Ferret

Think a CU would be warranted on User:Jacksparrowff? I've already blocked per WP:DUCK. Might be able to turn up some sleepers. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:24, 17 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Duck is probably sound, but in case @NinjaRobotPirate and Ajraddatz want to take a look.... -- ferret (talk) 17:17, 17 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Something like   Possilikely (a mix between possible and likely). Same device and geolocation as AlexanderHovanec, but he's on an ISP I don't recognize. Could be using public wifi or something like that, I guess. I don't see any sleepers, just some vandalism. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:24, 18 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

@NinjaRobotPirate: He's been bragging about how he knows how to use VPNs, as info. -- ferret (talk) 02:02, 18 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

It seems more likely to me that he's using public infrastructure, but I'll keep that in mind. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:02, 18 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

@NinjaRobotPirate and Ohnoitsjamie: 108.39.216.22 might be worth hard blocking, thoughts? -- ferret (talk) 17:15, 18 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

No objections from me. That would at least make further socking much less convenient, since that's likely one of his primary IPs. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:26, 18 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

It's probably best to avoid doing blind hard blocks – they can cause a lot of trouble on some ISPs, and you never really know if the situation may have changed from the last checkuser block. There isn't any collateral damage on that IP address, but I'm pretty cautious of year-long hard blocks. Most IP addresses allocated to residential customers don't stick around that long. I guess it can be lifted if there are problems. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:10, 18 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

I think its worth doing too. You could always try doing it for a shorter amount of time as well, as a trial. I support whatever time-frame. Sergecross73 msg me 19:21, 18 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

@NinjaRobotPirate: Shadowthemonkey and Shadowtherhino look like obvious ducks, at least with each other, and edit common Alex targets. Could you check? -- ferret (talk) 21:28, 21 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Shadowtherhino is almost certainly him. I'll block that account. Shadowthemonkey comes back technically   Unrelated; it's the wrong continent, and there doesn't seem to be any evidence it's anything but a residential customer on a major ISP. That still leaves meat puppetry as a possibility, of course. If it weren't for the similar usernames, I'd say it's nothing. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:05, 21 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

@NinjaRobotPirate: Thanks. I will lean on the side of caution. He may have seen Shadowthemonkey and used it as a mimick for his account. Not the first time he has copied other user names in his socking. -- ferret (talk) 22:10, 21 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

@NinjaRobotPirate: Check on Blockhead Man please? Behavioral evidence is pretty ducky. -- ferret (talk) 12:12, 5 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

  Confirmed to Botany and Art and Ramello jay. I don't see anything else. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:53, 5 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

@NinjaRobotPirate: Two new weak ducks, Sedeqtelebab and Detriek. I know you can't comment but behaviorially, 107.242.117.7 looks connected. All 3 active on AH topics around the same time period. -- ferret (talk) 21:11, 11 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

They two named accounts are   Confirmed to each other, and they seem   Likely to Hovanec. They look to be the only socks active, but I'm not sure if I can find all the potential sleepers with this data. If you let them roam free for a week, I'd probably have a lot more data to analyze. Just saying. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:34, 11 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

I've found several others and blocked a range. Most are just being thrown away after a edit or three. Going to start protecting the frequent targets, certainly well past the mark of "persistent sockpuppetry". -- ferret (talk) 19:27, 14 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Here are some more citations Comicbooks.com Teams facebook page Confirmed by moddb page dosgaming posted the official trailer in the article as well.. Can I revert your edit and just add the citations in order to not rewrite it all? ShimonChai (talk) 21:49, 1 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

@ShimonChai: Comicbook.com is the best of those. The others are primary sources. It should be fine to include in prose. Please do not include in the infobox per template documentation. We only list official releases, not betas. -- ferret (talk) 21:58, 1 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Ferret: I edited it back in without the infobox edit and only with the comicbook.com citation. Out of curiosity, when the beta is released does the TBA just get removed? ShimonChai (talk) 22:14, 1 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Until an official non-beta is announced or released. -- ferret (talk) 22:16, 1 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Regarding this revision, how does one verify if an author is reliable on a blog site? Tantamounts ^{talk contribs} 02:43, 4 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Interqwark: In this case the author is the long time managing editor (I.e. editor in chief). It's not a community/user post, and the information is also pretty uncontroversial and no reason to suspect it. -- ferret (talk) 03:00, 4 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

I understand. Thanks for the explanation. Sorry for wrongly removing the citation. Tantamounts ^{talk contribs} 03:01, 4 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

I think he attempted to appeal his block, claiming his son was using the account. I haven't studied his history, so he might still deserve an indefinite block, but perhaps you might reconsider. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:17, 4 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Arthur Rubin: I don't really buy it. The account's only purpose appears to have been to insert various homophobic remarks in a couple of articles. No good contributions at all that I can really tell. -- ferret (talk) 12:39, 4 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

As I said, I didn't check his edits. I just wasn't sure you would see his misplaced appeal. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:24, 4 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hey, just a heads up - Alex can't respond on his talkpage as TPA is revoked, and I protected the page. Continuing to leave messages there might actually encourage his behavior. Just something to think about. SQL^{Query me!} 21:37, 5 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Fair enough on that point. -- ferret (talk) 21:40, 5 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

(talk page watcher) It's more for unblocking admin than Alex himself. And no response is requested. Makes sense to me, as a quick reference for admin, considering the pure volume of unblock requests made related to Alex. Sergecross73 msg me 22:00, 5 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

108.180.194.7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

154.5.169.5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Interesting edits from 154.5.169.5:[1][2] --Guy Macon (talk) 00:41, 6 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Guy Macon: @Oshwah already blocked. -- ferret (talk) 02:28, 6 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

I changed the Fallout 76 link on Fallout (series) to a section link again. I think that this is better since it loads more quickly due to not reloading the page. We could just revert the change once the Fallout 76 article is created (presumably after E3 2018).

Is that fine? I thought to do this after JJMC89 circular redirects to section links on George Miller (entertainer).

If the links are better to use, we might as well use them up until the article in question is created, right? Tantamounts ^{talk contribs} 22:46, 9 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Interqwark: There was zero doubt this would have an article and the very next day it was created again and expanded. I've restored the link. -- ferret (talk) 11:46, 11 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

I thought we would have to wait for E3 for more information, but you’re right; the article exists now, so there’s no need for the section link. Tantamounts ^{talk contribs} 14:50, 11 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Now that the election's over and Phil Murphy's been in office for awhile, can you drop the protection? 174.198.10.170 (talk) 01:21, 11 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Declined. July 2 will be here soon enough. -- ferret (talk) 11:42, 11 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Regarding your revision on Super Smash Bros., if Super Smash Bros. for Nintendo 3DS and Wii U is considered one instalment, shouldn’t the rest of the article, the Super Smash Bros. for Nintendo 3DS and Wii U article itself, and other articles that refer to these games be changed as well?

The article about the 3DS and Wii U game(s) refer to it/them as both a “game” and “games.”
Personally, I think that it should be considered just one instalment. The game was likely made for the Wii U and then ported to the Nintendo 3DS. Tantamounts ^{talk contribs} 00:10, 12 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Interqwark: It's really one game but released with separate titles on the two platforms. It's one instalment of the series. That's why they are a single article to begin with. -- ferret (talk) 00:12, 12 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

All right. I’ve changed the wording of the article in accordance with your revision. Tantamounts ^{talk contribs} 00:13, 12 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/RJCola. DuncanHill (talk) 01:09, 12 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Spare your kindness. Reverting sourced content without properly mentioning a reason backed by sources IS edit warring. Adding sourced content backed by several reliable sources including IGN and PC gamer, is good faith edit. Refere to WP:RS and WP:SC . You well know that any user who disagrees woth a sourced content can simply use a wanring template on talk page. So spare your kindness and avoid bullying. Solino_{the Wolf} 14:33, 12 June 2018 (UTC) Solino_{the Wolf} 14:33, 12 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

(talk page watcher) If you're referring to Ferret's comment on your talk page, then you are mistaken, it wasn't even remotely bullying. He's rightfully telling you to stop reverting continuously. Yes, sourcing is necessary to add content, but just because you have a source does not automatically warrant inclusion either. There are plenty of things that you can source that still aren't appropriate for Wikipedia articles. Discuss and come to a conclusion first, then make your additions if they are supported by consensus. Sergecross73 msg me 14:41, 12 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Read WP:EW. "But I have a source", "I am right", are not excuses to edit war. Good faith edits can still be edit warring. -- ferret (talk) 16:36, 12 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

I disagree. As I mentioned before, if there are reliable sources for a fact, it can only be reverted because of (1) Sources disputing that fact OR (2) concerning WP:NOT or maybe WP:NN. So when several reliable and prominent mainstream sources use a term for a certain video game, deleting that information from the page needs proper reasoning. Was the use of this term disputed by other reliable sources? At list I have never seen a WP guideline allowing the Deleting of a sourced information by just saying "Consensus". Btw, I do consider the language Ferret used on my talk page bullying. There were two sides to the reverting issue. If Ferret is concerned with edit war, I would see a similar 'warning threat' on other users talk page (WP:NOEDIT). If it was a policy issue, he could join the discussion Lordtobi and I were having on my talk page over WP:BRD and weigh in on why they think adding a term used by several prominent gaming sources is a Bold edit. But the way Ferret decidedly picked sides, and the tone of his message, makes it clear he's attempting bullying (See: WP:POV RAILROAD). Solino_{the Wolf} 05:28, 18 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

You are welcome to your opinion. The meaning behind my message was simple. Some people don't appreciate being templated repeatedly. You had already received template, so I spared giving you another. I wrote message instead and pointed you to where a discussion had begun on the project talk page, as you had been warring with several editors across several articles. It's difficult to see how I'm bullying you out of the discussion when I deliberately invited you to it. -- ferret (talk) 11:25, 18 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Trust me, I try not too, but it’s kind of difficult, I mean what happend to Rush was just to prevent JackOffDiamonds from reverting light metal and heavy metal from the genre list, I don’t know what article your referring about, but pardon me for any disruption I might've caused. Sixty Minute Limit (talk) 21:10, 15 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi Ferret, how do we stop Joshua Wynne (4TheWynne) from constantly revering our valid edits on this page. I thought having it semi-protected stopped this type of vandalism. TIA, Michael (jamesmp1184). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesmp1184 (talk • contribs) 04:19, 16 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

The page was protected to stop a sock/meat farm that was harassing 4TheWynne. It was not protected to stop him from editing the article, nor would the current protection level preventing it. "Our?" "We?" You seem to use a lot of plurals to describe your edits... @Oshwah and NinjaRobotPirate: Thoughts? Minor flare up at New Generation Rollingstock, related to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/LukaRuckels. -- ferret (talk) 15:13, 16 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

I don't think Jamesmp1184 is related to LukaRuckels. LukaRuckels is usually pretty easy to confirm with checkuser. I think this is more likely to be a content dispute unrelated to the socks. I don't know what the "we" and "our" refers to, but I'd assume it has something to do with a rail fan club or something. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:21, 16 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

I would give you a ferret, but it didn’t give me the option. Tantamounts ^{talk contribs} 04:50, 17 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I made a new page Wasteland (series). I know that you are active a lot in articles relating to video games and was wondering if you could help with it. ShimonChai (talk) 03:58, 18 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

I see that you blocked Flockofpigeons' account on 25th April. It seems that the editor made only a single edit (which was indeed vandalism). I am surprised that you indefinitely blocked the account on the basis of a single edit. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:32, 18 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Axl: This was part of a Tumblr vandalism raid that resulted in over 50 protections and at least 100 blocks. -- ferret (talk) 11:37, 18 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi. I noticed that you linked to Battlefield (series) on your profile, but the page was moved last year, and its redirect target was changed earlier this year. Did you mean to link to Battlefield (video game series)? Tantamounts ^{talk contribs} 22:58, 19 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Fixed. -- ferret (talk) 23:00, 19 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

  Tantamounts ^{talk contribs} 23:03, 19 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Regarding this revert, I used the anchor in this edit summary. The page has other anchors for individual list entries as well (PCGamesN and Nintendojo). Tantamounts ^{talk contribs} 23:40, 19 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Interqwark: We definitely shouldn't begin anchoring every entry there. Just link to the appropriate table section. -- ferret (talk) 23:42, 19 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

You’re right. I will.   Tantamounts ^{talk contribs} 23:43, 19 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Would you be able to lend your support to a page move, please? I have asked that, per Wikipedia's rules (here), this page be moved. The band's name is moe., and it is listed in all lowercase letters with the period. It follows the same rules as bill bissett, danah boyd , and k.d. lang. Thank you. 208.44.170.115 (talk) 17:15, 20 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

I see you've withdrawn this. I recommend following proper move requests and not spam messaging a dozen admins. -- ferret (talk) 11:13, 21 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hello.

It's been a long time. Could you close an AfD discussion that's been over 1 week (7 days) now please?

Thank you. 🖍S (talk) 09:28, 21 June 2018 (UTC) 🖍S (talk) 09:28, 21 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

It's from Portrait of Lotte. 🖍S (talk) 09:28, 21 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

It's been relisted. -- ferret (talk) 18:55, 21 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi. If I request a block, can my talk page and user page then be protected, or at least my user page? WP:UPPROT says that user pages may be protected by request (but not user talk pages). Tantamounts ^{talk contribs} 04:48, 22 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Interqwark: If you want a block for an enforced break, I will provide one. There is no reason to protect your user page (There's no disruption or vandalism). If during your block you for some reason keep using your talk page, I will consider protecting it, as I did your older account. However, I really suggest that a block alone is sufficient to enforce a break if you cannot stop yourself from editing while recognizing the need to step back. Protecting the talk page prevents you from making a normal unblock request later. -- ferret (talk) 11:40, 22 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

I don’t want the ability to simply request an unblock on my talk page. I would rather just contact an admin via e-mail should I choose to return. I would really appreciate if you could protect my talk page. Tantamounts ^{talk contribs} 11:50, 22 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi. WP:REDACT says that you can remove posts if no one has responded. Tantamounts ^{talk contribs} 13:40, 22 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

I don't care. It also says "only a short while", not "days later". I've ignored the multiple times you've made large edits to comments I've already replied to in the past. So I'll just make it clear here: Do not remove or edit comments on my talk page, period. -- ferret (talk) 13:42, 22 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Okay, that’s fine. But can I ask you to please remove it for me? Tantamounts ^{talk contribs} 13:48, 22 June 2018 (UTC)Reply