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 DeltaQuad (talk | contribs) at 12:15, 20 August 2020 (re). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Re: Sockpuppet Page Protection

Good day Ponyo!

I dropped by your talk page after seeing this edit wherein you placed a sockpuppet protection on the page True and the Rainbow Kingdom. It was almost heaven sent for me seeing that as I am dealing with a persistent sockpuppeteer by the name of Albe23413. The user was initially blocked for sockpuppetry by Berean Hunter in July 2019 for one week. The user would be slapped with an indefinite block on February 2020 after I reported a sockpuppet of his, AbstractAudition, to Bbb23. Since then, the user has amassed a long list of sockpuppet accounts, most of which I've reported to checkusers such as the aformentioned Bbb23, El_C and NinjaRobotPirate. I have recently just reported another Albe23413 sockpuppet, Cocisj455, but less than 2 days after the sock was blocked, he has created another sockpuppet Pamasawata0296 which I've already reported to NinjaRobotPirate. With the emergence of Pamasawata0296, the sockpuppeteer has now created 15 sockpuppet accounts between July 2019 and July 2020. I must admit that being on the lookout for Albe23413's sockpuppets and reporting them is getting tiresome, and in several occassions his sockpuppets have actually resorted to stalking my account to see if I've reported his new sockpuppet or outright harassing me on my talkpage. That's why I turned to you for help in perhaps, providing a more concrete solution to deter Albe23413 from creating further sockpuppet accounts.

It is for this reason that I would like to request that sockpuppet protection be placed on the pages that Albe23413 and his sockpuppets frequents. There is a catch to that request though. Unlike in True and the Rainbow Kingdom, Albe23413 does not confine himself to just one article. Rather, he edits a set of related articles. Generally, it is teleseryes from ABS-CBN that he edits, but he has a particular gravitation towards Ang Probinsyano and its allied pages (List of Ang Probinsyano episodes, List of Ang Probinsyano characters, List of Ang Probinsyano guest stars, Ang Probinsyano (season 1), Ang Probinsyano (season 2), Ang Probinsyano (season 3), Ang Probinsyano (season 2), Ang Probinsyano (season 3), Ang Probinsyano (season 4), Ang Probinsyano (season 5) Ang Probinsyano (season 6), Ang Probinsyano (season 7) and Ang Probinsyano (season 8)). I am hoping you could place a protection on the pages he frequents, I am also hoping that could at least deter him permanently from persistently creating sockpuppets. Warmest regards Gardo Versace (talk) 17:11, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look at whether semi-protection is viable at this subset of articles, but they'll probably just move on to something else.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 18:04, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ponyo: There's been a new development to this situation. Pamasawata0296 was blocked for disruptive editing by PhilKnight. The subject of his disruptive edits are these angry messages he left on the pages he frequents, all Ang Probinsyano allied pages:
Special:Diff/965317859, Special:Diff/965317859, Special:Diff/965318064, Special:Diff/965318251, Special:Diff/965318445, Special:Diff/965318676, Special:Diff/965318853, Special:Diff/965318912, Special:Diff/965319024, Special:Diff/965319280, Special:Diff/965319625, Special:Diff/965319737, Special:Diff/965319828, Special:Diff/965319921, Special:Diff/965319995, Special:Diff/965320091, Special:Diff/965320205 and Special:Diff/965320280
The text is in Filipino, here's an English translation:

(Redacted)

That is honestly unsettling. Gardo Versace (talk) 18:13, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ponyo Am sorry about putting that translation on your talkpage. Didn't mean to cause any trouble. Also, thank you for looking into my request. I just hope I never run into him again after the tirade he launched tonight against me Gardo Versace (talk) 18:27, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that it can be upsetting to see these types of messages and I'm sorry you've been a target of such abuse, I just don't need to see it every time I'm on this page. I will definitely take a look at this today, I just need to finish off a few other things first.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 18:31, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ponyo: Take your time, I understand, admire it even, that you wouldn't leave jobs unfinished to tend to something else. And I can't thank you enough for looking into this, because putting protection on the pages he watches might just be the deterrent I've been looking for these past 4 months that I've been actively reporting his sockpuppet accounts. Thank you very much Ponyo Warmest regards Gardo Versace (talk) 18:37, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone through and protected the majority of articles based on the length of disruption. There are a couple of the articles that the sockmaster has only edited once, so I left those open. Sometimes leaving a couple of target articles open acts as a honeypot to draw new socks in where they can be detected and blocked quickly.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:08, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ponyo: I understand, we can't leave everything tightly secured because then we wouldn't have a trap to spring for them. Thank you so much Ponyo. Now I can be at peace and get back to more productive endeavors knowing I might not see him for a very long time hahaha! Say I've got a question though. Since he all but confirmed himself as an Albe23413 sock just before he got taken down for persistent unconstructive editing, the subject of which was his angry messages directed at me, can you still tag him as a sockpuppet even though he has already been blocked? I mean he has an entire category of sockpuppets all to himself and Pamasawata0296 happens to be his 15th sock in a row. Regards Gardo Versace (talk) 00:33, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't like tagging accounts that I haven't blocked or chekusered myself. Perhaps you can ask PhilKnight? Sometimes the less attention you give these persistent sockmasters, the better. -- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 22:37, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ponyo: Alright, will try asking PhilKnight. Again, a great big many thanks to you Ponyo for placing protection on the prime targets of Albe23413's socks Warmest regards. Gardo Versace (talk) 06:17, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Haikyu (season 1)

Can you restore the page without the summaries or show me the history link from 17:54, 28 June 2020 so I can do it because this isn't right for other people. SpectresWrath (talk) 17:30, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not the deleting admin - you need to ask them to restore it. If they disagree you can take it to deletion review, but no admin will restore an article with copyright violations in it.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 22:40, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I contacted him and he said he was gonna look into whether he can fairly easily restore a version with no copyright infringements. But, I don't know what happened to him after that. If he can't do it, I'll do it. I just need that link uncrossed so I recreate the page without adding the infringed info. SpectresWrath (talk) 23:08, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Paštrik

Hello,

I see you reverted my edits (backed by sources) of page "Battle of Paštrik" without much thought. I will provide just two examples: concerning casualties on Yugoslav side I already explained those numbers in edit summary here [1] and provided a source for those numbers. Numbers for Albanian losses are also backed by source but you have reverted it back to numbers which were added by a user without any explanation or source. Second, I provided several sources for claim in inforbox that KLA and NATO were defeated and some of those are: [2], page 53 ("Operation Arrow was limited to one sector, and even so, it was not a success. A US intelligence official, in fact, claimed the KLA was “creamed.” The KLA forces came under heavy Serb artillery fire, and while some areas changed hands, no major gains were claimed by the KLA.") and [3], page 201 ("UCK je postigao određene uspjehe primjenjujući gerilsku taktiku, međutim kad je 26. svibnja pokušao izvesti veliki frontalni napad, doživio je težak poraz"). I ask that you revert back my edits. Thank you. Peervalaa (talk) 20:14, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As the blocking administrator I don't take sides on the content. Go to the article talk page to discuss your concerns and see if there is consensus for the changes you want to make.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:16, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In that case explain to me how can I have consensus with someone who claims my sources do not say what they say, even though it is verifiable, like those links that I gave you. How can I reach consensus if he simply says this [4] or this [5]? Peervalaa (talk) 20:28, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Again, as the protecting admin I cannot comment on the content of the article. Please read these guidelines for how to proceed when you find yourself in a content dispute.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:32, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Payment card number - Revdel request

Hi Ponyo, will you please revdel [6] this edit due to edit summary? Thanks. S0091 (talk) 21:40, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

oversightable info should be emailed 96.250.86.126 (talk) 21:42, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@S0091: I've oversighted it, but the IP above is correct, in the future these requests should go via email to Wikipedia:Oversight for quick (and private) removal.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:52, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Ponyo and IP. I debated and the reason I did not request oversight is there was identification attached to the number but will in the future. Thanks again! S0091 (talk) 21:56, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The OS team will also perform rev-deletes if oversight is not needed, so don't worry about reporting borderline cases if you're unsure.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:58, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh...good to know, Ponyo. S0091 (talk) 22:21, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks by user with a vulgar username

Hi, the user with the vulgar user name Popušimikurac has been targeting me for some time now. It seems to be the same user as 5.133.153.36, Hh11122 and probably many others. This user, by writing, seems to be from Serbia, but by the articles that she/he has been editing it is more likely that she/he is from Croatia. In the recent past I came into "conflict", on different articles, with users who express strong nationalistic and/or right-wing views, they are: Pjesnik21, Mikola22, Sadko, Tezwoo, Nbanic, Amanuensis Balkanicus and Koreanovsky. Can you please check if it was one of them? I am saying this because the edits by the blocked user are obviously made by someone who has strong nationalistic and right-wing views and they are personal attacks on me and I am her/his only target. The intent seems to be to scare me or I don't know what. Thanks in advance. --Tuvixer (talk) 09:04, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is so out of line and not the way it should be done. Do not label me od drag me into petty disputes. Do not ping me any more. Enough with this nonsense. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 09:35, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Tuvixer, can you please explain me (us, the users you pinged) what happend? You literally just pinged me without letting me even know what is going on and what it has to do with me?! Quote: "In the recent past I came into "conflict", on different articles with users who express strong nationalistic and/or right-wing views" ... Have we ever had a conversation? I personally do not remember anything, especially since I am not very active on en.wiki. Especially after reading the comment of Sadko I am even more confused. If you have problems with users, you should try to find a solution by talking with them. ---Koreanovsky (talk) 10:20, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I saw the editor Tuvixer in two articles (if I remember well) and I’m not in touch with his editing on Wikipedia. It would be nice for him to solve his problems by talking to the editors who personal attacks him and not to ping editors with whom is in contact 2 or 3 times in a year. Mikola22 (talk) 10:43, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Mikola22, wanna know what annoyed me a bit? The fact that he claims that I have "strong nationalistic and right-wing views" — I wonder where you get claims like this from, if you do not even know an user. I literally only found this [7] conversation and it is about the Coronavirus. Look at my recent edits and tell me, are there any "strong nationalistic and right-wing views"? Just because I edited paged of political parties in Croatia or Poland (there are currently elections there) does it automatically mean that I support any right-wing ideologies? I am sorry, but this is just becoming childish. I joined Wikipedia in January 2016 and I am well aware, how you have to behave in this place. Before someones accuses someone of being a sockpuppet, everyone should be mature enough to talk with users. Wikipedia:Civility --Koreanovsky (talk) 10:56, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Koreanovsky:, if the rules of Wikipedia are followed then everything is clean, and this shouldn't excite you too much. I was in contact with editor Tuvixer in one edit in Croatia article and one edit in Slavonia article(that's what I remember) a few months ago and I don't know what was "nationalistic and right-wing views" in this edits. I hope that he will be sanctioned for false reporting. What else can I say? Mikola22 (talk) 11:16, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that is a WP:PA "Using someone's political affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views, such as accusing them of being left-wing or right-wing, is also forbidden." . Tezwoo (talk) 13:39, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Block evasion

User:LFC2020 is evading block as 82.132.185.162 (talk · contribs). SLBedit (talk) 19:48, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, saw it.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 19:49, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Same person had been blocked in June 2020 as 151.231.18.200 (talk · contribs) – it's from Blackpool, UK, and uses the same ISP. IP may be a sock belonging to Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of 10alatham, as some of those IPs are also from Blackpool. SLBedit (talk) 20:11, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Noted.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:12, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kindred spirit

I like your edit summary here. I am always tempted to ping the editor and ask "my what"? JBW (talk) 21:27, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If I had a nickel for every time I've seen "your dumb" on this site, I could buy enough libations to make me forget I'd seen the errors in the first place. At the very least I could cover the tab for Drmies' tequila and nachos.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:35, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Haha you beat me to that user name by no more than one second. Drmies (talk) 22:31, 8 July 2020 (UTC) -- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 22:37, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
'ayup.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 22:37, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Page Move

I need help moving List of Gintama episodes (season 2) to Gintama (season 2) because for some reason when I did it, it was successful but then it turned into a redirect somehow. SpectresWrath (talk) 02:01, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SpectresWrath: A page move should leave a redirect unless you uncheck the "leave a redirect behind" box when performing the move. The redirects appear helpful, so I wouldn't worry about them. If I've completely missed what it is you're looking for, the fine folks at Wikipedia:Help desk can probably assist.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 15:42, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

When the Phantom strikes, lightning stands still

You're fast! Thank you! Bishonen | tålk 08:39, 9 July 2020 (UTC).[reply]

There seemed to a be a higher percentage of absolute tossers about yesterday.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 15:52, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks...

...for the very fast action on the Brockhold sock. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:25, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It was an easy one, so thank you.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 22:29, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Deleting User Talk Page

My CSD request for User talk:Morphdog was recently declined since user talk pages are exempt from deletion. I followed the steps on WP:VANISH, and am still waiting for my account to be renamed. The vanishing page says to contact a functionary or Arbitration Committee for user talk page deletions, so I emailed Arbcom about it and the reply was to make a speedy deletion request on the pages I need deleted. Thanks Morphdogtalk 18:09, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Morphdog The reason why WP:VANISH states that only Functionaries/Arbcom should delete user talk pages is because they are generally only deleted due to valid privacy concern provided by email. The VANISH page also states that, as part of the vanishing process, "The account's user page and subpages are deleted. User talk pages are rarely deleted..." and the full content of the section you refer to above regarding Functionaries performing potential deletions reiterates that "community consensus is that user talk pages should be deleted only where there is a compelling reason to do so—related to serious privacy concerns and the potential for real-world harm." -- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 18:20, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Alrighty, well thanks for your help. Morphdogtalk 18:44, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Morphdog:Sorry I couldn't help more, but the community is very wary of user talk page deletions. Hopefully the vanishing takes care of any of your concerns and best of luck to you!-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 18:46, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Admin's Barnstar
Thanks Ponyo! Drmies (talk) 18:22, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

...and on a Friday to boot!-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 18:40, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Would you...

please do the honors...Praxidicae (talk) 20:33, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:36, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry....

You're right. It was a misclick, which you fixed... and then I proceeded to make worse. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 21:14, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That dif made me laugh out loud. Thank you!-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:17, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

82.132 IP

You blocked 82.132.185.149 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) as a sock - they have re-emerged on the same articles as 82.132.217.61 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 82.132.187.100 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Worth a range block? And who is the master? GiantSnowman 11:43, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure of the master, but looking through the history of of this article multiple IPs have been used to evade blocks each time a block is placed. I've switched the block on User:LFC2020 to indef. My original hope was that we could contain the edits to an account as opposed to bouncing around IPs, but clearly that didn't work, and the range is too large to block. It's going to be whack-a-mole.----
Actually, there is a block of 151.231.18.200 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (which is the same ISP and basic geolocation of the 82.132 IPs) who @Mattythewhite: blocked as a 10alatham sock.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 17:39, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I've tagged them all as socks of 10alatham and will revert/block similar in future. GiantSnowman 19:45, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 19:47, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
94.192.96.81 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is back... GiantSnowman 15:15, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@GiantSnowman:...and blocked again.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 15:54, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IMDB

Could you explain why you think IMDB is an unreliable source? I have seen IMDB articles used as a source many times for actors on Wikipedia. From what I understand it is one of the most established websites covering movies and actors.--Sanya3 (talk) 21:25, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) Sanya3 please see WP:RS/IMDB. The site is not used as a ref because it is WP:USERGENERATED. While it does do some fact checking is is not thorough and they have had errors and outright hoaxes on the site over the years. Yes you will see it used as a ref on WikiP articles those should be removed. 21:31, 14 July 2020 (UTC)MarnetteD|Talk[reply]
Thank you MarnetteD. @Sanya3: I've responded in detail on your talk page.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:33, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

can i get blocked for using draft as test page

can i use draft as a test page--Andrew0711171 (talk) 20:27, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, your sandbox should be used for test edits. And please stop using the page move function until you have more experience.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:28, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IP socking

Thanks for blocking the sock of a long term abuser here. Can you also look into range blocks for the listed IP ranges: 45.116.233.0/24 and 117.102.50.0/24 (the latter of which has been heavily used to sock in the past as well). The sockpuppeteer/LTA heavily uses IP socking and the only thing that seem to stop him are range blocks or page protections. Range blocks in the past greatly reduced their socking. Gotitbro (talk) 20:32, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Gotitbro: Our privacy policy prevents me from commenting on the IPs listed in an SPI when I am acting as a checkuser on the same report. I updated the status of the investigation to "checked" which will allow SPI Clerks to review the evidence and act on the IP info as they see fit.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:35, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

UTRS

For your consideration. https://utrs-beta.wmflabs.org/appeal/32289 --Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:15, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Careful handling this one Deepfriedokra, lest you are also nonsensically labelled a redneck!-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:19, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And as far as consideration goes, I consider these type of edits decidedly uncool.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:21, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently contrite in request. And my long hair can't cover up my redneck. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:15, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The appeal included an apology for the personal attacks but didn't address the rest of the vandalism. I'm not a big fan of editors going around labelling BLP subjects as "fuckers". As I noted in the block summary, I don't see any recent productive edits from that IP. I can see perhaps lessening the duration if they demonstrated an understanding of WP:BLP and WP:RS, but that's about it. -- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 22:24, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Am ignoring them. I have found silence to be an effective communication tool. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:25, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. In fact, I'm now going to silence myself by logging off and filling my gob with a chilled glass of vino.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 23:28, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
On second thought, standard decline. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:26, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Ganesh filmography

Hi, I want to create Ganesh filmography which was created by you in December 2016 (G5: Creation by a blocked or banned user in violation of block or ban) can you please let me know can I create the page?

Thank you

Playlikeastar (talk) 04:29, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Playlikeastar: There's no protection on the article, so feel free to create it.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 15:55, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Jezebel's Ponyo ~Playlikeastar (talk) 04:35, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

State Department block evasion

@Ponyo:, there appears to be some more block evasion on the Manisha Singh page from our friends at the United States Department of State. This time, it's another hour-old unregistered user (with a username including a random sequence of numbers and letters) replacing the official State Department portrait with her personal LinkedIn photo. So many jokes to make here, but I'll resist. KidAd (💬💬) 01:50, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@KidAd: I've blocked the obvious sock and reblocked K49112343 site wide. The one concerning bit is that the image that is in the article now, and that was uploaded on Commons as being the image from Singh's official bio, is not the same version as the official bio linked as the source on Commons (this is the actual image used on the official website). -- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 15:57, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for doing that. I think the image switch was my fault. I saw on mobile that an IP user altered the normal image to a different format in the infobox (here). I reverted before taking another look on desktop. For the record, I don't believe that IP belongs to State, as it linked to Indianapolis. KidAd (💬💬) 16:02, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Help Needed

I wanted to seek your guidance on how to handle a user who you blocked on 7/16 for edit warring (1). Since the block you issued has expired, additional unregistered users have continued making similar disruptive edits (12,3) and personal attacks while using pronouns suggesting again it’s the same individual (3). I believe this user along with several others are all sockpuppets of User:Swamifraud and filed an SPI several days ago (1). The master was indefinitely blocked on 5 May 2016 (then named User:Swamiblue), but this behavior has persisted. What do you recommend as the next best course of action? Moksha88 (talk) 14:02, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Moksha88: Can you provide me a list (hopefully not too long!) of the articles that are seeing the most significant disruption?-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 16:00, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ponyo: In the past few weeks, this user has made disruptive edits on Swaminarayan Sampradaya, BAPS, Pramukh Swami Maharaj, and Vachanamrut, but given the longstanding abuse which dates back to 2013, I do not think any article related to the Swaminarayan sect of Hinduism is safe from this user's tendentious editing. If this user is proven to be a sock in the SPI I filed, which would mean that this user has been editing in violation of an indefinite ban, what measures could be taken to protect these pages? Moksha88 (talk) 19:22, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You don't have to ping me, it's my talk page so I automatically receive notification that someone has posted here. Swaminarayan Sampradaya and Pramukh Swami Maharaj are already protected and Vachanamrut hasn't been touched in several days. I've now added protection to Bochasanwasi Akshar Purushottam Swaminarayan Sanstha. When dealing with edit-warring anon users with access to dynamic IP ranges, semi-protection is often the only option.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 19:33, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies on pinging you, and thank you for your help. At this point, I will wait for the SPI to be reviewed and focus on addressing other subsequent edits made by this user. Moksha88 (talk) 19:47, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No apology needed, I was just trying to save you a few keyboard strokes .-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 19:53, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you are safe in these challenging times. Since I last posted, I suspect the user previously masquerading as multiple unregistered users is now hounding me as Applebutter221. Since the account was created two days ago, the user has resumed disruptive editing on the same pages as the prior unregistered users here 12 and here 12 and has been warned by other users 3. Now this user is trying to suggest I have a conflict of interest in multiple places 1234 by misinterpreting what I had expressed to another user in an attempt to maintain collaboration and civility 14 years ago. This user has acknowledged editing from some of these IP addresses prior to when the account was created 1. Alongside the other behavioral evidence I have compiled for the SPI (1), I believe this user is Swamifraud/Swamiblue who had been indefinitely banned by Bbb23 back in 2016 12. If this is the same person, then this user is editing in violation of an indefinite ban. Is there any way an admin can review the behavioral evidence? Thank you. Moksha88 (talk) 04:58, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@moksha88 you can accuse all you want but you yourself disclosed in your edits that you are a representative of BAPS and all your edits over the course of your history have been biased and intentionally slanted towards BAPS going out of your way to gang up and draw out talk pages to get your way. This is a repetitive theme on your edits and you violated wikipedia's COI policy. You are trying to have me blocked for whatever reason so that you can continue to keep micro modifying the articles to push your religious sect's agenda. Ponyo, please look into this. The user stated they are a member of BAPS and their editting pattern is out of control. How is there not more intervention and help? They do the same thing for every topic.
Users Apollo1203 and Moksha88 have a history of trying to dominate users forcing editors into not making any negative or critical appearing edits to BAPS and related articles. My theory is that they are members of the group and are constantly working together to constantly remove items and have been accused in the past https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Moksha88/Archive. Further more, I investigated the users history further and I found that Moksha88 is a member of BAPS and discloses this fact in a earlier edits as you can see here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Swaminarayan&diff=prev&oldid=93261344. This editor has an extremely NPOV view point. The article and edits in question are heavily sources with biased BAPS materials, a sect that was disbarred and excommunicated from the parent group. The founder made up accusations to get followers to worship him and formally left the Swaminarayan Sampraday. Evidence is below:

There seems to be two issues here; the first is the possibility of WP:SOCK by Applebutter21. If they are the same editor who was behind the IP edits then it's a good thing they created the account as it makes them more accountable (no pun intended) as their edits are more easy to review as a whole. It's also easier from an administrative standpoint if sanctions are required. At this point there is an SPI awaiting behavioural investigation that should be allowed to play out, though I do note that Applebutter sure knows a great deal about the long history of this dispute for an account registered three days ago. The second issue is the content dispute. There is clearly a strong disagreement between the two of you so it would be best to bring in some other editors to see where consensus lies. The ways to proceed with this is through dispute resolution. Perhaps an WP:RfC can be set up? -- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 16:49, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply. I really do not care what moksha88 is trying to link me to and desiring for me to get me banned. All I know is that I proved that user is a BAPS representative per his own edits and therefore if you look at his editing history, it is extremely slanted towards removing any content and then gangs up with other users with the same editing pattern. This is the only user that changed the meaning of entire meaning of Swaminarayan Sampraday even though BAPS left the group and multiple articles are written with BAPS books and referencing Akshar Purshurtum Darshan which is BAPS ideology. I wish more moderators took more interest in this topic as BAPS currently is the largest, most controversial sect of Hindiusm in the US and as they open more temples, they will have plentiful editors control the narrative online to portray their sect only in a unbalanced positive fashion. This should not be allowed. If you have time, I request you to look at the BAPS, Morari Bapu and Swaminarayan Sampraday articles and see the tactics they use to make sure sourced edits cannot be made and the same group of users patrol and edit over and over with BAPS books. Thank you for the WP:RfC suggestion. Applebutter221 (talk) 03:11, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I dug deepter into moksha88's history In his edits during his early years, he stated to other users with the greeting "Jay Swaminarayan" multiple times. This is a common way of a satsangi, member of the swaminarayn faith to began conversations. Next he states "as the representatives of the two largest groups with in the faith, we should try to present'.....The swaminarayan sampraday and baps are the two largest groups thus he is clearly is apart of baps. They need to disclose there conflict of interest. They only talk about baps, add baps links and have been constantly been accused by multiple users that they distort swaminarayan articles to BAPS ideology.Applebutter221 (talk) 06:04, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence:

Applebutter221 (talk) 06:04, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:BeamAlexander25 & other accounts

Just thought I'd drop a note about User:BeamAlexander25, who you blocked. I wasn't sure if there was a SPI page somewhere for whoever the master account was. I blocked User:Norogueamp yesterday, which looks like a duck of BeamAlexander. Then there is User:Rogueamp god and User:Rogueamp which are also ducks. —GFOLEY FOUR!— 21:24, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The accounts are being created on proxies, so best to just WP:RBI.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:31, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've declared you an essay!

See here! You are now featured amongst the insomnia inducing things I have written on Wikipedia. Needless to say, you said it both better and pithier than I would have. Enjoy your sav blanc this weekend. I've drinking bourbon currently, but should switch to a bottle of New Zealand's best export tomorrow :) TonyBallioni (talk) 03:39, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm nothing if not pithy.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 16:53, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

My little Ponyo, did you see this ANI thread? If you have time..? Bishonen | tålk 18:05, 28 July 2020 (UTC).[reply]

I'm working through all of my notifications; so many honeypots attracted unwanted guests in the last 16 hours! Will take a look now.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 18:08, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Seen it. Thank you! Bishonen | tålk 19:20, 28 July 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Revdel request

Hi Ponyo. I hope everything is well with you and yours. Thank you very much for blocking and reverting 176.54.31.119 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Would it be possible to also revdel the edit summaries. I checked with Google translate and they are base personal attacks in Turkish. Take care. Dr. K. 19:27, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher)  Done, taking your word for it. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:30, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Those summaries were the basis for my block. I meant to circle back and zap them but was pulled in another direction and forgot. -- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 19:32, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, Ponyo. Thank you both. Take care. Dr. K. 19:41, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Increase of protection level of article' ' bp mandal'

Dear administrator, The article is victim of constant disruptive editing, with unappropriare information and even wrong english. Please,increase it's security level as earlier you have done with a time limit,do it without a time limit and even more increased security level so as to prevent it from further disruption. Deokalimuskabad (talk) 09:10, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The only recent edits other than yours were made back on July 24th, so it doesn't really fall under any of the protection criteria. If there are issues in the future you will likely get a quicker response at WP:RFPP.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:12, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Problematic IP seems reappered

Hi Ponyo,

this IP just emerged ([8]) and introduced identical POV-edits in similar articles as the one in Hungarian Revolution of 1956 as it's socks. More of us reverted some edits, but maybe not all, please keep an eye on it's activity. For instance in this edit history [9] the problem is apparently imminent, with the same misleading edit logs and bad faith accusation towards experienced editors. Geolocation is identical. Thank you.(KIENGIR (talk) 00:32, 4 August 2020 (UTC))[reply]

I've blocked the latest active IP and protected a couple of articles. Hopefully this helps a bit.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:19, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Suppression of content needed

Hi, Ponyo,
I see that you are a member of the oversight committee.
Could you please help me suppressed an edit and its corresponding undo on Justright89199's talk page? I accidentally provided content that I should not have. It is not offensive content; it's just that it's inappropriate. I told the user in the comment that it might be a good idea to do a WP:CLEANSTART, but after posting the message, I found out that since the user was blocked, the user could not perform a clean start, or at least, it would be improper. After finding this out, I immediately undid my post. Could you please suppress it? Thank you. Friend505 (talk) 12:10, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing suppressible in that edit. If you want to remove the comment, just strike it. Please don't provide advice to editors when you yourself have only been editing for a handful of days under this account; you'd be better served improving the encyclopedia.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:27, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Ponyo. Friend505 (talk) 22:32, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Newest Brockhold sock

Ad Victoriam2077, SPI filed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:38, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Got it.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:46, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive Editing: Ryan-Mark Parsons

Hello Ponyo - we've spoken before! As you know, I'm relatively new to Wikipedia and I'm always learning from other users. The page Ryan-Mark Parsons has been protected several times from silly IP vandalism. More recently, I've been contending with blanking and redirecting from confirmed users who have avoided discussing on the article's talk page. For some context, the page was once 'recreated', after a now banned user reverted a redirect from an unregistered user which occurred 18 minutes before they restored the page. This banned user has only made one change to the page when reverting blanking. Many users are now restoring this redirect as it was once edited by the banned user to revert vandalism... I've already had a discussion on another user's talk page and one editor who redirected the page based on the above agreed with this logic and apologised as they didn't look into the page's history and had no intention to delete the page. What can I do to prevent this blanking and redirecting from confirmed users? I created this page and have worked on it since, I'm looking to start my new Wikipedia project once it achieves C-Class, so it does become frustrating when there is no discussion over deleting entire page content. I would really appreciate your expertise here. JPA24 (talk) 04:47, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article recently went through AfD and consensus was to keep, so redirecting is probably not the best option, though the edit history is confusing due to the sockpuppetry. I see now that you are discussing the content with Drmies on the article talk page. My best advice would be to listen to his advice regarding promotional content in the article, the article will benefit from it.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 16:02, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling

Hello administrator!

Can you please check my spelling in this edit? I am not 100% sure if the description is written correctly.

Best regards, Koreanovsky (talk) 09:10, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It looks fine to me, but Russian geography is very much not my area of expertise.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 16:04, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mhmd7sen

Can user:Mhmd7sen please be blocked asap. I already reported to AIV, but they will clearly not stop until blocked. CLCStudent (talk) 23:07, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done -- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 23:14, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BTP/RoyalCanuck - Manhattan NYC

Ponyo, I don't work the promotional edit area too much but may have another sock of these, OR, people just talk like this all the time and I'm not aware. Manhattan, NYC. is another editor working on a seemingly non-notable Canadian actress. They've made an undelete request following a G11 I performed, which has striking similarities to the aforementioned RoyalCanuck's unblock appeals about how other editors have aided and vetted them. Perhaps there's no connection and it's just a coincidence I ended up interacting with both of these this week. Manhattan has a weird habit of constantly posting "and then click the "Publish changes" button below", so is perhaps following some sort of guide? -- ferret (talk) 17:01, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've just had an unfortunate (but oh-so-common) run-in with two separate promotional accounts in a short time span. There are certainly paid editing guides out there and you hear the same variation of pleas and excuses again and again until you start thinking all paid editing sockfarms are one single Jabba the Hutt editor typing furiously on a keyboard surrounded by a hundred monitors. If they can't get the article into main space, they don't get paid, so they'll fight pretty hard for that pay cheque.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 17:10, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There were no personal attacks

There was no personal attack. I simply asked the user Praxidicae to stop vandalizing the page. This user is deleting sourced info and replacing it with fake facts. I specifically sourced the scoring averages and the user changed it to a made up number. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jraymond425 (talk • contribs) 19:01, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jraymond425: This is not simply updating stats, it's adding paragraphs of unsourced material to a biography article and represents a significant policy violation. Editors reverting your addition are not vandalizing and if you continue to incorrectly state as such your block will be extended to site wide. Read the policies provided to you, repeatedly.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 19:05, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I sited an actual source and the user Praxidicae still deleted it. How do you explain this? How is that ok? I sited where the stats came from and the user Praxidicae , deleted the stats and entered made up stats. WHy is that ok? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jraymond425 (talk • contribs) 19:09, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reduce protection level for "Alex Kipman"

The protection policy states: "Where semi-protection has proven to be ineffective, administrators may use extended confirmed protection..." You didn't even try semi protection. Your use of ECP is indeed an abuse of policy and discretion. Therefore, lower the protection on the page. Crystal clear perception (talk) 17:08, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why? So SPA sock/meat accounts can continue to blow through the ridiculously low bar to obtain auto-confirmed in order to continue disruption at the article? No thank you. Perhaps you can return to some of the other articles you have been editing recently until you are extended confirmed yourself? Oh wait, I guess that's not an option. -- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 17:21, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Such precocious socks we're seeing these days. They aren't even trying. A lack of a different kind if discretion. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:30, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It sure makes it easier for me to earn those fat pay cheques from the Foundation. The per-sock bounty they pay out pads my RRSP.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 17:36, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page watcher) Really? Must've missed the sign up sheet. Darn. @Crystal clear perception: Welcome to Wikipedia! As an uninvolved (and incredibly not interested in that page) admin, I have reviewed the page's edit history, and concur with the use of Extended Confirmed. While I apologize for any inconvenience, I encourage you to make an edit request if you wish to add neutral content supported by WP:reliable sources. Cheers, and happy editing --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:45, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pauline Quirke

You removed my addition of Pauline Quirke’s birthday

How on EARTH is her son STATING her birthday not a reliable source? 2A01:4C8:C74:5E1B:F166:6E30:FB9D:28AC (talk) 18:00, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, people seem extra demanding and shouty today. Has word gone out that I'm heading out on holiday as of this afternoon? Our policy regarding disputed birth dates (as well as personal information in biography articles in general) is that the material has been widely published by reliable sources. The first source you added, a Facebook video, is from an unverified account so it cannot be used; even if verified, social media platforms cannot be used as a source for information about third parties (see WP:SOCIALMEDIA). Your second source is a genealogical website. Consensus is that the majority of such sites should not be used to verify disputed content in BLPs for several reasons (e.g. they require the assumption that the individual in the primary source is the same as the Wikipedia article, many of the sites include user-generated content, paywalls). An example of the common concerns raised can be found in this thread. Ultimately, you are combining two sub-par sources to support disputed content that neither source confirms in whole and not providing the "widely-published in reliable sources" required to be included.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 18:27, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Enjoy your holiday, Ponyo. El_C 18:30, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! It's just a short one, and it's not like travel is an option right now, but I'm still looking forward to it.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 18:31, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hope it involves nature in some way. I always feel refreshed after spending some time among the trees and chippies. El_C 18:33, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm extremely lucky to live surrounded by nature in a beautiful and bountiful piece of paradise.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 18:39, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Island is so nice. I visited there last year. Had an amazing time — constantly in awe of the spectacular natural beauty. El_C 18:50, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Safe travels P and enjoy your time away from the 'pedia. MarnetteD|Talk 18:51, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Revdel

Hi Ponyo. Could you revdel the this and [10]] revisions? It seems they include info not meant for Wikipedia. Thanks in advance. --Urbanoc (talk) 19:26, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, he also posted simar things at low-life and low life. --Urbanoc (talk) 19:29, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I see you already had taken care of them. Thanks! --Urbanoc (talk) 19:31, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Urbanoc, all taken care of now. For future reference, posting of phone numbers should go to oversight for review to see if suppression is warranted.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 19:34, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Point taken. I'll go that way if I encounter something similar again. Regards. --Urbanoc (talk) 19:42, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kalhaidhoo

Hello Ponyo - hope you enjoyed your holiday. When you moved Kalhaidhoo [11] did you mean to deliberately not leave a redirect behind? Page moves usually require a redirect left behind. I have now re-created it. Thanks, Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:28, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Shhhnotsoloud: Yes, I deliberately chose not leave a redirect behind. Page moves don't require a redirect and there are many circumstances where they're not desirable, hence the check box included in the page move function which allows one to suppress the creation of a redirect. I also explained why a I chose not to leave a redirect in my edit summary. No one is going to type out "Kalhaidhoo (Laamu Atoll)" in full when the article exists at "Kalhaidhoo". What I failed to do was double check "what links here", which was unfortunate as Template:Islands of the Maldives includes the disambiguated name, which was my bad.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:45, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry but that's not correct. Page moves do require a redirect unless they meet the criteria for redirect suppression at WP:PMRC: broadly "Page movers can suppress a redirect during a page move if the redirect would be eligible for one of the criteria for speedy deletion". In this case Kalhaidhoo (Laamu Atoll) does not qualify for speedy deletion. Please leave a redirect when moving pages unless a redirect suppression criterion applies: you can easily use Twinkle to tag it for WP:RFD if you don't think it should exist. That would reduce errors like the one you noted above. Thanks, Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:45, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, Shhhnotsoloud, poor candidates for a redirect don't need to be kept. Drmies (talk) 17:40, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IP editing on Slovak People's Party

Do you know what's up with the recent IPs editing this article? I notice you reverted some edits with the summary "rv sock edits per WP:BANREVERT";[12] the same IP and another one are aggressively trying to reinstate the same change. (t · c) buidhe 20:35, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to Ivanvector for handling this.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:47, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User you temp blocked & warned is back and doing it again

Hi, this user https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jorgelobods334 just got done with the 2 week block & warn you put them on & is not only right back to non-notable bios, they're copyvioing too. JamesG5 (talk) 07:14, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up; I've now reblocked the account.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 15:58, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete

this user just doesn’t get it Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 17:53, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Again.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 18:12, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jack90s15

As the admin who hard-blocked 189.35.35.204 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and CU-blocked his last tagged sock Walkerofthefaith, can you review this SPI? thanks, --Pudeo (talk) 19:31, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Pudeo:, if you want checkuser action on an SPI you need to set the case status to CU (i.e. {{SPI case status|CU}}) so that a Clerk can review and endorse a check. Due to the privacy policy I can't do anything about the IPs listed in the report - it really needs a thorough review by an SPI Clerk.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 19:52, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

Thank you for blocking that user! Much appreciated. -- Rockstone[Send me a message!] 20:01, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No problem.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:02, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A persistent time-wasting editor on UTRS

Hi, Ponyo. An editor called Lazy-restless is both indefinitely blocked without talk page access on English Wikipedia and also globally locked. He has made at least nine unblock requests on UTRS. (8 on the current version of UTRS, and at least one on the old version.) He has repeatedly posted unblock requests that address only parts of the problems that are keeping him blocked, and ignore other parts. Administrators have repeatedly told him that there are issues that he needs to address in order to be unblocked that he has not yet mentioned (such as copyright) but he continues to post unblock requests that still don't address them. The whole thing is an absurd waste of time for all concerned. Yamla said in relation to the editor's latest unblock request "This user needs to be blocked from UTRS for at least six months", and I agree. Can you offer any help? JBW (talk) 22:00, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I was a UTRS tool admin before they switched to the new platform. I didn't bother to re-request the extra buttons there as I haven't been participating much since the switch over. It's clunky and awkward and I'm not even sure we have the ability to ban editors from making disruptive requests anymore. @Deepfriedokra:, is that correct? Users can no longer be blocked from appealing by tool admins?-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 22:06, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) @JBW: Last I saw, only @AmandaNP: has that level of access. Cheers, --Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:03, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Great Ghu! I declined at least two myself. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:06, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I saw the long list of UTRS appeals at CAT:RFU and logged in to try to help. Most of the ones I checked had been declined multiple times and needed to be banned from appealing, but I had/have no idea how to make that happen. I think whatever we were trying to fix with the old UTRS has just opened another can of worms and appeals are languishing when there had previously been almost zero backlog.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 22:10, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think I requested tool admin status, but the software does not work. AmandaNP has been setting the bans on the back end. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:18, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I had very little experience of the old version of UTRS, so I can't make very good comparisons, but from what I have seen I too get the impression that the change over has "just opened another can of worms", in various ways, of which this is one. If it is true that only AmandaNP can do that now, then that is a problem, because she is currently rather inactive, not having edited since July. If we can't block editors from UTRS, then the backlog from editors who persistent in making total useless requests over and over is going to build up and up, and there is a likelihood that those requests will eventually dominate UTRS altogether. Also, it is likely to put administrators off participating, so an increase in demand will be coupled with a decline in supply, possibly leading to disastrous effects. Ponyo, Deepfriedokra, or any talk page stalker who may be able to help, does any of you know if anyone on the technical side has been alerted to the problem? JBW (talk) 10:53, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I concur. It is a bit frustrating. I recognise the one's I've already declined and just ignore. I don't review the SPI and the CU blocks 'cause those are more specialized than "did they credibly address the block/do I educate/do I redirect to their talk". Not nearly as much fun as it was before. Maybe we should post to The Village Pump. Maybe there are savants that could help. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:38, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like I should add LazyRestlesss to by Christmas card list or have 'em round for tea or something. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:40, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have just pushed the ban management branch to live production. This code has not been vetted at all, but in the current circumstances, I really don't see any other option. Please note we were working on this until a personal crisis hit back in July and is still an issue today, and therefore my contact and ability to do things is extremely limited. I will not be able to preform any additional fixes myself, as I would have to pay money to do so. That said we do have one other contributor who may be able to help if issues are pointed out here. I am excessively trying to limit any potential for me to access private data as my connection is insecure and I'm not able to trust it. I think that is paramount in this situation and something I completely avoid given the fact that I have access to Checkuser and oversight tools globally, and even within UTRS - full CU access. SQL is a second contact who had access to the database. That is why I have not been able to follow up on the bans needing to be manually done by the database because the code was still in development.
I'm happy to stand again to the charge of screwing up UTRS at WT:UTRS once my crisis is resolved and I am back to normal editing. Please excuse any complete lack of response on my part unless something is critically broken. ping @Boing! said Zebedee: as requested for major changes. -- Amanda - mobile (aka DQ) 12:14, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ponyo&oldid=973986387"