. Thanks! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:01, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick action in this situation Ponyo. MarnetteD|Talk 22:32, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Ponyo, not sure if you saw my post on the ANI thread regarding McQueen30 (aka Atomic Meltdown), but abuse of talk page while blocked seems to suggest talk page access might need to be revoked (as shown in the edit where he posted a "retired" notice on talk page). Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:48, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

• SPI report filed for completeness: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Atomic Meltdown. Ponyo, if you could please include your notes, that would be appreciated. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:19, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

I've left a note at the SPI.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:17, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

obvious sock is obvious

Obvious sockpuppet is obvious. Poojjan ccresta is back at Madhesi people and elsewhere as NepaliMadhesi. Ogress _smash! 22:30, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

aaaand also apparently Shammydhi, who false-dated a merge template on Madhesi people. Ogress _smash! 08:54, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

I think I caught and blocked the most recent socks. I'll dig a little deeper and start doing some clean-up.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 15:46, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Dilip Shanghvi

Extend PC time? --George Ho (talk) 18:23, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Done.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:38, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Untitled

What did you change on the Herbert Becker page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.188.3.167 (talk) 02:30, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I reverted an edit that added a ridiculous amount of promotional material to the article, which was reflected in my edit summary "holy promotional puffery batman. This material is mainly unsourced and blatantly promotional - WP:NOTRESUME"--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 03:11, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

You have email!!

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.

• And replied. There was a roiling nest of socks there, so thanks for the note.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:50, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Unblock requests

Hey Ponyo, when you have a sec (that's time, not wine), could you please look at this discussion? Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:14, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

@Bbb23: I can't find any email regarding this. Was I the CU who reviewed it?--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:41, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

YGM

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.

 Philg88 ^♦talk 11:29, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Received and replied. --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:17, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

V-dar

Hi Pon, something's setting off my V-dar. Something about this editor isn't sitting well with me. He's been nomming articles left and right for deletion. Some of his noms have been sound, but a few of his PRODs and A7s have been wack. Learning curve perhaps, but he's also made weird statements like "WP:SOLDIER is an essay" and "Classic case of Inherited notability" both of which sound like an odd familiarity with our community lingo. Adding delsort templates seems like an experienced thing to do. I've never done that... And I'm not the only person who thinks something's amiss. Any thoughts on how I should proceed? V-gards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:35, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Th editing pattern does set off some alarms, however I have no clue which account it may be related to (if one were to assume there is something nefarious going on).--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:57, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Danke. If there's a problem, I'm sure we'll find out in due time. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:34, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Agreed.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:28, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Cyphoidbomb and Ponyo. The whole British/English thing (see Category talk:English republicans) is also familiar. Unfortunately, it has been some time since I last saw it. I thought I'd mention it in case it jogs any memories. MarnetteD|Talk 18:41, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Just for information

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cada mori.All the jobs are from the same Elance Account and it is verified as individual.I have the links and taken screenshots of all the jobs. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:18, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Colour me completely unsurprised. Given my dialogue with Cada mori at User talk:Rosemaryujoh though I think it best that another CU handle the case. --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:22, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I've Sent You An Email!

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.

• Replied.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:49, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Reversion of CitingSportsRefer's edits

I realize that it may be standard practice to revert edits made by a banned user while they are banned, but I'd just like to point out that many of CitingSportsRefer's edits that you reverted were actually constructive and added useful information to their articles. As such, I had to revert some of your reverts. --A guy saved by Jesus (talk) 20:16, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed. While you were doing so they were logging in to some old accounts on meta and vandalising/trolling/attacking editors there. Regardless, as long as you're aware of WP:BANREVERT there's nothing stopping you from reinstating the edits.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:37, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Ryanjay1996

Hi Ponyo. Given that we are just around three months since the last SPI could you please check the new SPI as a CU before the ability to CU expires? Thank you very much. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 21:36, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

...and done.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:49, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much Ponyo. That was a lightning-fast response. Considering how busy you are, I really appreciate your action. Sorry for imposing on your busy schedule. Take care. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 21:52, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Ryanjay's consistent both behaviourally and technically, so the checks are very straightforward. "Easy peasy lemon squeezy" as they say.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:54, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

LOL. Good to know. Thanks again. :) Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 21:56, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello

I hope you don't mind, but I added an unsigned template here as it looks like you forgot to sign. If it was intentional for some reason, however, please let me know. Regards. Amaury (talk) 23:56, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Ugh, Poojjan ccresta might be back

Nepalibabu009 might be another sock of Poojjan ccresta. Ogress _smash! 05:08, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Yep, and now Dreamofhorses appears on Madhesi immediately after Nepalibabu009 is welcomed to Wikipedia by I dream of horses. Honestly, it's exhausting. How do I go about reporting these obvious socks? Ogress _smash! 09:11, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Both accounts are blocked. You can either leave me a note here if you see them pop up, or add to the SPI (which is on my watch list).--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 14:30, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

For the record, there was also User:Boeing-360, now also blocked. --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 14:46, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

I thought it was too good to last :( - Sitush (talk) 14:50, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

You'd think they'd have much more important things to be doing right now.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 14:56, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

@Sitush: To last? He's been on a tear over the last few months. Ogress _smash! 18:03, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't very clear. I've not come across either of the Nepali socks in the last few days and, oddly, I woke up yesterday and more or less my first thought after kicking the dog out of the way was "have they gone for good?" Did I jinx things? - Sitush (talk) 18:08, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Poojjan ccresta shows he never left, you just didn't encounter him. Ogress _smash! 18:33, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

They've been on a tear for years, and Sitush is correct that there was a slight lull in new account creation. They flame out quickly though, so there's that at least. At some point they'll get bored - they almost always do eventually.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:56, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

User Showmyself

I'll leave this up to you, but Showmyself (talk · contribs) is the most recent sock of Improvingthepen (talk · contribs). I tagged them a while ago, but decided it wasn't worth the effort for the SPI as long as they stayed productive. That's changed with some of their more recent edits. Compare their focus on Sunny Leone and the film in which she acts. They've got a similar focus on the List of Bollywood films of 2015 as well, making similar edits. Ravensfire (talk) 16:24, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

I, Showmyself (talk · contribs) is really very sorry for any poor/unrefrenced edits. My account is being used by some other person(s). I don't know whenever an edit is performed. I recently also got a notification from Ponyo (talk · contribs) regarding the edits. Hope you'll understand. How can I take an act on this? Showmyself (talk)

Paint, meet corner.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:47, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

(tpw) Indeed. Well, it's  Confirmed, by the way. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:51, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks to Ravensfire for tying the strings together and to DoRD for providing the fancy bow.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:05, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Roshan014

Can I create a sock account and give myself barnstars? Seriously though, should the barnstars on Roshan014's talk page be stripped if they came from his sock? I don't see anything about that in the TPG... :) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:40, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

There's no reason to remove them, they're hardly official or anything. As it ultimately reflects poorly on them I wouldn't be surprised if they blank the page when their block expires (assuming they return).--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:22, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Hiyo, saw your most recent warning. I'm sure there are protections in place for this, but I did notice the user installed an admin block script into his common javascript. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:18, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

I've just reblocked them, this time for two weeks, as they continue to add unsourced DOBs etc. to biography articles. My spidey sense tells me they are part of a massive paid editing farm, but that's neither here nor there as the BLP issues are the most concerning right now. They won't be able to do anything with the admin script, my guess is they're just loading up on scripts to make themselves appear more "legit".--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 15:54, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Manzil

They've only just started up but perhaps HMManzil ? - Sitush (talk) 06:30, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Yup...and blocked.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:25, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Dealing with repeated sockpuppets from the same person

Since you've dealt with a string of sockpuppets of Azul411 now, I'm interested to know if it's possible to deal with repeat offenders more efficiently. This user regularly uses new sockpuppets (generally, a few new sockpuppets a week) to vandalize Galileo. Currently, I'm just reverting the vandalism and reporting each new sockpuppet.

As you can see from the latest sockpuppet's contribution history, Azul411 is getting around the Autoconfirmation hurdle by spawning accounts, making ten edits, and then waiting for the Autoconfirmation time period to lapse before using the new sockpuppet account. This user has a very rigorous system for creating new sockpuppets! I wouldn't be surprised if they still have a dozen sockpuppets waiting to be activated.

Is there some more effective way to deal with this behavior? Is it possible, for example, to prevent the IP address associated with Azul411 from generating new user accounts? Or if that's not possible, is it possible to increase the protection level on Galileo, since Autoconfirmation is clearly not much of an impediment to determined sockpuppeteers?

Thanks, -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:37, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

What you describe above is typical behaviour for socks. In this particular case, range blocks are not feasible due the number and size of the ranges available to Azul411, as well as the collateral any such blocks would cause. It's essentially "whack-a-mole", which in this case is fairly easy given the obvious nature of the sockmaster's edits. I can't up the level of protection further as full protection would lock out all editors.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:44, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Bridget Moynahan

Renew PC? --George Ho (talk) 07:29, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Not quite yet, I'll keep an eye on it.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:47, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Sock Puppet

User:Balkrishnajha is an another sock Puppet of User:Admire Nepal or Perhaps HH Manzil who moved Maithali without any correspondent references. (Indigenous Indophobia (talk) 05:23, 16 May 2015 (UTC))

Hello. I need help.

Hi. I know that you are a checkyser. I am basically User:AHLM13. My account was hacked, therefore I am blocked. Unfortunately many people do not believe. Also, some other hackers from India, are creating new accounts and asking to unblock me and insulting other people, which means they pretend to be me. I also created a new account called ahlm85 (only this for convince people that I am innocent), but even this one is blocked. Now i do not what can i do. Please help me. Please see this. A check user named MIVE V told me that it was someone from my pc to hack my account, but what about now? Is it still from my pc? Also please can you show to everyone that those new ips and accounts who pretend to be are NOT ME. After you have checked, can you please write your views and what the checkuser tool in my talk page oF AHLM13? Thanks --78.149.127.141 (talk) 19:45, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Whatever this was it seems to have been discussed elsewhere by now.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:09, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

And they seem to be back as an IP

See 49.244.254.147 (talk · contribs). I know the problems regarding the range but, even allowing for geographic interests, there seems to be a similarity to the Nepali socks. - Sitush (talk) 13:33, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

And Indian Maithil may even be a creation by the farm. It is certainly useless. - Sitush (talk) 13:36, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Gah, I only had about 10 minutes to check in and see if anything was burning down and spent all that time blocking Nepal sockfarm socks and trying to undo some of the damage. Let me know if I messed anything up, I should have more time tomorrow afternoon.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:54, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Sockpuppet

Hi, I noticed that you blocked User:Shirzada1001 for being a sockpuppet of User:Mujhideen101, I have a feeling that Seeyouagain101 is also a sockpuppet of Mujhideen101 due to very similar edits. I'm not sure of the formal process, so sorry if I've done this incorrectly, but I thought it would be useful to make you aware of it. Thanks Flickerd (talk) 14:03, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Flickerd, Ponyo is not around at the moment to monitor her Talk page, so you get a poor substitute. I've confirmed your suspicion and blocked the user. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:32, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Bbb23, and I realize I owe you an email. Will do it tomorrow, promise! --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:13, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Srahmadi

@Ponyo: I am a editor from Iran and my favorite subject is Iranian modern history. Therefore, I work on Iranian book and sometimes Iran-Iraq war books. Also, I edited several articles in addition to Iranian book. These articles are Negotiations on Iran nuclear deal framework, Comprehensive agreement on the Iranian nuclear program, Casualties of the Iranian Revolution, Hussein Badreddin al-Houthi, Abdul-Malik al-Houthi , April 2015 Nepal earthquake, Ja'far Sobhani, Sayyed Ibn Tawus, and Yemeni Civil War (2015). I try to contribute in any article but my major contribution is about Iranian modern history especially Iran-Iraq war. A user (User:Anders Feder) reported my username in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations. He said that I am Srahmadi sockpuppet. I have this account and don't know about Srahmadi. I think that Anders Feder follow me and his behavior hurts me. His faith dose not appear to be a good faith. I read the Defending yourself against claims section and understand that I can send my request for you. Please help me and say that what should I do? I don't have abuse behavior with my account and don't need another username.Papeli44 (talk) 10:47, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Blocked based on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Srahmadi.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:23, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Any friendly advice?

I'm new on Wikipedia. Do you have any friendly advice?--1michigan (talk) 00:31, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Another Sockpuppet

Hi, Halamadrid101 also appears to be a sock puppet of User:Mujhideen101 due to very similar edits. Once again I thought it would be useful to make you aware of them, thanks :) Flickerd (talk) 07:53, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

It is indeed, now blocked and tagged.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 15:42, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Unexplained undos...

You have undone all of my edits without explanation. You managed to hit the undo button without seeing what I'm actually doing and the context of each edit. Please explain yourself here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.148.72.132 (talk) 02:54, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I left an explanation on your IP talk page, so it's hardly "unexplained". Per Wikipedia policy, ethnicity is not included in articles unless 1)there are reliable sources to verify the ethnicity 2) there is evidence of self-identification from the subject and 3) it is contextually notable. You've made a number of additional edits that are not supported by reliable sources, so please ensure you included them. --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 03:00, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

For the ethnicity edits, I only edited the articles of those who already had the reliable sources in the them. I merely added the appropriate info to the infobox as well. In this case it is definitely contextually notable as most of them were born in the Punjab or their parents were. For example the, Kapoor family is already noted as Punjabis in the article. Kareena Kapoor is said to be Punjabi and Sindhi in her article and I made it easier to the viewer by putting it in the infobox as well. The Nobel articles already had the sources in them and are linked to other articles that have the updated info that was trying to implement in my edits. If you actually read my edit summaries for these I explained it and gave a link to the appropriate source but I didn't reference to it because it would disrupt the citation structure of the featured article. For the Nepalese Civil War, the results are already sourced, I merely gave a more appropriate and neutral interpretation of it by removing 2 lines of questionable results. I'm guessing you didn't even read what I wrote for List of largest universities by enrollment as you were busy undoing my edits with your fractured misinterpretation of my edits. I suggest you don't dive too deep into things you don't understand yet and make so many inappropriate edits like these in a short amount of time before you realize the context of the articles themselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.148.72.132 (talk) 03:31, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia's policies regarding biography articles are brightline and clear. Any edits that add unsourced or poorly sourced personal information can and should be removed until appropriately sourced. The criteria for adding religion and ethnicity is even higher as it needs to be meet the three criteria I've outlined above. The burden is on you to show that the criteria is met.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 04:47, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Request

Does this edit warrant revdel in your opinion? — Confession0791 ^talk 21:21, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

It does (in my opinion), so it's gone.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:32, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Archive 20

←

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27