Jump to content

User talk:Ponyo

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SilverEye91 (talk | contribs) at 21:02, 23 April 2021 (→‎Why remove my edit?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Talk page watchers

Is there anyone who may happen to be watching this page that could fix my archive nav box to display in multiple columns instead of one very long column? It's getting a little unwieldy. Free kitten or beer (but not both!) to whoever is able to do it.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 17:30, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't quite what you asked for P but it is what I use on my talk page. If you don't like it feel free to resotre the old version. If you like it a kitten please. MarnetteD|Talk 00:30, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's much better. The length was getting obnoxious.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 16:30, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ponyo: I can actually do it, but it would have to be monthly or yearly archives. See . Mohammad (talk) 02:36, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ponyo, maybe you should have a look at User:Saint.Helena.Tristen.Da.Cunha.and.Asuncion.'s recent edits, including the deleted ones. Drmies (talk) 03:12, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Hey there, a quick question: I know that admins can't approve an unblock request of someone who was CUed, but can they decline one? Or is it best to let the CUs handle both? I tricked you, that's TWO questions! Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:53, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No issues with declining as you're not modifying the block in any way, just upholding it. -- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:56, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 13:10, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

John Catsimatidis repeated non-consensus edit leads by user

Hi Ponyo,

I am a relatively inexperienced wikipedia user and so wanted to bring your attention to the Subject John Catsimatidis. A user has been adding the phrase "Greek-" to the lead despite MOS:Ethnicity and without achieving consensus and has not engaged on the Talk page despite encouragement to do so. What is the right protocol? I am exhausted with reverting him and don't want to break three-revert rule (which he very well may do in the near future). What is your perspective and advice?

Thanks, Apoorva Iyer (talk) 22:31, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've left them a note on their talk page. Hopefully they'll listen.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 22:47, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed the user reverted again and ignored your message on his talk page. At this point, has he broken the three revert rule? What is the next step and should he be reported to an admin board? Apoorva Iyer (talk) 17:20, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Should I post on a notice board? It’s easy enough to overlook this but it’s not right that a user can blatantly ignore etiquette and rules regarding editing on Wikipedia and get away with the bad behavior, and that too for the lead of an article, in a way that clearly violates Wikipedia rules on bio leads. Just wanted your two cents. Apoorva Iyer (talk) 22:58, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted again and added a couple of policy pointers on the article talk page in the discussion you started. The editor can be pointed in that direction if they continue to attempt to restore the disputed content. Creating an account solely to continue edit warring and reverting without discussion is not a good look on their part.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 23:09, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The user reverted again, ignoring our Talk page and also ignoring both your message and mine. I posted on an admin noticeboard here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:_https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:ValantisFuturista&action=edit&redlink=1_reported_by_User:Apoorva_Iyer_(Result:_) but as I have never filled one of these out before, I am almost certain I did it wrong. I linked it here because perhaps you are more familiar and can edit anything that has to be fixed. Apoorva Iyer (talk) 12:52, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's unfortunate that you had to go to the edit warring noticeboard at all. This editor appears uninterested in learning how dispute resolution (and our core policies) work on Wikipedia and appear determined to continue restoring the disputed content via their account and IPs. I've left a note at the noticeboard as well.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 16:20, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Block from yesterday

Hey, Ponyo. Thanks for blocking 12.178.190.58 yesterday. But (I'm on your talk page, so you knew there was going to a "but") it looks like this is a long-term problem, and they've been harassing Synthwave.94 and others for a while now. Would blocking longer than a week, and also blocking the IPv6, be appropriate? Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 03:08, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I blocked the /64 for a month (their last block by Drmies was for 2 weeks) and extended the block on the IPv4 to match for the block evasion. If this was an account they would have been blocked long ago for their inability to collaborate without the snide commentary (and, let's by honest, there probably is at least one blocked account).-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 23:21, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Ponyo. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 18:10, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2601:246:CC80:1DC0:0:0:0:0/64

Hey Ponyo, I just blocked the above range based on an AIV report. Just letting you know because you CU blocked it twice in the past in case any further action is necessary. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:08, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely the same editor; still hasn't found a new hobby (nor have we, ha!). -- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 23:26, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

create an article

hello sir, I want to create an article about (Muneer Lyati) but i found that it was deleted (by you) and i want to know if i can create it again and why it was deleted just to avoid those mistakes. thanks in advance--Ismail2212 (talk) 14:05, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you didn't even wait for a reply before recreating the article on this completely unnotable individual. Please make the required disclosures on your user page as required by Wikipedia's Terms of Use prior to creating any further articles.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 18:11, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

hello sir. the article (Muneer lyati) was deleted by you. please discuss with me the reason. thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ismail2212 (talk • contribs) 18:12, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

hello i watched the linked page. but i am not paid for creating this article, you misunderstood. but it's okay, please give me advices on creating pages and if there is Arabic wikipedia pages that needs to be translated into the English one tell me .thanks in advance --Ismail2212 (talk) 18:44, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

First, you don't need to create a new section every time you post a message on the same topic, you can just reply below the last message. Second, I find it unlikely that you randomly chose this specific non-notable engineer to create an article on given that another brand new account did the same just one month ago. Admins, Articles for Creation volunteers, and New Page Patrollers see this all the time. If you don't want to be mistaken for a paid editor, please don't behave exactly like every other paid editor out there. Translating articles is a much more constructive way to contribute to this project. There are, in fact, a that already exist on Wikipedia that could use your help! -- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 18:56, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here we go again

Hey there, I'm not asking you to do anything about this yet, but I stumbled onto what I think is a sock of Yeu aga maj, who was blocked for promotional editing. Their contribution history, especially those (+62‎) from 4 March 2021 are all AFC submissions in various drafts, and many of them link to Yeu as the creator. I also notice intersections with Wefffrrr who is in my estimation engaging in UPE. Anyone who drops 2, 3, 4 articles a day is probs gaming the system. Throwaway name is not helping either. Wefffrrr also created an article on the Zee Marathi Awards, almost certainly so he could justify stuffing awards into actor/show articles. Look how AbhiKashMe expands that draft significantly. Feels coordinated, promotional, paid and undisclosed. I'll look for more stuff later, but I wanted to write this down somewhere so I didn't forget. I'm also happy to open an SPI later. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:20, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Cyphoidbomb: I thinks there's a dif or link missing in your second sentence? Otherwise I have no idea who the sock is supposed to be.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:24, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If the suspected sock was AbhiKashMe, it is indeed Yeu aga maj. Still poking around, there may be more.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:32, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed the link and yesss, that's the one. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:12, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hey P, did you need anything else from me on this? Also was Wefffrrr not related? Danke, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:30, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think Wefffrrr should probably go through SPI with linked diffs due to the age of the account and how prolific they are. It would help to have a Clerk evaluate the behavioural evidence as well.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:54, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

IP sock

Hello again:

– DarkGlow (contribs • talk) 18:55, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:24, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A different IP sock

70.171.14.30 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) also needs to be blocked as they are a sock of the blocked 64.238.189.139 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). -- Valjean (talk) 16:43, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Noted.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:29, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Could you help me?

Hi POnyo,

In January, I had a persistent problem with a new editor on the page called Kleo-Sine. He had made an edit and I, being a grammarian, just wanted to correct a grammar mistake. He took it badly and basically went through my edit history and started focusing on my edits. A lot of it was technical info box stuff that I wasn't sure was right,p. He also never wrote edit histories. Also, anytime someone would write him on his talk page, he would just blank him. I even went to the Teahouse and they noticed it too. It was annoying. Then, a few days later, I saw that you had blocked the page.

Well after close to two months and he's back under a new alias called SlippyLina. I'm sure it is the same person. He's attacking some of my favorite pages and he's taking the fun out of editing. He always seems to want to one up me and he's not using edit histories or answering talk pages. Could you look into this for me and do something.? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/SlippyLina Also Check this one out? Could he be a sock? Any help would be appreciated. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/GinoMarioBudlettino Thanks135.0.252.54 (talk) 07:07, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What was the original account that was causing the issues?-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:31, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This was the account that was causing me all those problems early in the year. I had first went to the Teahouse to ask for advice and spoke to a user named Timtempleton, who noticed that he was not adding edit histories and not answering messages on his talk page, understanding what I was going through. As I am not a technical guy, I wasn't sure if the technical edits were above board. Timtempleton tried to help me, but nothing really happened. A week later, I saw that you had blocked this account indefinitely and I couldn't figure out why. I didn't know he returned until 2 days ago when he came back into my realm and found the two accounts with similar M.O.s which I linked to above. To think, just because of a simple grammatical edit I made on a page that he was editing, I seem to have made an enemy on Wikipedia.

Anyhow, here is the original account that was causing the issues. Can you let me know what you did with this account? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Kleo-Sine 135.0.252.54 (talk) 21:00, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I did some digging for behavioral overlap and was convinced enough to run a check. The accounts are indeed engaging in block evasion, so well spotted on your end. If you see further accounts pop up in the future, they can be reported at WP:SPI (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dopenguins).-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 22:10, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Drmargi: FYI as you tangled with both accounts I blocked above. -- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 22:13, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, thank you! I thought something was fishy with SlippyLina based on the reaction I got when I noted they were a new editor, then saw some very advanced edits a few days later. I didn't connect the two, however. Am I reading this right, are they both socks of CLCStudent? He used to be a good editor, once upon a time. Thanks for being so helpful and on your toes!! ----Dr.Margi ✉ 00:12, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Drmargi: Both blocked accounts are tagged - the relevant master is Dopenguins.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 18:48, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I see that now; my mistake. Regardless, thank you for the help! ----Dr.Margi ✉ 19:33, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to bother you. Here is another one from the same guy. It has some of the same threads from the previous ones that he edits. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/SuffolkCat

It's a bit annoying.135.0.252.54 (talk) 13:10, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ponyo et al: I've blocked SuffolkCat as clearly disruptive and clearly somebody's sock. It looks like everyone is accusing the other of being CLCStudent, and I have no idea what is going on, but it's obvious SuffolkCat is somebody's sock. I'll let you sort the socking out, but I needed to limit their disruption SuffolkCat was causing. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:22, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Very interesting! I was beginning to wonder what happened to poor old Dopenguins. Incidentally, the 217.78.0.0/20 range that popped up in this case looks rather proxy'ish, and The Penguin has been known to use those. Favonian (talk) 19:40, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to bother you once again everyone. I don't want to be a pest. I just wanted to ask what is happeing with this guy. If I do more edits, will he continue to register as someone else and do a mass revert everytime? Am I never safe? Was he conspiring me to make me look like the villain or sockpuppet here? I am not versed in the technical and business aspects of Wikipedia. I do like to edit and contribute to certain of my favorite pages, but if I now have a continual target, Should I even bother with Wikipedia any more? All this because of a simple grammatical edit. I wasn't trying to vandalise anybody. Any help would be appreciated by anyone!135.0.252.54 (talk) 19:57, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The user is creating multiple accounts via proxies; the only thing we can do is block the accounts as they pop up. You may be interested in reading WP:DENY and WP:RBI, which provides some information on how to deal with such accounts. I'm guessing they'll switch to another target or tactic soon as reverting you makes the accounts very easy to spot and block.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:09, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for the detection and corresponding action! Boud (talk) 21:10, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They seem determined; I imagine they'll be back. Let me know if you see them pop back up with a new account.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:14, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bigg Boss (Hindi season 14)

Please don't add unneeded information on introduction column. I have undo your edit, from diff1 to diff2. Please avoid to add this unneeded info. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Farazdeswali (talk • contribs) 23:06, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Farazdeswali: If you're going to strip articles of sourced content, you need to explain why. "Unneeded" is your opinion, and when your edits are reverted, you're expected to discuss as opposed to reverting again.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 23:09, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You don't have to add selective info of the selective episode. It was clearly shown in your edit that is was biased towards Sidharth Shukla but you have to be neutral on Wikipedia.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Farazdeswali (talk • contribs)
Thank you for explaining how Wikipedia works. After 14 years and 130k edits, it's obvious I don't understand our basic policies and guidelines. Did you review the links I provided to you in my original reply? Here's another one.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 23:22, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hugh Grant page

This user, previously warned by you, has vandalized the Hugh Grant page today with this libellous edit. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hugh_Grant&diff=1013582574&oldid=1012587596

Rodericksilly (talk) 23:52, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Rodericksilly; I've blocked the IP.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 16:03, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

American Rescue Plan

I believe he's back again: see User talk:ARP2021 (t · c) buidhe 12:02, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Buidhe, I can't remember dealing with socks on this article. Can you be more specific as to who you believe the new account is a sock of?-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 16:04, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In the logs for User:AmericanRescuePlan2021 it states: "00:23, 25 February 2021 Ponyo talk contribs blocked AmericanRescuePlan2021 talk contribs with an expiration time of indefinite (account creation blocked, email disabled, cannot edit own talk page) ({{checkuserblock-account}}: Incorrigible Troll)"[1] This account seems to be the same one: Similar username (abbreviated), also heavily edits American Rescue Plan article apparently attempting to get it to GA status. Sorry that I wasn't sufficiently clear. (t · c) buidhe 01:28, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for clarifying. I've been dealing with so many sock farms lately I couldn't connect the dots right away on this one. The account has been CU-blocked by Guerillero. I'll try to be more on the ball next time!-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 15:38, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Discrepancy: 70RP3D0-MLWR checkuser templated, but not blocked

I randomly came across this message about ~~ImRichEnoughForAButler~~ Tojodavid and 70RP3D0-MLWR all being blocked as socks. I have blocked usernames set to render as strikethrough, and saw only the first two rendered as blocked. I see you edited[2] the third user page with a CheckUser blocke template, but their blocklog[3] is empty and your log[4] doesn't show an action against them either.

I know nothing of the situation, but I assume you'll want to sort out the inconsistency one way or the other. Alsee (talk) 11:28, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I missed crossing that "t", so thank you for pointing it out. I've now blocked the account.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 15:35, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Likely revdel candidate

here.--Nat Gertler (talk) 19:08, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

IP issue at 2019 World Figure Skating Championships

A Korean IP editor persists in removing sourced content from a short section about a collision between Lim Eunsoo and Mariah Bell. The content discusses the ISU ruling on the issue; she is clearly a fan of the Korean skater and wants the content to read as though Bell is to blame. She refuses to discuss or refrain from removing the content she objects to. Would you be willing to protect the page for a few days so she'll move on? Thank you! ----Dr.Margi ✉ 02:57, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind. Problem solved! ----Dr.Margi ✉ 13:51, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Happy First Edit Day!

Happy First Edit Day!

Have a very happy first edit anniversary!

From the Birthday Committee, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:30, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser diff request

Please would you provide a diff to the investigation that established the sock relationship that prompted you to make this edit ?

[I edit Horn of Africa articles quite a bit and I suspect that there is quite a bit of hanky-panky going on...] BushelCandle (talk) 00:45, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@BushelCandle: As a checkuser, the privacy policy prevents me from making explicit connections between accounts and IPs. Note that any editor is free to restore (in whole or modified) any edit I revert based on abuse of multiple accounts as long as they are willing to take on the responsibility of the edit (e.g. its accuracy, copyright status etc.). If you see instances where that's the case with these target articles, please feel free to restore the edit. And yes, there is a lot of hanky panky going on, which is why I've also semi-protected a handful of the target articles.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 16:20, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your fulsome explanation.
Is there a place where I can see the latest non-ip (ie user accounts) that have been blocked for socking? Perhaps in alphabetical or chronological order? BushelCandle (talk) 03:46, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There are a number of sock groups editing this contentious area; the article history is a good place to start. If you go to your preferences, under the gadgets tab, scroll down to "appearance" and check the box "Strike out usernames that have been blocked", it makes reviewing page histories for disruption much easier at a glance.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 15:47, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that helpful advice.
Apart from correcting their introduced errors, is there any action you would recommend for fallacious edit summaries like these ones from editors that have been identified as abusing multiple accounts ? BushelCandle (talk) 05:29, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

UPI...again

I've since closed this discussion on my talk page as I am tired of going back and forth and don't feel well but you'll probably be interested in the inevitable restorations and impending discussion at RSN. TAXIDICAE💰 20:34, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's unfortunate. It's opening a gateway for misinformation to be added to BLPs resulting in an endless loop of circular referencing. I remember years ago reading discussions that noted concerns regarding the lack of editorial oversight on such filler lists in news publications, but I don't have the time or inclination to try to delve through 10 years of Wikipedia history to try to pinpoint their location. It flies in the face of "We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources" right out of the lead of WP:BLP, but some are more concerned with the fullness of an article rather than its accuracy.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:48, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good block

My attempt to block Alyx abortion didn't work, and then I saw that you had just blocked them. Good job! - Donald Albury 22:17, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that was a pretty obvious one.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 22:18, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Promotional username

Hi Ponyo, I wanted to tell you that I found a promotional username on a user called "Logan Paul Official Youtube". I reported it to the noticeboard for username violations. Perhaps you'd like to take a look? HelenDegenerate (talk) 22:35, 9 April 2021 (UTC) Update: it was just blocked. Sorry to disturb you.[reply]

living waters christian school

please do not revert edits, because considering I went to this school I know first hand what I'm doing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The crazy edit (talk • contribs) 19:53, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@The crazy edit: Well you've made it clear you haven't read the notice I left on your talk page that explains such edits are not allowed.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 19:55, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is not original research, earlier this year they they changed they're grades. The entry of the dress code is correct. the only thing I will remove is the corporal punishment, because that seems a bit harsh even if it is true.— Preceding unsigned comment added by The crazy edit (talk • contribs)

Original research means you are adding material based on your personal knowledge of a subject. Any changes to an article need to include reliable sources for verification. The school website clearly notes that classes include junior and high school and there is no indication at all that the curriculum extends to grade 5 only. Continuing to add unsupported material to articles once our policies and guidelines have been explained to you is disruptive, hence my warning. -- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:11, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is no indication that they are still enrolling past 5th grade on their website, if you wish to know personally contact them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The crazy edit (talk • contribs) 20:19, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you cannot see the Junior and High school enrollment pages linked prominently from from the school's home page, you may lack the competence required to edit here. Our readers expect verifiable sourced content, not your "truth". My warning stands: if you continue to add unsourced content to articles you will be blocked.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:28, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I have seen the website page, they are currently not enrolling students at this time of year unless you contact them personally. I will contact them to find out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The crazy edit (talk • contribs) 20:34, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are free to contact them, but you cannot add any information to the article based on a phone call. For the final time, material added to articles must be supported by reliable sources within the article. You cannot add unsourced material to articles based on what you have heard or what you know.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:38, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is it a block violation by Flamingoboomer9000?

Am I correct in thinking that the 48-hour block you put on that user does not allow edits on their user talk page? The user just edited the talk page to remove the block notice. Thanks, NightHeron (talk) 21:02, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@NightHeron: Blocked users can remove the block message, juts not any declined appeals while still blocked (see WP:BLANKING).-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 14:57, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

73.60.59.91/Hartley Sawyer shenanigans

IP you blocked for shenanigans on Hartley Sawyer is back at the same IP saying they'll return every few weeks with the same behavior and calling other users racist. [5] ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:42, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:55, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It should hold for a month; maybe they'll get bored by the time the block and protection expires? -- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 15:56, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think there's enough eyes on it where it'll be caught if it starts up after protection expires. Thanks again! ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:00, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]


upe sock

FYI on this one, I can send you off-wiki evidence should it be needed. I didn't want to expand too much in fear of them also changing behaviors. TAXIDICAE💰 20:40, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That was just a softball question to see how deep I had to go with a check before declining. The technical data is messy and I'm lazy (ha!). I'll expand the CU net a bit.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:44, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also guessing this may be, let's just say outsourced from the freelancer account but the freelancer account is also titled similarly to the acronym in their username. TAXIDICAE💰 20:48, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
They logged in to the Nct0081 account on April 9th, then logged in to Kaleem6061 7 minutes later from the same IP. Ooops.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:55, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I for one am shocked. TAXIDICAE💰 20:57, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Don't have a HEARTATAXIDICAE - we need you on the front lines!-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:59, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete

Hi Ponyo! I'm not real intimately familiar with Wikipedia other than when i read it for information. I just found a notification where you created a user page and discussion for me back in 2016 where my user info was used to edit Cintas' Wikipedia page. I replied on my discussion that i wasn't aware of any such edits and then found the edit and confirmed i was not the editor all while mentioning changing my security credentials. Can anyone see this discussion? Can you just delete my "account"? I'm honestly not real interested in editing Wikipedia, but the name pizzaman10383 is mine all over the internet, and its a bit embarrassing and unnerving to think that my name is associated with a biased opinionated revision of a page i have no interest in. Thanks again for everything you do for the wiki community. Pizzaman10383 (talk) 01:26, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Pizzaman10383: If you believe your account may have been compromised, I can block it for you. I would think it more likely that you've just forgotten ever having made the edit given that five years have passed. You could just blank your talk page and put up a retired banner if you'd like.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:10, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how to do either of those things😅 Pizzaman10383 (talk) 15:13, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thank you for the revert on my talk, then block...I have absolutely no idea what they were saying there outside they want me institutionalized, which of course, beyond the pale. Nate • (chatter) 22:18, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That was either outright trolling or outright incompatibility with the 5 pillars. -- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 22:21, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser tag and request

Hey there, you recently tagged User:Answermeplease11 as a checkuser confirmed sock of User:Iceage 101. Could you also look into [6] which has suspiciously started asking similar ref desk questions as Answermeplease11. Thanks. --Jayron32 12:38, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I can't link IPs to accounts. In this case though, that's not an issue as I think it's unlikely the same person based on geolocation.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 15:35, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again. Consider the matter closed; if they are unlikely to be related, then it's just a coincidence. Thanks for looking into it. --Jayron32 15:59, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Jayron32: Given the ranges available to them, they most likely will be back, so feel free to drop me a note if you see anything else suspicious. -- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 17:32, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sock

Hi Ponyo. Thanks for dealing with this sock yesterday. Bsjjwhsb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appeared a few hours ago, working on the same set of articles as yesterday's sock, including removing AfD notices from their page creations. A clear WP:DUCK in my view. Is this enough for you to block this account, or do you want me to add it to the SPI case? Thanks again. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 16:29, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked by Materialscientist. I'd G5 the articles but you're well into a delete outcome at the AfDs. If we allow the deletion discussions to play out you would have additional speedy options if/when recreated (i.e. CSD G4 or G5). Would you like me to zap them or wait until the AfDs close?-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 17:37, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pastebin

I have reported the threatening Pastebin for abuse. We'll see if it gets taken down. aeschyIus (talk) 21:30, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what's there, I have no intention of clicking the link. I've rev deleted it thorugh, just in case someone is tempted to click it.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:32, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and thank you!-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:32, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alcatel-Lucent Enterprise

Hi Ponyo, what do you think about putting this article on semi or pending changes protection for maybe a year given most of the edits since 2019 have been from socks? On another note, I really should have looked at the history. S0091 (talk) 22:26, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm considering it. I've added the article to my watch list and will definitely add the protection if there are any further shenanigans.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 22:29, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ha! I had assumed it was already on your watch list otherwise in my mind how would you even know about the shenanigans. Whatever you means, glad you did notice (i.e. no response requested). Simply, thank you. S0091 (talk) 22:37, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why remove my edit?

Why does my edit of Mike Wozniaks site contiune to be reverted? It is spoiling a show that hasn't even finished airing, and it is without a source. I can't even find confirmation anywhere that he has won, and even if that is the case how do you think it's a good idea to have a spoiler feature so prominently when the episodes haven't even aired? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SilverEye91 (talk • contribs)

@SilverEye91: Wikipedia is not censored, and spoilers are often included in articles (see WP:SPOILER). That being said, if you look at my subsequent edit, I actually removed the material as unsourced.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:07, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ponyo: Yes, I understand that. However, spoilers when a show hasn't even aired and when there hasn't even been any leaks to find isn't information, it's vandalism. That's why I was annoyed that it kept being reverted. That you removed it is good, but please, talk in the future. It is incredibly frustrating doing an edit and having it removed without explanation or a discussion. As has been shown my edit was correct, yet it was treated like an incorrect one.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ponyo&oldid=1019528851"