User talk:Ponyo

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

A-holes obsessed with zombies birds and me.[edit]

So these jerks are following me around reverting me. There was another at AIV, haven't looked to see if it's been dealt with. They've reverted me on two really high profile articles (Georgetown Prep and Holton-Arms Schools). What's my plan here? Just get off line to avoid disrupting the encyclopedia? It's getting very frustrating. John from Idegon (talk) 23:34, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

@John from Idegon: Both articles you mention have now been protected by other admins, and I've also semi-protected M-153 (Michigan highway). Is there something else you want done here? --Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 16:08, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
It's far more than "both" articles. This (These?) guys have been attacking multiple articles on settlements and schools in the Detroit area the last two weekends, and now they've taken to following me around. I'm sorry, but it is hard to explain and detail out to you so you'll understand the depth of the problem. I do not have the time to go look up all the various places they've been disruptive, all the articles they've disrupted, or all the now into nearly 100 different IPs and usernames they've used. I attempted to request an edit filter for the Zombies and bird edits, and they found that request, virtually defeating the utility of even doing it. It is incredibly frustrating. John from Idegon (talk) 16:15, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
I definitely understand the frustration involved in dealing with this type of disruption; unfortunately, the tools provided to admins to try to combat IP-hopping vandalism across disparate articles are fairly ineffective. An edit filter may be helpful, you can make a request via email that would prevent the IP(s) from viewing the details of the filter. Alternatively, you could contact an admin handy with filters, such as Zzuuzz or MusikAnimal, and provide them with the details privately. --Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 16:26, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks...that is finally helpful. I've already emailed an admin, so I'll try one of the ones you suggested. These kiddies are sophisticated enough that they are staying a couple of steps ahead of us, and it's making for a ton of time waste. One of the admins you mentioned has already acted on some of this garbage. John from Idegon (talk) 17:08, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
We made it thru the weekend with no zombie bird edits, but the person(s) is still stalking me as of last night. Unfortunately, they've been reverting on an an article where I am near 3rr due to trying to get an inexperienced editor to follow BRD. (Great Falls, Montana). I may have to call on you to verify the stalking issue if the reluctant editor ever does engage. Thanks. John from Idegon (talk) 20:32, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, I can see the IPs you're talking about. No point in blocking as they will have moved on by now.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:38, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
Like I said before, these kids are not dummies. They are using overseas proxies and VPN sites. John from Idegon (talk) 20:49, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

2600:8805:5500:b200::/64[edit]

Yesterday you blocked 2600:8805:5500:b200::/64 for "Violations of the biographies of living persons policy: persistent addition of unsourced personal info in WP:BLPs". Thank you; I had been trying to clean up their mess and it's difficult because they appear to be quite prolific and hop between IPs.

Their edits are quite easily identified: most obviously they almost always use the name of the subject as an edit summary, but also they often write "He was (Born <date>)" with that peculiar bracket style, usually in the middle of an existing sentence and using "he" regardless of gender.

In addition to the block you've made, could you also look at the following?

There's also this, but it looks like an unrelated editor has also used it since:

Most of these edits have been recent (almost all this month) but the earliest I have seen is this from November last year, so it may be a more chronic problem than so far discovered.

Thanks!

Dorsetonian (talk) 08:44, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

@Dorsetonian:, I think that everything that can be blocked has been. Let me know if you see them pop up again.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 19:48, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
Will do - thanks! Dorsetonian (talk) 06:12, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Oops[edit]

trout Self-trouting for this. I got it right eventually, at least. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 21:53, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

At least I didn't get blocked this time!--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 19:42, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Sock[edit]

Hi Ponyo, our old friend Benniejets is back making the same old changes to Mont Blanc de Courmayeur, etc. Thanks, Ericoides (talk) 14:41, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

@Ericoides: Blocked now. Thanks for reporting! --Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 22:16, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Ariana Grande Help?[edit]

I appreciate the message left on my page, i am new to the platform. I didn't mean to be monotonous or malignant. I don't know how to proceed in resolving this issue considering i have already left a comment on the Ariana Grande talk page. I have provided multiple counts of evidence or Ariana being a songwriter. official sources aren't enough and then third party sources aren't reliable? i don't understand. It seems people are just ignoring blatant facts that Ariana grande writes songs. there is a wikipedia article on it <ref> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Songs_written_by_Ariana_Grande <ref> . It seems illogical to have a page dedicated to the songs Ariana has written and then not have her listed as a song-writer respectively on the same website? Lenhpia (talk) 09:42, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

@Lenhpia: You are neither monotonous nor malignant, just a new editor trying to find their way through Wikipedia's maze of policies and guidelines. It's a great first step that you have posted on the talk page, though disappointing that no one else has taken part in the discussion (likely because this topic has been covered repeatedly in the archives). You may want to start a Request for Comment, which is included in the dispute resolution page I linked to on your talk page. This will bring more outside editors to the talk page to join in the discussion. With regard to sourcing, the subject's own website and other such primary sources aren't very helpful when they are making self-serving comments or exceptional claims about themselves. If you are able to find independent reliable sources wherein Grande is described as a songwriter and can demonstrate that her songwriting is a defining characteristic that merits inclusion in the lead, then you will likely find consensus for including it. If you do intended to start a Request for Comment, I suggest reading previous discussions (such as here here and here) from the talk page archives so you understand why songwriter continues to be removed. --Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 15:48, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Checkuser block weirdness[edit]

Ponyo,

Could you review the IPs involved in this... discussion? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrator_intervention_against_vandalism&type=revision&diff=862688868&oldid=862685471

Seems to relate to your block on 173.184.195.86 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), with the IPv6 blanking edits they claim are block evasion of 173.x, while the IPv4 is reporting the IPv6 as vandalism. -- ferret (talk) 01:32, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

  • @Ferret and Drmies: Is there anything that still needs review here? I'm still recovering from a tryptophan bomb, so I'm not exactly running on all cylinders.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 19:42, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
    • I think this was mostly silliness, one IP reporting another over essentially good faith if poorly communicated edits. If you've no concern, I'm good. -- ferret (talk) 19:45, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
      • Bleh turkey. Hey Kelapstick tells me he went ice fishing already. It's so cold even the diamonds are solid. Meanwhile we're still running the air down here. Drmies (talk) 21:30, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Tonegents[edit]

Is Tonegents (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) one of the usual long-term abusers? Wondering f the edits to user talk:James343e were a joe-job. Guy (Help!) 14:31, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Joe-job. It's Architect 134 (talk · contribs · count).--Bbb23 (talk) 15:18, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Oh FFS. Thanks. Guy (Help!) 16:30, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

LTA for Benniejets[edit]

Hi Ponyo, I have create a LTA page Benniejets at Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse/Benniejets. Can you please verify and approve it and then add it to WP:LTA. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 22:00, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

@Adamgerber80: I'm not sure what you would like me to verify? As a checkuser, the only thing I could technically verify in the report would be the potential IP ranges used, but obviously the privacy policy prevents me from making such comments. On a related note, I had no idea that LTA pages even needed approval. I can see the category Category:Wikipedia long-term abuse – Pending approval, but no documentation as to how the approval process works. --Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 22:23, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
By verify I mean if I have created the page correctly. I am aware of the IP and privacy around it and thus have derived them from the SPI page. Yes, there is no documentation on the approval process and it is unclear on how that works. The new LTA page template clearly states that as a creator I cannot approve it. I assume you an admin would be able to. Adamgerber80 (talk) 22:32, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Odd. I don't feel comfortable approving the report as I'm concerned someone may infer I'm confirming a connection between the accounts and IPs. I would, however, be interested in finding out how the approval process works. For instance, who normally does the approval? What criteria is used? How long do these typically sit as pending? --Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 22:43, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
I understand your concern. AFAIK there is no formal process on this. I had created another one Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Hassan Guy in October 2017 but even that has not been approved yet. Moreover, no-one even approached or pinged me about it. Other pages which are currently pending approval are in the same state such as Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Nikita since August 2017, Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/I B Wright since October 2017, Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Qwertywander since February 2018. Maybe raising this is at WP:AN might be useful. Ideally, there should be a set of admins or senior editors monitoring the page for new LTA proposals. Adamgerber80 (talk) 22:50, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
If new LTA reports are falling through the cracks due to a process that requires approval when there is no approval process in place, then yeah, that's a pretty big oversight. Looking at the talk page archives, it does appear that there are a few admins watching the page (e.g. Beeblebrox, Zzuuzz and NinjaRobotPirate). Perhaps drop a note there?--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 23:02, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
A poke on the talk page is probably the recommended method, but one shouldn't underestimate the lack of enthusiasm there is for LTA stuff. There are some instructions obscurely placed at Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Detailed instructions. TBH I've seen a lot of people approve the entries they've created themselves. As long as the user knows what they're doing, I don't see a problem with that. -- zzuuzz (talk) 23:13, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
zzuuzz arrives on scene with their usual dose of helpfulness and rational advice!--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 23:18, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
@Zzuuzz: Okay. I will add the entry on the page. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 16:45, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Gala19000[edit]

Hi Ponyo. You blocked in June some socks of Gala19000. In August Mirza1453 was created. Socks of Gala and Mirza must be the only accounts on Wikipedia being entirely focused on changing strength and casualty numbers of wars concerning Turkey and the Ottoman Empire. Mirza has been trying to make POV edits similar to those of Gala, trying to put the number of Ottoman casualties in the Great Siege of Malta at 10000 by ignoring some sources [1][2][3][4][5]. AFAIK no other accounts have tried to make the same POV changes. "Mirza1453" refers to a very important year for the Ottoman Empire, "OttomanWarrior1299" also referred to a very important year for the Ottoman Empire. There might be other behavioural clues to clarify if Mirza is a sock but I am pressed for time. Is there any non-stale sock of Gala to compare Mirza with? Ktrimi991 (talk) 10:44, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm off to a meeting but will take a look when I'm back.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 15:51, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
@Ktrimi991: The socks are stale, and I don't see much of a technical match from what I can see in the logs.  Inconclusive.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 19:43, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks Ponyo. Might a SPI for behavioural evaluation by clerks be needed (when I find some time to file a report in the future) or it is better to move on and forget about my suspicions? Ktrimi991 (talk) 19:48, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
If the evidence is there, and you are patient, there is no harm in starting an SPI and requesting a behavioural comparison.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 19:52, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
I think I will file a SPI report for behavioural evaluation when I have some more time for Wikipedia. Thanks again Ponyo. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 19:56, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Based on more data than Ponyo has available to her, I believe the user is  Unrelated.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:02, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks @Bbb23:. I am not much familiar with Gala&socks and Mirza, and my suspicions emerged after I noticed the same nature of their edits and striking similarities between two usernames (OttomanWarrior1299 and Mirza1453--two war titles and two very important years for the Ottoman Empire). I accept your conclusion and am not going to make further research for behavioural clues. Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:27, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Harrasment?[edit]

Extended content

I explicitly asked for Tony's permission before I reverted and he consented.

An apology will be welcome. WBGconverse 19:32, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

No. Regardless of what TonyBallioni told you off-wiki, there is no reason whatsoever for you to be editing that page. Given that you are currently in a dispute with the individual, your preoccupation with this particular page is bordering harassment. If the template must be removed for whatever reason, let someone else do it.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 19:37, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
For the record, I thought you had already blanked it, and I wasn't going to fight over it. Now that it's been reverted, I agree with Ponyo. Also, Winged Blades of Godric, an arbitrator has said that further attempts to link the two accounts will result in an oversight block. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:50, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
I did not know that you were this clueless. AND, NOBODY WAS LINKING ANY ACCOUNT. WBGconverse 19:53, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Oh my word. Can I please call for a bit of calm? I know I haven't agreed with Godric over notability of stuff, and occasionally he's a bit incivil (but on the occasions I have told him to dial the snark down, he has apologised), but ultimately he is here for the encyclopedia and does good work. I know who he's been arguing with and why, and purely on the merits of improving the encyclopedia, I'm with Godric on this one. I can go into more detail off-wiki if it would help, it would be easier as I can avoid beating around the bush and call a spade a spade - however, I think in this instance it is far too easy to out someone accidentally and get hit with a nasty block for it, which will invite a whole bunch of dramamongers along to roast Arbcom over a spit. I fully appreciate there are reasons for Arbcom blocks and why they can't be discussed on-wiki, but when have facts got in the way of a good rant? Let's just proceed carefully without brandishing the banhammer, please. And Godric, please don't flounce off, it won't make you feel any better. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:04, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
If someone is told clearly to stop putting their hand on the stove top as it will burn them, and then they proceed to put their hand on the stove top and are burned, that is not an "accident". I will be collapsing this now, as it is counterproductive to the entire purpose of the warning.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:13, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
I agree that Godric is a great user and just sent him an email saying as much and apologizing if my email to him was misunderstood. This issue is just very complicated and has implications that the WMF is aware of. KrakatoaKatie is familiar with the matter and ArbCom likely would be the best place to send any concerns about it. This really isn't something that should be being discussed on multiple user talks across the project. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:10, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Ref: Freddy Balsera Birth Year[edit]

My friend - thank you for leaving such a kind message regarding my most recent entry. I was wondering how exactly I should source a person's birthdate. I see most figures of note have a birthday on their page, but no source. Can you guide me a bit on that?

thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Julius1433 (talkcontribs) 19:49, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Also - did you remove the citations from the philanthropy section? those sources came directly from the organizations mentioned — Preceding unsigned comment added by Julius1433 (talkcontribs) 19:52, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

@Julius1433: Proper sourcing on Wikipedia can be confusing to newcomers but is absolutely necessary to ensure that content is both accurate and verifiable. The overriding policy in this case is WP:BLP, which protects the living subjects of our articles. Content added to such articles needs to be verifiable through the use of reliable sources. In the majority of cases this is achieved through the use of sources independent from the subject with a reputation for fact checking. If there is no source, personal information should not be added to the article until one is found. With over 5 million articles on Wikipedia it is difficult to maintain the quality of sourcing across all pages; what is important is that we do fix and mould articles according to our guidelines when issues are found. If you are connected to Freddy Balsera, please ensure you review our conflict of interest guidelines and policy regarding paid editing. Thank you, --Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:03, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
@Ponyo: yes, I am most definitely a new comer LOL. This was very helpful, especially "In the majority of cases this is achieved through the use of sources independent from the subject with a reputation for fact checking". I will make sure to keep an eye out for a good source that can corroborate his birthdate. Thanks again! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Julius1433 (talkcontribs)
@Julius1433: You may find this link helpful as well.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:31, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Richard White[edit]

His page needs updated and I saw that you are a past contributor. I know for a fact that 2018, right now, he is starring in Man of La Mancha as Don Miguel de Cervantes/Alonso Quijano/Don Quixote. He is currently performing at Beef & Boards in Indianapolis Woopderitis (talk) 16:33, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

@Woopderitis: I'm not sure that would be a notable enough role/venue to be included, though if you want to add it you can see if its sticks. Please just ensure you include a reliable source when adding the material and ensure it's worded in a WP:NPOV neutral way.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 16:30, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

73.34.105.30[edit]

They've removed their multiple block notice and I saw there's been issues in the past with restoring it. Just a heads-up (I reverted them on an oddball 'grammar' edit where no grammar issues were present). Nate (chatter) 22:32, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

@Mrschimpf: They've only removed the "repeat vandal" template, and given that they are not currently blocked I don't think there's any issue with that.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 16:26, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
That's what I thought; just wanted to make sure I wasn't reverting in error (I wanted to but thought I'd check with you first). Thanks. Nate (chatter) 20:59, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

British hip hop[edit]

Thank you for intervening with User:2.25.74.208! I was just looking for the right procedure to report and before I can even find it, it's done! That is some magical ability to detect personal attacks quickly. Melmann(talk) 22:58, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

No problem. The ALL CAPS POSTS sorta pointed me in the right direction.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 22:59, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

contact[edit]

Hi Ponyo,

I am not sure whether this is the right way to get in touch with you, but we would like to have a chat with you on the phone.

Could you please send me an email on (Redacted) to see what we can arrange?

Thanks and kind regards,

June — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C5:5890:2301:9811:47FF:408E:6241 (talk) 08:41, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

I assume this is in relation to my semi-protection of Extreme Sports Channel. Per these guidelines and requirements, please use the article talk page to discuss any content issues you have with the article.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 15:40, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Russian sock ring / paid editing leader?[edit]

Hi P, do you remember a few months ago Kailash29792 asking a question about a "Mr. Thank You"?. Check out this guy's talk page. User Moorlord15 is clearly just doing the bidding of this Russian anon, creating dozens of soundtrack sections, etc. How this could be anything other than undisclosed paid editing is beyond me. Thoughts? I mean, my mass revert finger is twitching like crazy! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:02, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb: I would propose semi-protecting Moorlord15's talk page to stem the bleed-out of socking, advise Moorlord15 about proxying for blocked editors, blocking the proxies in the talk page history, then reverting the IP edits. Sounds like a lot of work for a quiet Friday morning and I haven't even had a cuppa yet! --Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 15:46, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
Slight change in plan. I've notified Moorlord15 about where the requests are coming from and they agree to no longer proxy for the sockfarm. I'm doubtful though as to whether the IPs are actually proxies or if we're dealing with UPE/promo meat based in Russia. I've blocked the most recent IP used, 95.55.103.252, but will not be blocking the stale ones. --Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 16:06, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
Is there a way to mass rollback? Because some of his edits were good, while some were bad. But you seem to have undone even the good edits, such as reverting the removal of Dhritiman Chatterjee from Arangetra Velai. --Kailash29792 (talk) 03:24, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
I see from my notifications that you've restored much of the content. That's absolutely fine as long as you can vouch for its accuracy.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:33, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

G10 deletion[edit]

Thanks for deleting User talk:107.77.194.137. You may also want to revdel the page creation log. Natureium (talk) 22:12, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Done, thanks for the reminder.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 22:16, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

My talk page[edit]

Hi. Thank you for protecting my talk page. I wanted to ask if the removed messages were just people being rude, or if there was any of my personal information in them. Just want to know if I should be worried or not. PeterTheFourth (talk) 22:07, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

@PeterTheFourth: It was vile ranting regarding the LGBTQ community; I don't think it was directed towards you specifically but was likely trolling based on the AN/I thread. Please let me know if you need the protection extended at any time as I only locked it for 12 hours.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 22:15, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
Okay, thank you. PeterTheFourth (talk) 22:25, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
Came here for the same reason. Thanks for the cleanup. Simonm223 (talk) 23:48, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
Just Grawp, no? Drmies (talk) 17:48, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
Yarp.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 18:20, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
That old troll? ROTFL. Simonm223 (talk) 18:32, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Weird and weirder[edit]

This is pretty far out there. You were kind with your block; the next one will be an indef if this user keeps the crazy up. Drmies (talk) 17:46, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The 24-hour block yesterday was just me trying to stop the edit warring. What's happened on that talk page since is, as you note, "out there". I imagine a more decisive block will be forthcoming if their argument continues in the same vein post block. I find their comment "wiki is in danger of being controlled by fantasists once again and the long journey in establishing accuracy on each page was a waste of our time" to be particularly intriguing given that they first edited the Tommy Robinson article yesterday. Nothing suspicious there.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 18:01, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
  • And what do you make of this? Drmies (talk) 17:54, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
I think someone needs to be cautioned about their use of rollback. Also, if you were to develop a course titled "Nuance 101", I have a number of editors in mind that could benefit from your tutelage. I'd even lend out my husband's expertise in creating flashy PowerPoint lectures to assist in the endeavour. --Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 18:19, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Toby Esterhase's Secretary[edit]

Hi - somehow the block is indefinite, which seems correct, but the message says temporary. Thanks for catching this, I was pretty sure it was a sock but no idea whose it might be. Doug Weller talk 19:44, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the note Doug Weller; I've fixed the template.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 19:47, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
No problem. I see the clock's ticking down for the editor Drmies mentions above, I can't wait to see what happens next! I won't be taking any action myself though. Doug Weller talk 19:53, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
Isn't this editor a sock of Mikemikev? Liz Read! Talk! 02:32, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
@Liz: Could very well be, but Bobby Kwan was only found to be  Possible to Mikemikev in the last SPI, so I just tagged the Secretary account to link it to Bobby Kwan. With this level of disruption I rarely tag the socks at all, but I thought they might kick off on their talk page or UTRS and wanted to give a reviewing admin a breadcrumb trail. Also, welcome back!--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 15:39, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
That makes a lot of sense. Thanks for the welcome! Liz Read! Talk! 17:02, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

User:Snooganssnoogans reverts of my edits[edit]

@Snooganssnoogans has reverted my edits to the Andrew McCabe and James Comey articles -- both protected and one-revert pages -- the grounds that the author Joseph diGenova -- a former US Attorney for the District of Columbia, a former Independent Counsel of the United States, a former Special Counsel to the U.S. House of Representatives, a former Chief Counsel to the U.S. Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, and a former Counsel to the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (the Church Committee) -- is a "conspiracy theorist" and citing him is a possible violation of BLP. I have not found any archived discussion and agreement that diGenova is an unreliable source. I am contacting you as an admin who may still be awake (Pacific Standard Time) to resolve this. Also, you are undoubtedly aware of the political tensions right now in the US, and, as you are fortunate enough to live in British Columbia, I am confident you can review this thoroughly impartially.

Links[edit]

Quis separabit? 23:38, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I find an addition to the Andrew McCabe page[6] very odd as it uses an April 2018 source to say an event hasn't yet occurred. I also see "argument by authority" used to describe diGenova which is something to be avoided, especially as he has his own article - which certainly portrays him as a conspiracy theorist, and I don't see any reason to challenge that. The source is published by Hillsdale College which its article says has worked to build close ties with Trump, ties described by Politico.[7] I don't know why you didn't go to RSN, you know it's not the role of Administrators to resolve content disputes. Speaking purely as an experienced editor, I don't see it as an acceptable source for a BLP. Doug Weller talk 11:33, 26 October 2018 (UTC) Fixing failed ping: @Rms125a@hotmail.com: Doug Weller talk 11:34, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

@Doug Weller -- OK. I will bow to the majority opinion on this but I must clarify that the edit to which I believe you refer, Doug, "something which, as of six months later, in October 2018, had not occurred." was my editorializing addition, based on the April comment by McCabe's lawyer that he would file suit regarding his termination, which, as far as I know, he has not done as of October, six months later ([8]). I just want this to be clear in case that somehow negatively impacted your decision. Quis separabit? 20:49, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I looked at that McCabe edit, the commentary by DiGenova--I see no reason at all to accept this, which is merely opinionating by someone whose credibility is highly questionable. So, yes, I support the consideration that this cannot be included for BLP reasons, besides editorial common sense. Drmies (talk) 15:31, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
@Drmies -- A "former US Attorney for the District of Columbia, a former Independent Counsel of the United States, a former Special Counsel to the U.S. House of Representatives, a former Chief Counsel to the U.S. Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, and a former Counsel to the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (the Church Committee)" is "someone whose credibility is highly questionable"?? Seriously? Quis separabit? 00:26, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
User:Rms125a@hotmail.com, deep state dude, deep state. Seriously, I'm surprised you would take those titles as automatic credentials. I kind of do, but I think you and I feel differently about things. But if someone is indeed classified as a conspiracy theorist, that takes away from all those serious job titles. So, yes... Drmies (talk) 00:47, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Rms125a@hotmail.com This is indeed a content dispute, and given the input from Drmies and Doug Weller above, not one that I think will end with the result you're looking for. You are, however, correct that I'm fortunate to live in British Columbia. I thank my lucky stars every single day that I get to wake up in this city, breathing in fresh Pacific Ocean air, and saying "please" and "thank you" throughout the day to my fellow lucky Canadians. You do so much good work here; perhaps it would be best to let this one small thing go and dive into some other helpful distraction?--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 15:55, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
@Ponyo -- Please stop rubbing it in. We all know how beautiful (and expensive) British Columbia is. And this is not, IMHO, "one small thing", but so be it. Anyway, another question --- what about @Snooganssnoogans's disparaging reference in diGenova's article to him as a "conspiracy theorist", which I removed but he/she may have restored? Is this terminology acceptable vis a vis BLP? Please feel free to chime in @Doug and @Drmies. Yours. Quis separabit? 20:49, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
If reliable sources state that diGenova is a conspiracy theorist, and from the sources in the article it certainly appears to be the case, then the article should reflect that.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:02, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
"If reliable sources state that diGenova is a conspiracy theorist, and from the sources in the article it certainly appears to be the case, then the article should reflect that." -- Are you kidding me?? That is pure OR, POV and SYNTHESIS. Quis separabit? 00:26, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

IP you blocked recently[edit]

You mentioned socking.[9] I don't know if that's still going on, but I think the edits from the range itself are problematic.[10] Doug Weller talk 15:07, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

The 81.191.69.71 IP that you blocked has been sticky for at least the last couple of weeks. That range is pretty large and I can see IPs other than the sock target editing there so I would be hesitant to block for any significant period of time.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 17:40, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

140.227.32.175[edit]

I'm just letting you know that I extended the block on this IP to be a {{blocked proxy}} block and for a month. This is an LTA that's been continuing this exact behavior for many months now on numerous articles, and he almost elusively hops IPs and ranges by going through open proxies. Let me know if you have questions or concerns (ping me so I'm notified) and I'll be happy to talk about it. Cheers :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 00:55, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

No problem Oshwah. I didn't run a proxy check, though I now see at least one open port, I was just shutting down the immediate disruption.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 19:16, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
I figured that's what you were doing. I was just let you know in case you had objections or concerns. Cheers :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 19:31, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

131.118.245.252[edit]

Hello, you have already blocked IP-user 131.118.245.252 [11]. It seems to me, actions like this should be stopped: [12]. Thanks!--Nicoljaus (talk) 17:58, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

  • @Nicoljaus: I've reblocked the IP for continued block evasion and rev-deleted the offensive commentary. Sorry you had to deal with this.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 18:32, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
Not a problem, thank you!--Nicoljaus (talk) 18:55, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

BDMKK[edit]

Can you take a look at this IP and this one? Clear WP:EVASION by sock. For BDMKK saying i was persecuting him (which is ridiculous), he has very little shame about it. I'd suggest protecting the page Manuela d'Ávila too. He seems obsessed with it, for some reason. Thank you, Coltsfan (talk) 01:43, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Both target articles are protected.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 15:30, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

ygm[edit]

Whenever you have a chance :) TonyBallioni (talk) 22:15, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

More important than literacy? <gasp> Don't tell Drmies! Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 22:51, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Desysop request to ArbCom is in the mail. Drmies (talk) 00:18, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
I saw you write "plez" instead of "please" recently, so my letter to Arbcom predates yours. Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 00:22, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Kristjh keeps vandalizing and removing incidents[edit]

Please tell him to stop removing incidents that are noteworthy, he is vandalizing.Cleverguy122 (talk) 23:19, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

I am sorry[edit]

I tried to discuss with him and posted on his talk page but he kept ignoring and kept deleting stuff in masses i did not have my intentions to ruin the page or anything else please understand this he was deleting incidents that were noteworthy in masses,I am simply sorry for this, thanks you.Cleverguy122 (talk) 23:25, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

You're both edit warring. Kristjh has been blocked for this type of disruption many times before and therefore I have reblocked; you should be blocked as well but no one has ever warned you about edit warring or provided you links to dispute resolution previously so that would be rather punitive. This doesn't mean you've "won" or your edits are better, only that you squeaked by on a technicality. If your edits are reverted in the future, please follow the instructions I provided on your userpage.Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 23:28, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

SPI on Micha Jo[edit]

Hi, Ponyo.

I see you have been involved in the SPI of User:Micha Jo and User:Wikyam, resulting in both being indefed, and as you are aware Micha Jo is disputing this.

In particular, Micha Jo is claiming never to have used open proxies. I'm guessing that your comment (now at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Micha Jo/Archive) given that Micha Jo is using open proxies may actually refer to Wikyam, is that possible? Or, is there evidence that Micha Jo has used open proxies when logged on as that, despite their denials? I don't need the details, just does this evidence exist?

I'd prefer this on-wiki but if necessary, email me confidentially, and we can take it from there. Andrewa (talk) 09:03, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Andrewa. I want to preface my response by emphasizing that the block was made based solely on behavioural evidence; the technical evidence that came later was only meant to supplement the behavioural evidence, not be the crux of the block. The technical evidence shows Micha editing from two separate continents, and one of the IPs used is an open proxy, which of course complicates matters somewhat, especially when the editor has already been blocked for socking. However, checkuser isn't pixie dust as they say, and it could be that Micha was travelling and inadvertently used a dodgy connection. The  Possilikely (a mix between possible and likely) result between Micha and Wikyam is due to their similar geolocation and matching user agent. But again, this is not a checkuser block based on technical evidence, it a block based on the behavioural evidence presented at the SPI. --Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:00, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for that detailed reply, I think it exactly answers my question.
One clarification I'd like... is that evidence entirely consistent with what I've called innocent meatpuppet activity at User talk:Andrewa#Original email? [13]
It seems to me that it is. I call it innocent, as I say in that longish post, because IMO we can't reasonably expect a user with few edits to have read the policy at Wikipedia:Sock puppetry#Sharing an IP address requiring disclosure of such connections, unless of course they have already had a warning that refers to it. Andrewa (talk) 12:16, 10 November 2018 (UTC)