User talk:Ponyo

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

User:Snake dude and socks[edit]

When you're back from holiday (hope you had a great time), would you mind having a look at User talk:The highest authority#Sock list? The list is a bunch of socks you blocked all at the same time, as a checkuser block, but he's saying several of them are not his. Any chance you could confirm one way or another? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 01:21, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Boing! said Zebedee (talk · contribs); looking at sequential blocks I make in the block log really isn't an accurate way to draw connections between editors. I often run more than one SPI at a time and the blocks can be unrelated to each other, or to socking altogether. Also, the majority of the accounts are now stale. The Snake dude master was socking as recently as this December (which you are aware). I'd be hesitant to unblock them regardless of whether they meet the standard offer requirements as there are some striking competency issues.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:22, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Ah, OK, thanks. When I presented that list to him he was at least able to confirm most were his, so I guess we can stick with those and I'll remove the rest. There's no chance of a standard offer unblock for at least six months from the last socking, and even then, yes, I agree the competency isn't there. I'm just not quite sure what to say to him at this time - maybe I'll just finalize my comments on the sock list for now, and then think some more about what to say. Thanks for your help. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:38, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
It's an odd case where even if they could comply with WP:SO, they really probably shouldn't be editing an encyclopedia. Hopefully they will find an online forum or group where they can express themselves the way that they would like to.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:42, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I think something like that would probably be for the best. I'll sleep on it and try to work out something to suggest tomorrow. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:46, 3 January 2017 (UTC)


Hi P, happy new year! Thought you might be interested in this dialogue that I've been having with Padmalakshmisx. I've apprised him of the standard offer in an effort to maybe (one day) eliminate the socking by giving him a glimmer of hope. Given some of his responses, I'm worried that he's going to botch the unblock request, and that he's going to quickly get himself blocked again just based on some of the mistakes that he's still making today. He had the gall to refer to himself as a master editor...jeez. Anyway, I think I've been completely honest with him in terms of managing his expectations, what he will be required to demonstrate for his unblock request, letting him know that any socking will reset the clock, etc. While I'm hoping that he'll stay true to his word, I'm also sort of hoping that maybe you could keep an eye out for any squirrely editing. Not sure how that would work, but if it's possible, I'd appreciate it. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:12, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

We shall see. They are technically indistinguishable from other confirmed Padma accounts (e.g. Thandrapaparayudu and Memusaitham), so I updated the tag on the accounts.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:32, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Fear Factor: Khatron Ke Khiladi (season 3)[edit]

Greetings. Came across a page which had been changed from a long-standing redirect. I saw that you had just recently returned the redirect, leaving the summary "LTA Block evasion". The user who reverted your revert is a brand new account. So I thought you might want to take a look into it. Hope you're enjoying your time away. Onel5969 TT me 11:46, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the note @Onel5969: it is indeed the same sock. I've semi-protected a handful of the target articles. --Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:06, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Ponyo, I think they meant SirJonasMcKeth. It's one of the trolls who undos your recent edits. Sro23 (talk) 03:28, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Sro23. I thought I'd already blocked the Jonas account yesterday when I ran a check. I'm still a little foggy after being away for the last few days.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 17:22, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Deleted Articles?[edit]

I was looking for an article on a nearby star: NY Virginis. I found it had been deleted:

18:49, 22 January 2016 Ponyo (talk | contribs) deleted page NY Virginis (CSD G5:Mass deletion of pages added by Marvel Hero)

I looked into it and saw that was part of a sock puppet thing... But I'm wondering if this mass deletion could have made mistakes. For example, even if that banned user created that article, was it a good article? I can't find a way to look at it since it has been deleted.

Anyway I was wondering what happened there. Autumn Wind (talk) 19:53, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

BTW, an exoplanet orbiting that star NY Virginis b, has an article. Autumn Wind (talk) 19:55, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Sorry to spam you, but I was wrong about that star. My original source listed it 10 light years away, which would make it fairly notable. However, it's distance apparently is thousands of light years away... So, probably not very notable. Autumn Wind (talk) 20:48, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Autumn Wind, there is no prohibition on non-blocked/banned editors creating articles that have been speedy deleted under the G5 criteria. If you believe it is a notable topic then please feel free to create the article.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:09, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Potential sock of Profile101[edit]

Hello Ponyo - I recently came across Profile101 Nightfury who was blocked on what I believe was DUCK evidence. I did notice, however, that they didn't target a certain non-admin whom they almost always target (you'll know who I mean, hopefully). Would it be OK for me to request a CheckUser on the accounts? I noticed the English of this potential sock is a little better this time, too. Thank you in advance. Patient Zerotalk 11:50, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

This is the authentic voice of Profile101. I think this one was checked. Patient Zerotalk 12:09, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) User:Profile101 Nightfury (I've fixed your link, above) claimed to be Profile101 here and targeted some of the usual editors before being quickly blocked. Their last target was User talk:Bbb23 at 09:14, 6 January 2017 before being blocked that very same minute, so it looks like they were simply stopped before completing their usual spree. Even if this was an imposter, they still would not be unblocked, so I see no point at all in wasting any more time and resources investigating this further. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:24, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Indeed. Thanks for your help, Boing. I wasn't suggesting an unblock, by the way; I just wanted to make sure nobody else was behind the account. But yes, I completely understand. Patient Zerotalk 12:28, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Sure, but in the absence of any identified alternative suspects, I think it would amount to fishing. I've seen most of these socks, and each one seems to attack a subset of the usual targets, so I really don't think the omission of one individual should be a cause for doubt. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:05, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Boing! said Zebedee: I didn't have anyone particular in mind on this issue. Apart from that, I can see why it would be a wrong reason to use CU. Thanks, once again - enjoy the rest of your day. Patient Zerotalk 13:47, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
As the one who blocked this, I have no doubt it is Profile101, I have many of the target admins' talk pages on my watchlist and if I'm around, I block before he does the full round. —SpacemanSpiff 13:51, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, SpacemanSpiff. Patient Zerotalk 13:55, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks SpacemanSpiff and Boing! said Zebedee for stick-handling this while I was away.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:12, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
P.S. It's not fishing if there is evidence of disruption/abuse of multiple accounts without a clear suspect. Fishing is when you check someone where there is no evidence of abuse.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:18, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Patient Zero If you're referring to me as the non admin who he skipped, he cannot contact me because my talk page is at present protected until next month. If he does target me again, I will no doubt request for my talk page to be protected again. Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 21:16, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
I was indeed referring to you, Class455. That's good - if he does strike again, please do that. Also thanks Ponyo for explaining. Patient Zerotalk 12:40, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Christopher McDonald[edit]

Why did you just delete the whole section? I know for fact his brother Daniel McDonald was a notable person. His wife is an actor also. His brother has a Wikipedia page. Also you only say "independently notable and reliably sourced family is included." I am very sure this is a reliable source. Wikipedia does not call for sourced in the info box. I am going to add his wife and brother to the info box. Please don't delete it since he and his wife are actors. Have a wonderful day. MDSanker 00:56, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

The entire section was deleted because none of it was supported by reliably sourced article content as is required by the Template:Infobox person instructions as well as policy. Also per policy, the names of individual family members are only included when independently notable and, again, when it is supported by reliable sources. Wikipedia articles do not meet reliable sourcing criteria as it consists of user-generated content (in addition to the caveats listed at Wikipedia:Researching with Wikipedia#Citing Wikipedia). Your personal knowledge of what you know to be true is irrelevant unless you can provide the reliable sources necessary to support the content; this is the crux of our BLP and verifiability policies (from said policy: "verifiability means that other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors"). Any such additions will be removed until a source meeting WP:RS is provided to verify the material.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 17:10, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Gabby socking and Monster High[edit]

Also pinging @Cyphoidbomb: Are we still feeding her Talk:Monster High as sock bait for Gabriella~four.3-6? Much as I would like to see what minor nitpicks she wants to correct, I don't like her insulting attitude. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 01:25, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

AngusWOOF, the bait helps us figure out that it's her, but we needn't respond. No amount of discussion is going to correct her behavior, or get her to spell better, or fix any of the other problems that have been persistent. She makes more mistakes than she corrects. You can still revert, report, and we'll block. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:50, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Potential Nagendra[edit]

Hi P, Vrushank Aithal K strikes me as a strong possibility for a Nagendra sock. I'm not 100% sure, because much of what I saw from this user was basically vandalism, and there was also some incompetence in the way they formed citations, which I don't specifically remember from Nagendra.

  • Intersection with Nagendra sock Alludusheenu at Kalpana 2.
  • Intersection with 2 Nagendra socks Jack1515 and Kilbridge at [1]
  • Intersection with Jack1515, Nenorakam and Kiran Kirak at Yajamana (movie)
  • Intersection with Shanthiniketan and Vikramranrathod at Santhu Straight Forward
  • Intersection with Drownman at Doddman Hudga
  • User has only edited 7 articles, so this seems like a large intersection. This user in particular has also deliberately changed film box office figures against existing references. Indistinguishable from vandalism.
  • Vrushank Aithal K uses phrasing "Added box office collection" [2][3] Similar to this by Kilbridge. "Adding box office collection". Seems needlessly wordy, which makes it stand out. I think most people would say "Adding gross" or something. Although I will note that generally Nagendra doesn't leave many edit summaries, so that could lean more toward this not being a sock. Anyway, it would be hard to compare.
  • Most of Vrushank's edits are mobile. Same with the others.

Just thought I'd mention it just in case. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:22, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb: I'm not seeing the technical overlap usually evident with Nagendra socks, nor a link to any of the other "usual suspects" in this topic area.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:23, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
My mind must be playing tricks on me. :( Thanks for lookin'! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:24, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Or it's just another bum in another seat pumping out the same paid editing garbage from across the road. It never ever ends.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:30, 13 January 2017 (UTC)


The attack on my tak page appears to have been a late respnse to a politely worded message I left on his talk page about three months ago. They've edited quite a bit since then so I'm unclear on why it took so long for them to reply. You may want to check their deleted contribs and reconsider if perhaps a block is already overdue at this point. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:59, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

I deleted the worst of the talk pages in the deleted contribs, so I was aware. I will absolutely not hesitate to block again if there are any further shenanigans, but if anyone deems an immediate block is warranted then that's absolutely fine by me.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:08, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
I would've if you hadn't got there first, but I'll defer to your more reserved judgement in this case. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:37, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
It's likely poor judgement in this case; I just don't want to block after giving a final warning without any further edits from them as it makes a block appeal more likely. We shall see...--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:43, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 20[edit]

Wikipedia Library owl.svg The Wikipedia Library


Books & Bytes
Issue 20, November-December 2016
by Nikkimaria (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), UY Scuti (talk · contribs), Samwalton9 (talk · contribs)

  • Partner resource expansions
  • New search tool for finding TWL resources
  • #1lib1ref 2017
  • Wikidata Visiting Scholar

Read the full newsletter

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:00, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Blocked editor[edit]

I promised myself I would stay out of the proceedings when I warned Bishonen of User:BlackAmerican (CrazyAces), but I wanted to add that, besides the multiple sock puppets he used during his block (the "fresh start" argument he brought up is total bull, sorry to say) he also viciously attacked me with IPs during his supposed "fresh start". Here is a charming example: [4]. My point is you cannot trust him in these situations. This is not a person who works collaboratively, he lies blatantly, and can be a downright horrible human being when the mood strikes him. If he ever gets to come back, please keep a watchful eye on him. Another thing, please make him required to go through a review process on his articles. He still clearly does not understand notability. If I am out of line, I apologize, but thank you for your time.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 21:43, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Sock TPA[edit]

Hello. Thanks for removing TPA. But what a pathetic way for Evlekis to spend his Friday evenings, sifting through his old socks to see if he can find one that still has talk page access, and then pinging me to make sure that someone sees the crap he posts. As if I would care... - Tom | Thomas.W talk 21:21, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Alleged vandalism[edit]

Please explain how I have committed vandalism, and why this breaks Wikipedia's rules. I am asking his in a civil way, no looking for trouble. Thank you. --TheRestUnderMachinePolio (talk) 22:39, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

You created a ridiculous redirect to the Donald Trump article, then redirected your own user and talk pages to Donald Trump. Each edit in and of itself was disruptive. Given the implausibility of a brand new user knowing how to create redirects from the get-go, I would suggest you quit while you're ahead. And by ahead I mean "not blocked".--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 22:43, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Sorry for my earlier delation of this comment; my "finger-trouble", again, sorry! Huldra (talk) 21:46, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Okay. I will stop my re-directions, although they were done in good faith. May I ask if you feel anti-Trump sentiment? Did you shill for Hill? --TheRestUnderMachinePolio (talk) 09:52, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

You have email![edit]

Hello, Ponyo. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.