User talk:Ponyo/Archive 57

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 50 ← Archive 55 Archive 56 Archive 57

Evidence of Leftist Bias, censorship against conservative viewpoints and facts

User aggressively scrubs Wikipedia pages of content which does not fit a leftist narrative. Most recent example of this is the Article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrance_Yeakey where this Admin refuses to allow any information which lends evidence to the idea that his death was not a suicide. He is actively removing facts due to a political bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2B40:214D:15:15D1:8E71:1D86:8490 (talk) 22:17, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Agentgrailcooper pb

Thanks --Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:19, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

I was trying to leave you a note on the editor's talk page, but kept edit conflicting. Next stop, site-wide, but we'll see how it goes.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 19:20, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Miguel Sandberg deletion

Hello, this is my first time using a Talk page so forgive me if anything is off. The first time I created a Miguel Sandberg page, it got deleted because he had not yet achieved notability, which I understood and accepted. Sandberg has since debuted and played for a senior team (on 04/02/2022). I apologize if I misunderstood notability but I thought that qualifies him for a page (a senior club or senior international team appearance). Since you were the deleting administrator I am wondering if that was again the reason for deletion this time, or if I need to do anything extra to show the change since the first deletion. Thanks! MeadowOfHay (talk) 22:05, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

@MeadowOfHay: The article was tagged for deletion as a substantial recreation that was preciously deleted by consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miguel Sandberg. The issues raised at the deletion discussion were the subject's lack of independent significant coverage and the more specific WP:NFOOTY, which requires top-tier appearances (note this criteria has been deprecated since the original deletion discussion). As the article included essentially the same material save for the addition of Sanberg signing with Västerås SK Fotboll, which is not a top tier team, and still did not show significant independent coverage, the article was deleted per WP:CSD#G4 as being substantially the same and still not meeting the general notability requirement for inclusion.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 16:17, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

oof

There's a lot more fuckery going on surrounding this than meets the eye. I don't have the energy (thanks pregnancy brain!) to take it to whatever noticeboard but I just wanted to comment about it. CUPIDICAE💕 17:20, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, you don't have to scratch too deep to see what lies beneath. I also see one particular reviewer accepting an inordinate amount of borderline articles with long histories of UPE, which is concerning.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 17:47, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
The more interesting part is...well I'll email you. ;) CUPIDICAE💕 17:49, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
I also believe this user Ponyo to be engaging in leftist censorship. He is taking down arguments and evidence that supports conservative ideas. This user has censored over 140,000 posts in his lifetime. 2604:2B40:214D:15:15D1:8E71:1D86:8490 (talk) 22:19, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
Sure, whatever.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 22:25, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
Every single one of your edits was censorship??! Wow. How did you last so long? --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:27, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
Tha's me! Running amok with my giant CENSOR! stamp, removing content willy-nilly to push my (checks IP's post again) "leftist censorship" ideals!-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 22:35, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

What is and isn't vandalism

If anyone would like to continue this conversation, please do so at User talk:Smjg as this continues to go nowhere fast.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 22:15, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I'm just following up on the incident I was trying to report. I still cannot comprehend your saying this isn't vandalism.

I have had a look at Wikipedia:Vandalism. This is what I see:

  • The 'Types of vandalism' section opens "Vandalism on Wikipedia usually falls into one or more of these categories", i.e. it is not a complete list of what constitutes vandalism.
  • That said, I've just discovered this in that section: "reverting legitimate edits with the intent of hindering the improvement of pages". This applies especially to the user's last two edits to the page in question.
  • You told me to see the 'What is not vandalism' section, thereby implying that that section gives removal of maintenance templates, or something to that effect, as something that is "not vandalism". But it says no such thing.
  • Most importantly, the definition in the lead is "editing (or other behavior) deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose". As I read it, sabotaging efforts to resolve issues with the quality of an article, by removing maintenance templates or otherwise, falls under this definition.

— Smjg (talk) 16:05, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

I have nothing to add other than what I explained when I declined your report at AIV. The edits were not vandalism. Vandalism requires bad faith actions to harm the encyclopedia. You are stating that GliderMaven was malicious in their removal of the template instead of simply disagreeing with you over its inclusion. This is a content dispute, plain and simple and, as I previously noted, an extremely lame one. You are both edit warring, and there could potentially be blocks for that, or for disruption in general, but no admin would have blocked GliderMaven for vandalism based on the report you made, because it is not vandalism. -- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 16:28, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Are you saying that (a) removing an unresolved maintenance template somehow doesn't constitute sabotaging efforts to resolve issues with the quality of an article, or (b) sabotaging efforts to resolve issues with the quality of an article somehow doesn't constitute obstructing or defeating the goal of building an encyclopedia?
Furthermore, I say the fact that GliderMaven just repeated the action despite plain and clear instructions to stop, having made no attempt to challenge the validity of said instructions, constitutes evidence of bad faith. A further reason it isn't "plain and simple" is that the editor in question was also making personal attacks and using inappropriate, accusatory edit summaries. But that's another matter.
Meanwhile, I've reported it on the edit warring noticeboard. However, it seems the timeframe for responding to such reports is very slow in comparison. — Smjg (talk) 17:41, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) No, what he is saying is that the person who removed the template believed that they were improving the article. Because the person in question has the earnest belief that they are helping, we should not call those actions vandalism. Vandalism is solely reserved for people who are actually trying to make Wikipedia worse, not merely that they do things that I think make it worse. Just because I think something is not better, doesn't mean it is vandalism. Please stop using vandalism to describe situations where someone else has a different opinion about what "better" means. --Jayron32 17:45, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
@Jayron32: I'm inclined to disagree: If that were the case, the user would surely not have accompanied the edits with personal attacks. Furthermore, the presence or absence of a maintenance template is not a matter of "better" or "worse". It is a matter of the fact that somebody has raised a concern and it is awaiting resolution. This is especially the case if the concern has a section on the talk page about it. Please also read Help:Maintenance template removal. — Smjg (talk) 18:00, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
You can disagree all you want. A personal attack and vandalism are not the same thing. Certainly, both are wrong, but merely because someone personally attacks you doesn't mean that the change they made to the article is vandalism. There are a lot of ways someone can do bad things at Wikipedia, and most of them are not vandalism. As I said, you can disagree. You're still wrong, and if you persist in the future to use your idiosyncratic understanding of what vandalism is, and continue to mislabel things as vandalism which are not, it will not go well for you. You've now had two experienced people, who have been here for well over a decade, tell you that you are wrong. You've been around at least as long as the two of us have, which is why it is disappointing that you don't understand such a basic concept. --Jayron32 18:07, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
I didn't claim that a personal attack and vandalism are the same thing. My point is that they are both things that the same user has been engaging in. I also didn't claim that the personal attacks mean the user's changes are vandalism. My point was that these attacks are sign that the user is probably ill-intentioned, in which case the edits are vandalism. Why would a well-intentioned person engage in personal attacks? And why would a well-intentioned person just ignore and remove the warning messages rather than making any attempt to reason civilly with the user who left said messages?
Furthermore, you can claim that we have insufficient evidence that the user's edits are vandalism all you want, but this doesn't mean that the edits aren't vandalism. To claim this, you need evidence that the user was well-intentioned. So far, no such evidence has been given.
And what is this "basic concept" you're claiming I don't understand? The concept of vandalism? I somehow think I do understand the basic concept of vandalism. My understanding of the basic concept more or less matches with the definition given on the page (see the fourth bullet point in my original message). The only aspect of this being contested is the "deliberately intended" bit, which I think I've already covered to the best of my ability. In any case, understanding the basic concept isn't the same as understanding the subtleties behind it. — Smjg (talk) 21:47, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
You can add one more administrator to the group who thinks that your wikilawyering and WP:IDHT may end up getting you blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:03, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
(edit conflict) There are apparently not enough variation of words in the English language to convey to you that your AIV report was unactionable as vandalism, so I won't waste any more pixels. If you believe that I've somehow abused my admin tools by not acting on your report, then you can make a case for that at the relevant noticeboard. I also invite any editors who happen to watch this page to critique my declining of your report of vandalism and pointing you towards appropriate dispute resolution channels, should they wish to do so. Reports at WP:3RN are generally acted on in quick order when the three-revert policy has been violated in a clear-cut fashion. I haven't seen your report, so I have no further comment regarding that aspect of your complaint against GliderMaven. -- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 17:53, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

sox

this user left a message which got reverted by me when I rolled back all their edits. They're a sock of the person they were whining about you reverting, I've requested a glock, if you wanna block in the mean time. CUPIDICAE💕 11:25, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Looks like it's all taken care of. Another satisfied customer, it seems.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 15:47, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you

Huge thank you for protecting my talk page. It was constantly vandalised by IPs and i didn't know what to do! (it also happened on Frwiki [1]) Airtransat236 (let's talk) 16:11, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

No problem; sorry you became the target of such disruption. If it happens again you can request protection of your talk page at WP:RFPP.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 16:28, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Wiki00027

Hi there, Ponyo. Just wanted to let your attention towards these accounts :- 1) User:Wiki00023 2) User:Wiki00024 3) User:Wiki00025 4) User:Wiki00026 Hope this helps. Thankyou. zoglophie 19:31, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Ah, I see. This would be eligible for WP:CSD#G5 deletion then, which I've done.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 19:36, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

New administrator activity requirement

The administrator policy has been updated with new activity requirements following a successful Request for Comment.

Beginning January 1, 2023, administrators who meet one or both of the following criteria may be desysopped for inactivity if they have:

  1. Made neither edits nor administrative actions for at least a 12-month period OR
  2. Made fewer than 100 edits over a 60-month period

Administrators at risk for being desysopped under these criteria will continue to be notified ahead of time. Thank you for your continued work.

22:53, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Kyla carter vs. Kyla Carter

Hi, you recently protected Kyla carter because of repeated recreations. Just to say that the article has now been published at Kyla Carter instead, ie. with different capitalisation. (And by an editor with declared COI, at that, although I guess that's a somewhat separate matter.) I don't know what the protocol is here, just flagging it up FYI. Cheers, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:56, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

@DoubleGrazing: Thanks for letting me know; I've protected a few more titles and blocked the account. Enough volunteer time has been taken up dealing with this editor's promotional campaign.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 16:05, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
I did some digging and I came to the conclusion that while he's pushing promo, it's creepier than just your standard spammer. :/ PRAXIDICAE💕 16:24, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
Oh goodie.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 16:33, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

WP:BKFIP back?

Hi, a new user just repeated a WP:BKFIP edit at Milky Way. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 13:52, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

...now blocked.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 18:52, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Sock Puppet possibly found

I’m really not sure, but whilst I was looking at pages on William Roache, Katie Jarvis etc, I found a very user named DietCola46, who just recently joined. Something just seemed very suspicious about them. I don’t know if I’m right or not, but I think it’s another sock puppet of User:ZestyLemonz. The edit history this user has is really similar to other recently blocked socks with celebrity show edits, and at least one soap actor edit. Like from a user named User:Nanthemovie. I could be wrong, but the user seems too suspicious from the edit history. I thought I’d let you know since you’ve blocked ZestyLemonz accounts numerous times. WikiFlame50 (talk) 19:41, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Sock blocked by Bbb23.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:55, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Bringing to your notice

Dear Admin, Recently, you blocked two suspected sock accounts on talk page of Ahir. I suspect this account [[2]] is also a sock of the same , diff here- [[3]], creates new account instantly jumps to this article talk page on the same day itself i.e 20th April and immediately 10 days late, another newly created handle ( banned sock) jumps for canvassing. Please look into it RS6784 (talk) 04:00, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

@Ponyo:, another account created 4 days ago and probably related to the above group engaged in WP:Hounding, here [[4]] you may look at the edit history of the account, just 3-4 edits following an editor or directly jumps to discussion on topics placed under discretionary sanctions. I would request your immediate attention, pleaseRS6784 (talk) 06:09, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
@Abecedare:, @RegentsPark: tagging you as well, this is targeted harrassment going on for last 2 days by certain new accounts created in last two three days. I would request an Admin intervention into these 1-2 day account engaging same editor on different pagesRS6784 (talk) 07:03, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
@RS6784: I haven't looked at the socking part (though seems quite likely) but have left a note for Thakurgul and informed them of the applicable discretionary sanctions. Abecedare (talk) 18:39, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Apology and page protection needed.

Hey Ponyo, first off I’m really sorry about the way I have acted with the source stuff. I’ve learned my lesson. But I need help since you where one person involved with the whole shamble I caused. IP addresses are harassing me on my talk page and keep continuously adding content and templates nonstop that I do not want to have on my page and don’t seem to understand that the decision on what’s on the page is all mine. I need some protection on my page. Do you think you could help me out? Once again, I really am sorry about the sources on martinets page. WikiFlame50 (talk) 18:26, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

@WikiFlame50: I tend to be offline on weekends. JBW has wielded the mop in my absence.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 18:20, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Ah right. WikiFlame50 (talk) 20:04, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Question

So I had gotten two talk page messages, one from an IP and one form you then the revision was hidden? What happened? SoyokoAnis - talk | PLEASE PING 12:44, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

@SoyokoAnis: A trolling IP posted a message that does not bear repeating, hence the revision deletion.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 18:23, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Sorry for the picture

I thought it was a good picture but I guess not sorry I will just be more careful next time :( AngeredTrash710 (talk) 23:15, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Battle of Kruty (2022)

Was previously deleted here. Viewsridge (talk) 21:47, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes, but the speedy deletion of the new article was contested by someone other than the article creator. You cannot nominate it again under the same criteria once it's been contested. See the article talk page and feel free to add your concerns to the new deletion discussion.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:55, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

User talk:Ericl

Nice to know they still care, and it's entirely my fault. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:20, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Since I blocked the IP does that mean I'm now part of your gang of "immature bullies"? Will little unread missives about me now be left on various blocked users' talk pages years from now lamenting the utter unfairness of it all? Am I now <clutches pearls> infamous? Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 23:29, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Blocking

I think my blocking on Jacob Elordi's page is unfair. The only thing I have done is add more information, true and specific, to the article to make it easier to understand and enrich it. On the talk page I explained the reasons and no one has refuted them. The only thing they have done is re-edit the content (doing the edit war themselves) without any explanation. How does this work? Are there people who have more rights than others who do not even need to debate to impose their law? Nidthogg (talk) 21:50, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

You were previously blocked for edit warring at the same article and continue to do so. There are four editors currently discussing the disputed content on the article talk page, and three of them disagree with you, meaning you do not have consensus to restore the material. All of your claims above are false. You can appeal the block on your talk page, but there's no way an appeal will be accepted if you're going to claim that you have consensus for the changes and that you weren't edit warring.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 22:09, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

This user is autoconfirmed?

Thank you for the block regarding K22 Mod. When fixing the vandalism on K.G.F: Chapter 2, I noticed that article is semi-protected, requiring auto-confirmed status. I'm puzzled as to how this new account was able to edit the page. Am I missing something? signed, Willondon (talk) 22:31, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

@Willondon: The account's been registered since November 2020 and has over 10 edits.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 22:36, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
I see that now. Strange. Registration a year and half before the first edit. Oh, well. signed, Willondon (talk) 22:42, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Nidthogg

As you can see the tendentious history at Jacob Elordi, I'm not sure what the next step is but they don't appear to be getting it and we're just going in circles on the talk page. Would it be best to request a full block at ANI under WP:CIR/WP:IDHT or can an admin impose a ban based on GS/DS since it's a BLP (or does that only apply to articles with specific GS/DS notices?) ooooorrr can they just be outright banned from the article and the talk page? It's clear this isn't going anywhere and they're making less and less sense. PRAXIDICAE💕 22:43, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Ugh. I see they have an appeal up on their talk page that completely flies in the face of what I wrote above. That being said, I don't think I'm ready to modify the block to site-wide just yet, though I'll do so if they don't use they don't clue in to WP:EW and WP:CONSENSUS stat. I've added the article talk page to my watchlist for a bit, so we'll see.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 22:52, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2022).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:34, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Possible block evasion

Hi, Ponyo. Regarding Isabelle Belato's talk page and the recent harassment targeted towards them: I found a suspiciously similar IP on the same /45 range—2605:8D80:628:D0A2:523:C425:57BA:A921. They also share the same interests—trans women. The user has not been harassing Isabelle (which I suspect is because you protected their talk page), but has been adding unsourced/poorly sourced material to the article Gender bias on Wikipedia, which Isabelle promptly reverted. I don't know if this is block evasion or two editors incidentally caught up in the same /45 range, since I have little to no SPI-related knowledge. Just wanted to let you know.

Also, @Isabelle Belato – Courtesy ping if you want some insight. Thanks. — 3PPYB6 — TALK — CONTRIBS — 00:03, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping 3PPYB6. I don't have much to add other than that it's likely the same troll going for subtle (but not really) vandalism (see this edit for example). Best to report and move on. Isabelle 🏳‍🌈 00:24, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
I've had placed a couple /64 blocks, but have extended it to /45. There are some pretty vile edits on that range.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 15:45, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Potential New Sock

Hi,

There seems to be another brand new account making statements similar to the socks you banned yesterday over at the Michael Shellenberger page (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Michael_Shellenberger&diff=1087284778). Would you mind taking a look at this when you get a moment? —Hobomok (talk) 15:02, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

@Hobomok: In reply to the above and your email, from a purely technical standpoint the connection is  Possible. It's not a strong enough connection to block, and I'd prepare for a vast number of accounts to appear, both new and "revived", to edit the article. Some will be completely unrelated to each other and there will be a fair share of WP:MEAT. Joy!-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 19:05, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
@Ponyo: Yeah, I figured this was coming given recent announcements around the page's subject. I appreciate your help (here and yesterday)! --Hobomok (talk) 19:15, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Potential New Sock of Kashmorwiki?

Hi, I am a new to wikipedia and its ways, my first article has been subjected to vandalism and there have been attempts of intimidation. Please check if i'm being over sensitive as [[5]] is insinuating or there is an attempt to initimidate here [[6]]. I smell something fishy here. Is he connected to Kashmorwiki? I went to the noticeboard and the banner at the top suggested I can approach admins directly to skip the drama. If it is wrong to write here, my apologies Shatbhisha6 (talk) 23:03, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

@Shatbhisha6:, I don't see any bullying or purposeful attempts at intimidation in that discussion. What I do see is a number of knowledgeable editors, including the IP, trying to give you advice and you not really accepting what they are saying.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 16:21, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
Thank you, I appreciate and grateful for the advice given by all and also by the IP in his second reply. But his first response with Usage of word like "badgering" and "you felt bullying" were not civil way of advising to new editors who are still learning. I didnt badger anyone, and followed the kind advise given by other knowledgeable editors and made changed accordingly. I have reduced no of sources as suggested significantly. Shatbhisha6 (talk) 17:11, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Continued overlinking

Hi Ponyo. Thanks for your suggestion on overlinking. The effort was only made as one time reference in any article. There are no multiple links for same term in any article. I felt any article looks polished and decent with this effort. I dont need to do overlinking for increasing my edit counts. However I apologise for any unambigious mistake and will be cautious in future. I respect your remarks and will remember in future. Thanks again. Gardenkur (talk) 16:20, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

@Gardenkur: It's correct that terms are generally linked only in the first instance, but common terms should not be linked at all. Arjayay explained this in detail on your talk page. Links are meant to provide additional context to readers; linking common terms does not help. Please read WP:OVERLINK to understand when a link should be added. Thank you, -- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 16:36, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi Ponyo. I offer my thanks to you again on reminding me on the issues related to overlinking. Will follow your guidelines in future and restrict myself on overlinking. Thanks and have a nice day. Gardenkur (talk) 16:38, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Meena Jutla

Hello Ponyo, I hope you are well. I wanted to let you know that a page you protected, Meena Jutla was meant to be unprotected on 14 May. It still hasn’t been unprotected. Is this something that an administrator needs to sort or can I do it by simply remove the page protection template? I don’t really know much about page protection and pp templates so I hope you can help me. Have a good evening Blanchey (talk) 20:57, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

I think a bot usually removes the templates once the protection expired. Maybe its down?-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:04, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
This is the bot.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:07, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
The bot goes off of Category:Wikipedia pages with incorrect protection templates. The {{pp}} template adds this category when the protection is invalid (i.e. expired). I made a WP:NULLEDIT to the page and that seemed to fix it; both the icon became hidden and the page was properly categorized, so the bot then removed the template. Sounds like this was some sort of hiccup with MediaWiki's job queue, or things are just that slow right now. At any rate, thankfully (for me) it wasn't the bot's fault ;) — MusikAnimal talk 21:25, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

@MusikAnimal: and Ponyo, thank you for clarifying. May I ask, if I do come a cross a page which has a protection template when it is is not protected, would I myself be able to remove it? Or would it not work since I am not an administrator? Thank you Blanchey (talk) 21:50, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

It may be better just to contact the blocking admin (as you did in this case). There may be overlapping levels of protection, a discrepancy between your time zone and UTC, or a bot issue that needs to be brought to MusikAnimal's attention.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 22:11, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for letting me know. Blanchey (talk) 22:12, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Partygnome

Hi, Ponyo! Thank you for this, and for re-blocking. Involved or not, if I had seen his/her remarks to me I'd not have issued a block myself – it would have felt too much like retaliation. I appreciate you dealing with it so rapidly, thank you! Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:53, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

3RRs Rule

Can you please clarify regarding my 3RR block? Honestly until today I didn't even know what a 3RR was. I'll be sure to avoid this mistake in the future now that I know. But why not give me the benefit of doubt. In any case, GordonGlottal managed to do 4 reverts within 24 hours and yet he was not blocked and somehow his vandalism edits are considered correct. I don't see the logic. I claim vandalism because this editor did not justify his deletion of most of the article's text in the Talk section.

All I'm really asking is for somebody to take a comparison look at the article text Center for Autism and Related Disorders before and after this dispute. Certainly I can understand how deleting text by editors can be justified, especially if the text is unsourced or biased. However this article's previous content was very well sourced with references as recent as 2021. And the Wikpedia guidelines state that "When you find a passage in an article that is biased, inaccurate, or unsourced the best practice is to improve it if you can rather than deleting salvageable text." Further guidelines state "Focus on article content during discussions, not on editor conduct; comment on content, not the contributor. Wikipedia is written through collaboration, and assuming that the efforts of others are in good faith" I made numerous comments in the article Talk page and blocking my edits just seem punitive for a rule I didn't even know existed. It does not focus on the content at all.MarsTrombone (talk) 19:14, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Note that according to your block log, the relevant noticeboard report and the block message on your talk page, you were blocked for edit warring, not a WP:3RR violation. I already noted in your declined appeal that characterizing the removal of the disputed content as vandalism is incorrect; continuing to repeat it is unhelpful at best. The editors removing the content left edit summaries explaining the reasons for their removal. Cherry-picking bits and pieces of various guidelines that appear to suit your cause is also unhelpful. As you are in a content dispute, follow dispute resolution. If you want any of the removed content restored, get consensus on the article talk page.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 19:29, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Suspicious account

Blanchey brought to my attention that a user by the name of Volatilehormonal might be another ZestyLemonz account. I thought it seemed suspicious too by the recent joining, the edit history being filled with reality shows and celebrities and including at least one person associated with soaps. Ryan Thomas, Toby Alexander Smith etc. which is just like his recent accounts, it’s the exact same sort of pattern. I am Not sure if I am right but I thought I’d bring it to your attention just in case. LordBossMaster100 (talk) 16:18, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

They've now been blocked as a suspected sock.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 17:44, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm wondering, maybe a longer block from the article?

[7]. Doug Weller talk 08:41, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: Sure, if you'd like. I'd be hesitant to do it myself as they haven't edited at all since the block expired.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 17:17, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
Done. Doug Weller talk 17:31, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Norm Macdonald, Daily Beast, etc.

Thank you for removing some material from Norm Macdonald that was sourced only to a questionable source. I had misgivings about it, but I couldn't trace where it came into the article and didn't have a chance to chase the source. —C.Fred (talk) 23:20, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

I blocked a couple accounts that were clearly related to each other as their edit summaries where unacceptable. That being said, if someone is blanking entire sections of an article, it's always best to look at why which I did in this case. Perhaps some of the content regarding the allegations can be added, but what was there included synth and crappy sourcing for such material. I'm glad I double checked.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 23:29, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Request

Hey Ponyo, hope you are okay. I was wondering if you would be able to create redirects to User:Blanchey from the following pages: User:Blackazz User:Blackazz968 User:BethandKirk65 These are all previous usernames. The reason I have had quite a few is because I was blocked from editing because the administrator said that it violated the policy and then I had another one when I didn’t like it. The reason that redirects weren’t originally placed was because I didn’t actually have a userpage back then. I would do it myself but I haven’t figured out redirects just yet and would probably ruin it. If not, no worries! Blanchey (talk) 16:19, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

 Done-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 18:40, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
Thank you so much! Blanchey (talk) 19:00, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
We’re you also able to do for the 968 one? Or not because this was the username violation one? Blanchey (talk) 19:17, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
Weirs, I had the window open to do it, I guess I just didn't hit save.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 19:19, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
Oh, never mind! Thank you again Blanchey (talk) 19:21, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Ethnicity edits

Hey, Ponyo,

I hope you are well. I saw the effects of your reverts of PTnguyen real's edits on ethnicity as we ended up with a lot of empty categories regarding emigration and ethnic descent. I found these types of edits go further back, into April and beyond, and it's interesting to look at their contributions page if you just look at page creations. I only did one reversion because I'm behind on my daily routine of tasks but will return to see if there are more problematic edits tomorrow. Thanks. Liz Read! Talk! 22:04, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

When I first came across the edits I admit I had an impulse to just pretend I hadn't seen them as these types of ethnic category populations and article additions are so time consuming to untangle. I was thinking of posting at BLPN just to get more eyes on the affected articles as there are (if I remember) a couple hundred, but got caught up in other things and am honestly a bit burnt out in dealing with this type of disruption. Any help you could provide would sure be appreciated, Liz!-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 22:15, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Defend Ponyo

Is Defend pono your other account? --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:04, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't think you have to worry about pinging an 8-year-old account. Obviously Ponyo taking a Hawaiian vacation.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:18, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, that's not me. But it's not like they appear to be trying to impersonate me or anything.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 16:13, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
When I wrote my mot moquant, I didn't realize that the word pono (not ponyo) has, like all words, an article! --Bbb23 (talk) 16:28, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
Ooooohh, and it's a good word too! Perhaps a name change is in order?-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 19:09, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
Akamai pono.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:37, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
I like it!-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 19:48, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
Good, I've changed it for you. You might want to change the link in your sig to Hawaiian for consistency.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:14, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
It's fabulous; thank you! Akamai Poyospam
I hadn't realized that that account didn't have the y. The sovereignty of the land is perpetuated in righteousness. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:07, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Nyaytyhyaynyiyeylyluytyeysy

I see you've tried to get through to this user (I have as well). This makes me think that it's not worth trying anymore. Spicy (talk) 01:15, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

@Spicy: They have engaged in personal attacks a couple of times now. Diffs are linked at the ANI case by myself and another editor. TornadoLGS (talk) 02:08, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Admin's Barnstar
For being the kindest, most helpful administrator, and for sorting an issue for me. Thank you! Blanchey (talk) 13:28, 27 May 2022 (UTC)


Is this vandalism

Hi, not sure where to ask so... Is this [8] considered vandalism? The user removed a report against him in the ANI and lied in the edit summary claiming the dispute was resolved in my Talk Page. What should I do if so? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AkisAr-26 (talk • contribs) 18:58, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Not vandalism, but it is certainly disruptive. The editor has since been blocked.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 19:03, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for the answer. Should I do something in such cases in the future? AkisAr-26 (talk) 09:53, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
Editors who remove threads about themselves from noticeboards generally get noticed quickly as these pages have hundreds of page watchers. You can also just restore your post if you see them removing it and warn them.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 16:03, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Unresolved report in ANI archived. What should I do?

A bot removed [9] my report against a user's who is systematically lying and insulting me.

  • Is my report problematic? How can I improve it?
  • Does the user get a free pass after all he's done if I leave it as is?
  • Can I revert the archival? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AkisAr-26 (talk • contribs) 12:45, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
I wouldn't revert the archival as the incident at that time was dealt with a block on the NikolaosFanaris account. If there has been additional disruption since the block expired, start a new thread that includes a link to your archived report and diffs of your evidence for ongoing disruption. Try to keep it short as long reports tend to take longer to review.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:36, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Wasn't that block for an unrelated issue? AkisAr-26 (talk) 20:20, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
Maybe you could just let it go and move on? Your only edits in the last week and a half have been to my talk page to ask me about an archived ANI report. No admin is going to take action on an editor who hasn't been disruptive since a previous block expired. If you find yourself in another dispute, follow the advice here.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:26, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
I respectfully disagree. Letting it go is not an option while his comments saying I am sugarcoating nazis still exist, that is, there is currently ongoing defamation, as you'd probably agree.
As for my 4 comments in your page which I assume you mention because I shouldn't have posted that many, I apologize. I understand you are busy and will ask other mods instead, to spread the load. A small correction if I may; they were not about an archived ANI. 2 were about a deleted ANI (so that he avoids a ban) which might be considered vandalism and 2 were about the archived ANI.
Regardless. Thank you for your time. Have a nice day.
AkisAr-26 (talk) 17:46, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Brian To'o protection

You read my mind. I literally just pulled up RFPP in Twinkle after reverting and saw that the page had been protected - thank you! Now I can safely see if I lost any good edits out of that mess. Cheers! Tony Fox (arf!) 23:22, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

NP. Happy to help.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 23:24, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

User:LucyAyoubFan

New sock is User:Manbearpe, you may want to keep Miguel Vítor's article under scrutiny, the socks there (and i imagine elsewhere) just keep 'a comin!

Attentively --193.137.135.2 (talk) 12:54, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Blocked a sleeper as well.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 15:57, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Downright weird

Menei Tekel creates an account on May 18. Makes a bunch of innocuous, constructive spelling edits. Then gets involved in a "courtesy blanking" at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Shalom Yechiel. Then after a gap of a few weeks, makes this edit at the current RfB, citing Wikipedia:We need more bureaucrats, a dreadful essay created by ... wait for it .... Shalom Yechiel.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:29, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Do you think they'll do us a favour and just spill the beans as to who they are? -- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:36, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
In glancing at the case, they've done so before, but I'm not familiar with the person or the case, so maybe they're taking their time warming up to it. Is the CU log helpful?--Bbb23 (talk) 20:40, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
Given the history at that RfA, and the length of time that socks seem inclined to wait to blank/unblank, I'm not super interested in digging in too deep. I mean, we're talking "Mike V active at SPI" old. -- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:47, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
Is a behavioral block reasonable, or should I just let it go? I miss Mike; he was a good fellow--Bbb23 (talk) 20:57, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
You could, but they're going to get tangled up sooner or later (or abandon the account). They've sort of painted themselves in a corner with those edits. I miss Mike too, but not as much as that DoRD guy. He was cool beans, and not redundant in the slightest!-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:10, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
Understood, but, unlike Mike, he still comes around once in a while, although I confess I'm not sure why.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:21, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
I'm like Dorothy clicking my ruby heels together three times; if I ping DoRD three times and say "there's no place like Wikipedia", he appears!-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:27, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
Well, it worked this time with two pings, but only because I got a notification about a redir I created a while back. Hello, Ponyo and Bbb23. I come around on the rare occasion I find something that needs fixing, but otherwise, I just read the site logged-out like any random member of the public. Anyway, take care, y'all. —DoRD (talk)​ 18:29, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
This was a pleasant name to see on my watchlist. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:37, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
Ditto. I hope you are well, DoRD.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:31, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

It's not my doing.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:19, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Unsurprising.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 15:41, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
zzuuzz = pithy.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:56, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
Hey, sometimes I just do my best to minimise drama. I do have a longer observation. Yes, I think that's Shalom Yechiel. I don't know anything much about them but it's undeniable that it's either them or a joe-job. I'm going with them, because reasons. I'm not aware of any longer term issues which need dwelling upon. I also blocked the sock of someone, probably someone else, at the RfA who had no business reverting several admins several years ago. -- zzuuzz (talk) 05:54, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

NP Pov Pushing

You might want to have a look at the edits of Miraclecln as well. MrOllie (talk) 22:52, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

If they are related, it's looks to be via WP:MEAT. That being said, NPTruth did create a new undisclosed account today (DrGoalie) to edit the same topic area, so I've changed their block to site-wide.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 23:15, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

BKFIP

Who's the expert these days? I suspect I've run into another iteration, but have had a worse-than-normal record lately of guessing socks so I'm not going to go out on a limb. Thought I'd ask a CU privately so as not to annoy the person if I'm wrong about them. I can't recall if CU is useful for BKFIPor not. Also, "Hi Ponyo!". --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:23, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Unless it's obvious, CU is useful. However, Ponyo is rarely here on the weekends.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:37, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
Thanks Bbb23. I'm rarely here on weekends, too, but am avoiding unpleasant real-world tasks. It can certainly wait for next week. I'll email the name and the justifications for my suspicion on Monday, Ponyo. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:41, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, it's BKFIP. -- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 18:24, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
Thanks. As always, you rock. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:58, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
BKFIP gets all the credit on this one. I may have confirmed it via checkuser, but their depth of arrogance continues to point on a spotlight on them again and again. Can you imagine if they just edited quietly and collaboratively? We'd never know it was them.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 19:18, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
The obvious inference is there are socks editing as I write. Look how long it took to find the latest one (editing since 2020, dormant for over a year before that).--Bbb23 (talk) 20:40, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
Oh definitely, but by their 12th edit they had already slipped in to full condescension mode. It just takes someone to recognize that it's just BKFIP being BKFIP and the jig is up. Anyhoo, WP:DENY and all that.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:14, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

ZestyLemonz

Hey Ponyo, hope you are well. I noticed that you blocked another Zesty sock earlier. Following this, I also removed my message basically thanking them for something (not realising it was another illegitimate account). There are just a couple of things I wanted to ask, should the sockpuppet tag be added to the user page like all the other accounts are?

The second question was, I noticed that certain users who have missused Wikipedia for a long time have a Long-term abuse project page. I was wondering if one should be created regarding Zesty? The user is nothing but trouble, and put a picture of Jimmy Savile up one user who they didn’t like’s talk page and even said that they had died and even filed an illegitimate report at deceased Wikipedians. Apart from that they are generally very rude and unkind to other users and also use IPs so they are not detected. From what I have gathered, they have been misusing Wikipedia from 12 April 2017 to this day.

What do you think? Many thanks Blanchey (talk) 12:48, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

With sock accounts that are this active, tagging just gives them more of the attention they crave (see WP:DENY). The link to the master account is included in the block log, which suffices. Creating an LTA page again just gives them more attention. Editors and admins editing in the same topic area notice the new socks pretty quickly as their uncollaborative attitude and petty attacks make them obvious. -- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 19:12, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Makes perfect sense. And thank you for revision deleting the personal attacks on me and another editor. I appreciate it. Blanchey (talk) 20:57, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Just ignore them. Report at SPI as the socks come up, but otherwise don't engage with them or give them any attention whatsoever.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:59, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Yes, will do. Thanks again 😊 Blanchey (talk) 21:02, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi Ponyo, hope you are well. I’d like to inform you about another suspicious account. The account is 'Iam52' editing habits are similar and has made incorrect additions such as this one. I didn’t file this through on the actual spi case page because there is something about this which could potentially mean it isn’t this person again, and that’s that this account has created a user page, although they could have done this to put us off the scent. It may be worth doing a CU operation on the account, it was only created a few days ago. And I’d like to apologise now if I got this one wrong. Thanks Blanchey (talk) 11:52, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Yeah. I always thought that account looked very suspicious. Full of reality show edits. Especially love island LordBossMaster100 (talk) 15:15, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

It's them. Blocked with no talk page access.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 19:51, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for letting me know. Blanchey (talk) 20:35, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

HYC

[10] is back from the 151.68 range. Thanks, JBL (talk) 00:57, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

@JayBeeEll: the 151 range is trickier because it's huge. Even the subranges I could block are really large. I've reverted their latest edit at Censored Eleven and semi-protected the article for a month.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 16:30, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
Thank you! JBL (talk) 18:19, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
Now they're back at a new range; see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ Honest Yusuf Cricket. (I've posted at the SPI talk-page to request a clerk to clean up after my incompetent addition of an extra space in the name.) As before, anything you can do to help would be appreciated. JBL (talk) 19:12, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

New obvious DUCK Clam chowdah sock

This editor just cannot stop digging a deeper and deeper hole for himself...TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 01:03, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Have too much time on my hands and started reading the talk page of a jaded functionary with a funny name on this encyclopedia anyone can edit. TheTimesAreAChanging, dealt with. Another Jaded Functionary (talk) 01:22, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
"Just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in". -- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 16:34, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

don't bother

I just requested a glock of this user. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/*Considerate. PRAXIDICAE🌈 19:25, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Looking at User:Shivaguevara for comparison makes the connection obvious, so I've blocked and tagged locally in the meantime. I'll update the SPI as well so the breadcrumb trail is fresh.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 19:31, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
There are 3 other accounts globally but they aren't registered here (well, one is but 0 edits from April) FYI. They gave it away with the Sinaga spam. These are the other three accounts if you want to keep an eye out, WeekendResponse, Welwillendheid, Assumption of Good Intention PRAXIDICAE🌈 19:32, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
The range is busy, but the creation of KidzStar258 is suspicious from a technical/possible sleeper standpoint. Just putting that out there should the account pick up where the other socks left off.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 19:42, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Massive G5 list

I've nommed a few articles for G5s, which you've deleted in the past few days; unfortunately, based on this, there are a few hundred to go. Should I tag each individually? Is there a better way? Note that several deleted have since been recreated; I suspect socks, and have updated the SPI accordingly here. Iseult Δx parlez moi 23:22, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Ugh. I don't have time to look at this now, perhaps someone watching this page will take pity on us and help clean up? Regardless, I'll take a closer look tomorrow.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 23:24, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
Also don't have time, but what you can do is create a user subpage User:Iseult/G5 candidates from Mhsohaib and someone can run Twinkle mass delete on it. Probably the best way, and if there's anything with substantially other edits on it, the editor can request restoration. I suppose technically everyone should be reviewed, but if memory serves these are soccer stubs from the Arab world that mainly this one guy cares about? Seems like a valid use of a mass tool within IAR given the time constraints, especially if easy reversal is assumed. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:40, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) I've cleared out the ones that you G5-tagged, Iseult. Will try to get to at least some of the rest (currently listed in my sandbox), but it's a bit of an involved process, since each of these has 10-20 subsequent edits that need to be checked and ascertained to either be not substantive additions or to be by other sox. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 01:45, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
There is also User:MZMcBride/Sandbox which I believe has been used by some admins to delete hundreds of User pages in one click. It really bothers me but it's been going on a lot in the past week. I brought it up with MZMcBride on his talk page because I see no way that an admin has reviewed hundreds of User pages prior to a huge batch deletion. MZMcBride seems to have thought that the pages were being reviewed prior to deletion but I checked some of the pages that were deleted and none of them had been tagged for deletion first. If my suspicions are incorrect, well, then I am mistaken. But when you see hundreds of pages deleted in the same second in the Deletion log, it kind of stands out. Liz Read! Talk! 02:26, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
@Tamzin and TonyBallioni:, if a wiki-hosted list of articles created by Losail is what's needed, it seems like Tamzin's gotten that now. If IAR is the course of action, great; if not, I understand that I should keep tagging. Or I can remove those which don't qualify unquestionably for A7/G5 from the list. That said, if we look at what pages have been recreated, mostly by Noornasser2019, those don't qualify for G4 or G5 (until if CU-confirmed), but maybe A7; those are more difficult to handle, and maybe further trawling through pages created by Noor is warranted. With every page up for deletion, though, should salting be considered? Iseult Δx parlez moi 04:08, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
I know it's a total pain, but I think the articles need to be tagged one by one to check if there are significant edits by others. If I remember correctly, the ones that I G5'ed yesterday had a handful of edits but these were also from blocked socks, so I disregarded them. If you don't already have "Strike out usernames that have been blocked" enabled in your preferences, I would do so - it makes reviewing article histories much easier if you're trying to pick out blocked sock accounts.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 16:37, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
Not a problem for me. I'm just wondering whether I should be tagging them for salting as well. Iseult Δx parlez moi 17:07, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
From the admin side I'd be unlikely to salt them without evidence that they have been repeatedly recreated specifically by sock accounts (which may be the case with some of the articles). I'd also be hesitant to salt without evidence of persistent socking as I'm not overly-familiar with the leagues in question and whether the players would be notable enough for inclusion if the articles were to be recreated by legit editors. But that's just my thinking, you're sort of at the mercy of whichever admins are reviewing CAT:CSD at any given time. -- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 17:18, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Anyways, if any more talk page watchers want to help me out with cleanup (I don't think this really qualifies for ANI, though if anyone feels that way, please make a new thread there), we also have stubs to go through from confirmed socks Dyalafamhi, Lilianasri, Margheret, Tash-natasha, ~150 still to go from Losail, and, because of recreations, AGF accounts Noornasser2019 and Motuca. Iseult Δx parlez moi 18:21, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

I've gone through all your G5 noms to date and deleted all but two. One had significant enough edits by an unrelated editor that I think excludes it from the criteria and the other had survived an AfD.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 19:50, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
Well, this is embarassing. I meant to refer to CSD U5s being mass deleted and here you were discussing CSD G5s. Forgive my misplaced rant. It still bothers me though! Liz Read! Talk! 21:21, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Soumendu Lahiri

Respected Sir, the article which I created on the name of Soumendu Lahiri is nominated for deletion. But I think sir, this notable person has enough references. The editors except you are trying to destroy the article where the person should have an wiki article. You please help me to get Justice sir. With Regards, Tbengalieditor (talk) 04:21, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

@Tbengalieditor: Editors are not "trying to destroy the article", they're using standard Wikipedia processes to determine whether Soumendu Lahiri meets the criteria for inclusion. Given that the previous consensus was that Lahari did not meet the criteria, it's unsurprising that the question would arise again when you recreated the article. Also, Wikipedia has nothing to do with the notion of justice. If you think it does, this is not the place for you.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 16:28, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Respected Sir, I am really sorry. I beg your apology. Pardon me please. Regards -- Tbengalieditor (talk) 19:07, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

No need to beg for anything, just make sure you read through the messages and links provided by other editors. I've left you a (belated) welcome message on your talk page with some helpful information.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 19:41, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Carillo

this is the forever incompetent Joseph Carrillo and related socks. He's a real winner. PRAXIDICAE🌈 22:17, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

I switched JBW's partial block to a site-wide one. Not sure if that'll help or not...we shall see.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 22:21, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
He's a persistent, but incompetent troll. You should see his "fans" Facebook rant about me. And by fans I mean a fake profile he made. It's quite hilarious. PRAXIDICAE🌈 22:23, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
And this gem. PRAXIDICAE🌈 22:24, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
Ah yes, this all does seem vaguely familiar now I've skimmed the links. -- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 22:27, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
Yes, if you have free time, be sure to check out his A LIST CELEBRITY WIKIPEDIA STAR YouTube channel for a chuckle. He's not going places. PRAXIDICAE🌈 22:29, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
Hi, Ponyo & Praxidicae. I see that the partial block of mine that Ponyo refers to was on the one article The Morgan Hill Times for just one month. Looking at the whole situation again now, I see that was woefully inadequate. Apart from block-evasion by switching to other IP ranges, there's been disruptive editing on a much wider range of articles. What at first I thought might be several strands of unrelated disruptive editing by several different editors turned out, on further study, to be all, or at least mostly, linked together. There's similar unconstructive editing on a number of Morgan Hill related articles, not just The Morgan Hill Times, there's the Joseph Carrillo related vandalism, and there's Dan Pulcrano, and perhaps more. There are also some edits from other IP ranges, some of which clearly are the same person, and some look as though they may be.
Ponyo, I see that, as well as making the block sitewide, you have protected José Carrillo until 21 July and Dan Pulcrano until 21 September. Unfortunately, I don't see anything as being likely to be very effective apart from range blocks and page protections on much larger scales, larger, I fact, than I am usually willing to consider. Maybe this is the time to consider an exception.
Praxidicae, when I looked at the links you have posted above, several thoughts were prompted, but perhaps the biggest one is wondering what life can possibly be like for someone who goes round all the time carrying on their shoulders such an extreme burden of anger and anxiety about something so trivial, so much so that they feel compelled to spend what must be a significant amount of time and effort expressing themselves in such strong terms about it on several web sites. A pretty empty life is my guess, and, since it's all about an emotional need to get attention and public recognition, presumably a pretty low level of self-esteem. Disclaimer:I am not a psychologist, and none of what I have written is a professional assessment. Give it as much or as little weight as you see fit. JBW (talk) 20:25, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
Yes. To all of it.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:28, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Hotdish proponent

Howdy! Please take a look at [11] and the editor's talk page and see what you think; in my view it's over the line into WP:PROMO territory, particularly given the editor's tenacity. I apologize in advance if you suddenly find yourself hungry for Tater Tots. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 21:05, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

It's purely promotional, which is why I removed it (again). And I'm always hungry for tater tots.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:10, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

User:Alas2022

Hi,

I see you have blocked User:Alas2022, as a sock. I don't know the history of this sock, but I assume you had your reasons; so I am not questioning your block.

However, I see that their created articles are mass-deleted. Some of those articles were much needed, and are in some cases linked to by hundreds of other articles. Could those articles please be undeleted? I am thinking of:

  • Hauran Sanjak, or Sanjak of Hauran, (and all its redirs); there are probably several hundreds red-links on en.wp now, because of the deletion of this article (and all its redirs)
  • Emmanuel Guillaume-Rey, important (historic) Crusader scholar; his work is used many places on en.wp
  • Denys Pringle, important (present-day) Crusader scholar; his work is linked no less than 251 times on en.wp.

Could you please undelete the above articles? There were some others, mostly places, which I would gladly see undeleted, places like:


Pinging User:Sir Sputnik, User:Al Ameer son for comments, too, cheers, Huldra (talk) 20:54, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

@Huldra: Probably a slippery slope if such exceptions are allowed, as mass deleting the articles, which were generally of good quality and long overdue, is intended to deter future behavior not just punish the offending editor. It is a shame the editor chose to skirt their ban, rather than making a direct appeal to lift it from the start. I hope they do take the opportunity to reflect and return to edit as I found their contributions valuable. If any exceptions are to be considered they should be restricted to those articles where other editors made significant contributions, such as Denys Pringle (perhaps with the offending editor's contribs being deleted only)—I'll leave that to Ponyo's discretion. For the rest, other editors, probably including you and I, could begin recreating them from scratch. Al Ameer (talk) 02:32, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
@Huldra: The page creations were deleted per WP:BANREVERT. I believe the only article I deleted by this sockmaster was Al-Nidal SC as they have recreated it multiple times under different sock accounts. I have undeleted Denys Pringle and Khalkhalah as I can see in the history that there were significant edits by others, but the remainder should be created fresh by someone who is not a banned user who has been thumbing their nose at the community and violating the terms of use of this project for years.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:26, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
Thank you very much for undeleting those articles. And haveing had to deal with this charmer for years, have left me with zero sympathy for vandals etc. However, 3-4 articles kept (out of 160+) can hadly make them feel very welcome here, cheers, Huldra (talk) 22:17, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
@Huldra: I'm going to be on holiday after tomorrow, so if there are additional articles that you may have contributed to that you think should be undeleted, please contact the deleting admin for a quicker response.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 22:40, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

User page

Hello Ponyo, I hope you are well. I was wondering if you could help me with something. So in the past, I have had a few old user pages although I always had them deleted because I ended up not liking them and getting upset. I do have one at the moment and I’m planning on keeping this one although I’ve heard about the WP:REFUND thing since deleted pages are still available for admins and was wondering if you could undelete it. The reason I’m taking this to you and not the actual board is because there are a few versions so this may complicate things. Would it be possible to restore all the old pages and the revisions will all go under my current one? And would it be possible that when restoring them, they are restored on User:Blanchey instead of their original locations? The reason this has happened is because of all the username changes I’ve had so it my fault. If it’s possible to do, here are all the deleted pages:

  • 15:34, 7 June 2022 Xaosflux talk contribs deleted page User:Blanchey (U1: User request to delete page in own userspace – to retrieve it, see WP:REFUND) (thank)
  • 08:16, 31 March 2022 Fastily talk contribs deleted page User:Blanchey (U1: User request to delete page in own userspace – If you wish to retrieve it, please see WP:REFUND) (thank)
  • 10:20, 27 October 2021 GB fan talk contribs deleted page User:Blanchey (U1: User request to delete page in own userspace – If you wish to retrieve it, please see WP:REFUND) (thank)
  • 15:55, 5 October 2021 Anthony Bradbury talk contribs deleted page User:Blanchey (U5: Misuse of Wikipedia as a web host) (thank) (this one was me trying to delete a page in my own userspace although I clicked u5 instead and the deleting admin went with that anyway, although I wasn’t misusing Wikipedia it was a mistake.)
  • 20:33, 15 August 2021 Fastily talk contribs deleted page User:Blanchey (U1: User request to delete page in own userspace – If you wish to retrieve it, please see WP:REFUND) (thank)
  • 09:36, 28 July 2021 Explicit talk contribs deleted page User:Blanchey (U1: User request to delete page in own userspace – If you wish to retrieve it, please see WP:REFUND) (thank)
  • 08:21, 8 March 2021 Fastily talk contribs deleted page User:Blackazz968 (U1: User request to delete page in own userspace – If you wish to retrieve it, please see WP:REFUND) (thank)
  • 19:48, 30 August 2020 Fastily talk contribs deleted page User:Blackazz (U1: User request to delete page in own userspace – If you wish to retrieve it, please see WP:REFUND) (thank)
  • 23:15, 29 August 2020 Fastily talk contribs deleted page User:Blackazz (U1: User request to delete page in own userspace – If you wish to retrieve it, please see WP:REFUND) (thank)
  • 21:39, 25 August 2020 Fastily talk contribs deleted page User:Blackazz (U1: User request to delete page in own userspace – If you wish to retrieve it, please see WP:REFUND) (thank)
  • 23:22, 14 August 2020 Fastily talk contribs deleted page User:Blackazz (U1: User request to delete page in own userspace – If you wish to retrieve it, please see WP:REFUND) (thank)

I know this quite complex, so if it’s not possible or only possible to do certain logs, that’s okay, I’m not sure how this works when pages have been created multiple times. I don’t mean to be a burden to you, I just think it would be nice to show all my old revisions even though I didn’t like them originally as it’s good to look back on old edits to help me for the future instead of just hiding them. It may mean that there will be a lot of logs (deletion and restoration etc) although I’m okay with that in my history. Many thanks, Blanchey 💬 • 📝 18:30, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

@Blanchey: This is a complicated request that, if it can be done, will require page moves/histmerges etc. Please make the request via WP:REFUND or perhaps even ANI.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:00, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
histmerges that’s it! Thanks for letting me know. Have a great day. Blanchey 💬 • 📝 20:02, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Old sock

Hi Ponyo - I hope you're well. I was just enquiring about historical socks. I opened a case about the disruptive User:Jackedano, which was dismissed as their socks (Jackedano1996 and Jackedano1196) were created a few years ago. However, I opened the case as I was under the belief that any sock, irregardless of time created, was a violation and would lead to a block. My belief was further confirmed when I noticed that User:Alas2022 was blocked for a historical sock account. Do you know why this case was dismissed? – DarkGlow • 19:42, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

I agree with the SPI Clerk in this case. If the overlap had been noticed when it was occurring then perhaps a block would be necessary. Blocking the accounts years after they have been abandoned isn't preventing any disruption unless they're used again. Master accounts are often only blocked for a week or two for a first instance of socking that's not related to vandalism or abuse - blocking Jackedano now for using multiple accounts over five years would be punitive and contrary to WP:BLOCK. You filing the report is fine as there is now a record of the past accounts, but blocks are not necessary as it stands now. The situation with Alas2022 is completely different; that account was a currently active sock of a banned sockmaster.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:16, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Your opinion

Do you think that PokeyMama is AngeredTrash710? Besides general weirdness and the colorful username, the only page intersection is at Shepherd of the Lakes Lutheran School, and there are the bizarre edits (I reverted) to your Talk page (you did block at least one of the socks). I don't have enough to block on my own, at least not yet, but ... --Bbb23 (talk) 18:11, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, it's them. The geolocation was off a bit, but it is summer holidays. There was the typical creation of a few similarly named sleepers similar to what they did with the Pinecone names, and some logged out edits that made it blatantly obvious they were the same.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 19:46, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
Yes, apparently they like username groups. Well (patting himself on the back), it's good to be right once in a while. Thanks for your help.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:13, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
No problem-o.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:20, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ponyo/Archive_57&oldid=1190257460"