User talk:Ponyo/Archive 50

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

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

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)

@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 Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:35, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

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

Careful handling this one Deepfriedokra, lest you are also nonsensically labelled a redneck!-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:19, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

And as far as consideration goes, I consider these type of edits decidedly uncool.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:21, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Apparently contrite in request. And my long hair can't cover up my redneck. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:15, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

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:RS, but that's about it. -- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots}

22:24, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

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

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 Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:28, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

On second thought, standard decline. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:26, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

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)

@Playlikeastar: There's no protection on the article, so feel free to create it.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 15:55, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

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

@

@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 Ponyo^{bons mots} 15:57, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

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

💬💬

) 16:02, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

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)

@Moksha88: Can you provide me a list (hopefully not too long!) of the articles that are seeing the most significant disruption?-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:00, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

@

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)

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 Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:33, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

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)

No apology needed, I was just trying to save you a few keyboard strokes .-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:53, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

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)

@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:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bochasanwasi_Akshar_Purushottam_Swaminarayan_Sanstha#WP:OR,_Recent_Lead_Paragraph_Edits (Refusal to let leaders know that the BAPS founder left the parent group to start his own thing. They are hell bent on trying to convince readers their version of their beliefs are right and refuse to state with FOUR verbatim sources they their founder left which makes their founder look bad as it is in the scripture of the Swaminarayan Sampraday to never fight with his relatives.)
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vachanamrut (Constant mention of Akshar-Purushottam Darshan which is cherry picked out of a 600 page book and has establishment when the Swaminarayan Sampraday was created to when the founder died)
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pramukh_Swami_Maharaj#Pramukh_Swami_Sexual_Abuse (Same group of users removing allegations of sexual abuse of a high profile incident within BAPS with Pramukh Swami)
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Swaminarayan_Sampradaya#Original_Research (fighting tooth and nail to slant the article towards baps and sources are skewed toward pushing an agenda)
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Morari_Bapu#Removal_of_Sarcastic_Dig_at_Swaminarayan (Look how the support each other and drag out battles for months and then ultimately remove anything that appears to be critical even though it has encyclopedic value and plentiful sources. This strategy deters users from editing and they control the narrative. Applebutter221 (talk) 05:24, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

There seems to be two issues here; the first is the possibility of

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)

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)

Evidence:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Swaminarayan&diff=prev&oldid=93261344
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Swaminarayan&diff=prev&oldid=93262540
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Swaminarayan&diff=prev&oldid=93668637
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Swaminarayan&diff=prev&oldid=93668863
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hanuman_Das&diff=prev&oldid=93710087
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vachanamrut&diff=prev&oldid=100605254
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shikshapatri&diff=prev&oldid=100606437
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sfacets&diff=prev&oldid=100022515
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sfacets&diff=prev&oldid=100952094

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

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)

The accounts are being created on proxies, so best to just

WP:RBI.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots}

21:31, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

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)

I'm nothing if not pithy.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:53, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

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

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 Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:08, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Seen it. Thank you! Bishonen | tålk 19:20, 28 July 2020 (UTC).

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)

(talk page watcher)  Done, taking your word for it. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:30, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

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 Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:32, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

No problem, Ponyo. Thank you both. Take care. Dr. K. 19:41, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

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)

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 Ponyo^{bons mots}

20:12, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

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))

I've blocked the latest active IP and protected a couple of articles. Hopefully this helps a bit.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:19, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

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

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 Ponyo^{bons mots}

20:27, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, Ponyo. Friend505 (talk) 22:32, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

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

Got it.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:46, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

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)

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 Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:02, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

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)

It looks fine to me, but Russian geography is very much not my area of expertise.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:04, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

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)

 Done -- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:14, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

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)

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 Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:10, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

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)

@

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 Ponyo^{bons mots}

19:05, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

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)

The

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 Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:21, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

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)

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 Ponyo^{bons mots}

17:36, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

(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)

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)

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

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 Ponyo^{bons mots}

18:27, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Enjoy your holiday, Ponyo. El_C 18:30, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

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 Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:31, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

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)

I'm extremely lucky to live surrounded by nature in a beautiful and bountiful piece of paradise.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:39, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

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)

Safe travels P and enjoy your time away from the 'pedia. MarnetteD|Talk 18:51, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

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)

Thanks, he also posted simar things at

low life. --Urbanoc (talk

) 19:29, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

I see you already had taken care of them. Thanks! --Urbanoc (talk) 19:31, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

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 Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:34, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Point taken. I'll go that way if I encounter something similar again. Regards. --Urbanoc (talk) 19:42, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

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)

@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 Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:45, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry but that's not correct. Page moves do require a redirect unless they meet the criteria for redirect suppression at

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)

No, Shhhnotsoloud, poor candidates for a redirect don't need to be kept. Drmies (talk) 17:40, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

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)

Thanks to Ivanvector for handling this.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:47, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

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)

Thanks for the heads up; I've now reblocked the account.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 15:58, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

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

Deleted. Again.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:12, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

• 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)

@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 Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:52, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

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

No problem.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:02, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

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)

(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 Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:06, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

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

Great Ghu! I declined at least two myself. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:06, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

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 Ponyo^{bons mots}

22:10, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

Amanda - mobile (aka DQ)

12:14, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

@

Amanda - mobile (aka DQ)

12:16, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Amanda, I've said it before and I'll say it again, you're a star. None of our on-wiki problems matter in comparison to your well-being. I don't like change and often push against it IRL, and that's been my reaction when trying to work within the confines of the new UTRS platform. That's on me, not you. Stay well.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 15:52, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

@JBW: Good news-- I banned them at UTRS. Bad news. (sigh) --Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:27, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm self-imposing an interaction ban with

I would like to say that while I'm indifferent to your "telling on me," realizing that you are trying to do your best to hurt me in some way or the other does kind of make me sad. I never meant to antagonize you, and I'm sorry to get to know that you have such hard feelings towards me; the fact that you are asking Jezebel's Ponyo to go and have a look at a reply in which you are sure I was threatening a user (and which could therefore cause me to catch a block), makes me now sure that you have something personal against me, and that your intent is to hurt an individual, not contributing to Wikipedia (at least not in this instance).Max9844419087 (talk) 13:54, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Max9844419087, you really need to take the time to read the information regarding our policies and guidelines that other editors are providing to you without accusing said editors of bullying, blackmail and stalking. Such accusations, as well as the one made above stating that WikiDan61 is out to hurt you, are unacceptable on this collaborative project. The discussions on your talk page are filled with such accusations and arguments wrapped in hyperbole and that's not going to fly here. Please consider the possibility that others are trying to guide you in the right direction when you interact with them as opposed to attacking their motivations. -- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:01, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Hey Ponyo, would it be possible to revoke TPA for Gurujiiiiiii (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? They are continuing the spam on their talk page. -- LuK3 (Talk) 19:58, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

I already blocked them without talk page access, they were just able to get a few more spam edits in before I placed the block and you blanked the page. I had already blanked the page and was leaving the block message but edit-conflicted with you.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:00, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi,

see the subject's new entry ([13])-BrianTTT. Again a fresh generated SPA, partially reintroducing the same edit with an explanation supporting the previous the sock accounts of the user (recalled another conversation the same happened, when during a conversation a fresh created account (PavloTreiter, ([14]), ([15])) started to give lessons of WP rules the same identical and erroneous way in this page like the other ones, meanwhile imitating conversation with his other sock, the funny thing is this account advertize itself as a rollbacker, although does not even bear such rigths (there you as well already striked Noah221, so practically 2 socks were in support the core user)...also did the same the same pattern here ([16]). Please look on it, Thank You(KIENGIR (talk) 18:22, 23 August 2020 (UTC))

KIENGIR, I've blocked the account.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 15:44, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

One account still active, also recently edit with misleading edit log ([17]), also seem to insert dubious edits recently. The one who claims itself a rollbacker on it's main userpage, though not having such rights, as explained above.(KIENGIR (talk) 02:31, 11 September 2020 (UTC))

@KIENGIR: Is there any evidence linking them to the other accounts other than the fact that they edited Talk:Cossacks nearly 7 months ago? If not, then there's nothing to be done.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 15:46, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

The user is following ihe identical pattern of edits and misleading edit logs and editing identical topics like Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Umertan.(KIENGIR (talk) 02:35, 12 September 2020 (UTC))

Hi, see ([18]), the user who espcaped indef because you did not notice something then, again continues disruption, openly restoring to another sockmaster's version (as you see, especially both of them and their alternative sock are discussed in this section), and the same way solicitating the talk and other users, failing WP:LISTEN.(KIENGIR (talk) 07:14, 21 September 2020 (UTC))

Please make a report at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Umertan.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:33, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

They don't seem to be identical socks, just one support the other one...in such case also I should make such report?(KIENGIR (talk) 17:26, 22 September 2020 (UTC))

Checkusers won't check if you don't believe it's the same individual, but if there is behavioural evidence of off-site coordination you can file an SPI and include your evidence and an SPI Clerk or admin will review.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:32, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Well, as one sockmaster is blocked and did not appear to make a new account, this remains to be seen in long-term. While the other one started personal persecutons and defamations against me, and as well started to solicitate other editors. Now again not active, but who knows when will be again. Please keep an eye on it. Thank You(KIENGIR (talk) 01:24, 24 September 2020 (UTC))

Unfortunately now I realized: bad faith and fake, misleading casting apersions commited here: [[19]], [[20]] and [[21]]. It's really disruptive, not here to build an encyclopedia.(KIENGIR (talk) 23:38, 28 September 2020 (UTC))

I can't speak to the socking issue, but I don't doubt anything having looked at the edit history. I agree with KIENGIR, the above referenced comments on multiple uninvolved users is factually inaccurate and an unacceptable attempt to widen a dispute, rather than work to deescalate and find a resolution. Their edit history at Russification of Ukraine is way over the line of NPOV and cherry picking, and a spot check of the sourcing shows OR and SYNTH. From a spot check the editing here is questionable Collaboration with the Axis Powers. Unless the socking is enough for an indef, I'd say a tban for everything between the Urals and the Rhine is justified. I did see them in their talk history, so I added ds notices to their talk page.   // Timothy :: talk  02:35, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello P. I would ask you to take a look at the last three edits on DJJ's talk page. Are they eligible for RD? I know I wouldn't want them in the history if they had happened on my page but I also know that I don't know all the ins and outs of R/D. I'm hoping it stops but I will file a

Update: Malcolmxl5 took care of this so you can deal with the other 3000 things that will be waiting for you when you are next on wikiP. I hope the last week of August is a good one fr you and yours. MarnetteD|Talk 16:31, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi Ponyo, I live in Colombia and as you can see I am editing content in english from my country to help people abroad better understand the TRUTH about some topics that appear in Wikipedia.

Can you please stop removing my contributions? it is not helpful to promote collaboration among users to do so.

besides I don't need to reference a different source as long I AM the source of the info I am adding.

Thank you. You can contact me any time (Redacted) It Efectivos (talk) 22:35, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

@

their personal experiences and interpretations. Please review the links I provided in the welcome message on your talk page, and my subsequent note regarding sources, before editing further or you will likely continue to find yourself frustrated as your edits are reverted.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots}

22:41, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Could you please RevDel this revision? It really attacks me for no apparent reason. NASCARfan0548 ↗ 03:42, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
:(talk page watcher) Done --Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:36, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Deepfriedokra, Thanks. I hated seeing that revision because it's disgusting to look at. NASCARfan0548 ↗ 14:57, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi,

one has been already blocked [[22]], the new vandalizing variants are still active: [[23]] (YosypHorobets), [[24]] (DanyloTroyan). Take a look, thank you!(KIENGIR (talk) 20:47, 29 August 2020 (UTC))

@KIENGIR: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Umertan.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:13, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I saw that you edited Alexandra Grant's partner listing?

You removed the name Andrea Napolitano, who was listed as her partner, why did you do this?

I am aware that there is NO CONFIRMED partner for her as yet, just rumors, and tabloid speculation.

Please let me know what's going on? AshleyVeritas (talk) 19:59, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

@

WP:BLP: needs to be supported by reliably sourced article content to be included.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots}

20:09, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

I see you're a new account, so I'll expand a bit. Information added to

reliable sources to be included. In this case, personal information was added without the required reliable source, which is why it was removed. In addition, material added to the infobox should be supported by a source within the article itself and only notable/long-term partners are to be included - see Template:Infobox person.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots}

20:15, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Another day, another long-term sock uncovered (Wekeepwhatwekill=KoshVorlon). Which would never have occured to me, except once I saw it, I said, "well, yeah, of course". What would you guess is the percentage of active editors who started editing after, say 2015, that are socks of blocked/banned editors? My gut instinct is 10%-15%. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:28, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, in hindsight there were definitely signs. It's frustrating when you know, really know, that someone is socking and you can't tie them to a specific master so they just keep disrupting the project until they either slip up or get blocked indef in their own right. These type of accounts should be locked down from the get-go, but the inevitable drama of it all just makes it not worth it on a cost/benefit scale. It makes you want to just throw your hands up in the air and go fishing, truly and

figuratively. -- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots}

20:40, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

A cheeseburger for you!

"Great minds think alike" they say  :) Bon appetite! ——Serial 08:30, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Wading through that debacle was exhausting; the burger will definitely come in handy.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:14, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

I thought it was, because someone told me no one is acting at this time. Spixmacaw101 (talk) 16:23, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Please review

this link which explains what a reliable source is.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots}

16:26, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Oh, I see, the website is too new to be sure. I'm so sorry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spixmacaw101 (talk • contribs) 16:35, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

@Spixmacaw101: I've left additional information in a welcome message on your talk page.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:50, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Somebody put their email address in the

It was a generic email address that has been removed. Normally I would use (Redacted) template, but since the content was reverted altogether it should be fine.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:41, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi, see ([26]), again an block evasion/sock variant of one you already blocked there, please look on it, Thank You(KIENGIR (talk) 05:35, 7 September 2020 (UTC))

They've moved on from that IP now. I've semi-protected Slovakia as it appears to be the current target of disruption.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:46, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi you saved this page previously from being trolled with bad faith nominations, see the history of nominations for deletion for both this page and Red Scare (podcast). I think a previously blocked user (see User talk:T5r4e3wnc) has tried submitting it for deletion again under a different name but they've messed up the formatting, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dasha Nekrasova (3rd nomination). Can we get a speedy keep on this one too, or at least get the formatting fixed so more people can vote on it? I can't figure out what they've done. Thank you!Pinchofhope (talk) 07:08, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

It appears that someone has fixed the formatting at some point over my extended long weekend.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:51, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks Ponyo. Drmies (talk) 22:26, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm just so sorry it's necessary.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:41, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Me too. I left that edit summary because it is so utterly whiny and ridiculous, but the removal is fine. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 00:20, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi. You still online? —usernamekiran (talk) 20:31, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Yup.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:32, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Could you please grant my alt Usernamekiran BOT IPBE per Ticket#2020070810007624? Also, I think I am having issues with wikipedia with my ISP, resulting inability to use AWB without VPN (special:diff/978588530). Not exactly sure about that though. —usernamekiran (talk) 20:46, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

 Done-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:00, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, it is appreciated a lot. See you around :) —usernamekiran (talk) 21:26, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Could you please delete this page for me? Another user deleted the page, but when I was trying to remove the rights the user doesn't actually have, it caused an edit conflict. NASCARfan0548 ↗ 01:12, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Ad Orientem was all over this.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:25, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Hey P, I don't have tons of experience adminning in contentious BLP areas, so I was wondering if you knew better than I do how to deal with the goings-on at Talk:Sushant Singh Rajput. This was an Indian actor who died. The post-mortem from the Mumbai police's medical team called it a "clear case of suicide". For the past few months there has been a groundswell of fans/actors/politicians who believe that the subject was murdered, and that, of course, means we have newbs (and in some cases, sockpuppets) trying to push this agenda. Early on I semi-protected the talk page to quell the edit requests that were pushing a "he was murdered" or "remove suicide" agenda, but the talk page is now unprotected, which one of the talk page participants seems to prefer.

As I have commented in some of the discussions, I've opted to recuse myself from adminning here. I also removed it from my watchlist but was pinged to a discussion, so it's back on my radar.

I removed this post because it's baseless conspiracy chatter, not a bona fide attempt to improve the article. Where my knowledge is lacking, is whether all murder accusations or discussions about these unfounded assertions should be curtailed on the basis that it might violate BLP/recently deceased policies, and what follow-up action should also take place. Should an edit like the one I removed be revdeled? Should I not have removed it at all? In a case like this is it better to semi the talk page? I'd appreciate any insight you (or any talk page stalkers) might have. And if anyone thinks any adminning is warranted there, please do what you gots to do. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:16, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm aware of the conspiracy theories swirling related to Sushant Singh Rajput and Death of Sushant Singh Rajput. El C's EC protection has thankfully provided relief on the articles themselves. I see that both an FAQ and edit notice are being floated as options, which is a good start if the wave of SPA editors actually read it. There is no reason to allow variations of the same edit request to be made ad nauseam when the outcome will be the same every time - it's disruptive as it only serves to obfuscate the meat of the discussion and the edit notice/FAQs that would explain why the conspiracy theories will not presented as fact in the articles. I see there's an editor in that discussion arguing otherwise; I don't agree with them. Perhaps a compromise would be that the edit requests can be removed with a pointer to the FAQ in the edit summary (and perhaps on the editor's talk page)? This will both educate new good faith users while preventing duplicate requests from piling up on the talk. The folks at BLPN may have some ideas as well, because BLP absolutely applies when there's implications of murder based on conspiracy theories regarding the recent death of an individual; if actual names are used in relation to the conspiracies that's no bueno and rev deletion may be required. -- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:46, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

(

WP:PROTECT says "Talk pages are not usually protected, and are semi-protected only for a limited duration in the most severe cases of vandalism.", I am wondering if it wouldn't be appropriate at this point to semi the talk page, at least until the CBI released their report. RickinBaltimore (talk

) 18:25, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Ponyo and @RickinBaltimore: I'm grateful for both of your inputs. A FAQ is fine, and an edit notice might be a touch better, but if most of these commenters are fly-by-nighters who care zero about Wikipedia policy, and if many of them are mobile editors, I'm not even sure if any of these would be immediately visible to them. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:47, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Dear @Ponyo, Could you please look over this case [27] You seem to be an experienced Sock Puppet Investigator. I saw you on the talk page of GeneralNotability when I was about to ping them the reply I got from AmandaNP, if you have time could you please look over this case? Thank you so much! ^_^

Amanda just wrote "Let's let the process work itself at the minute". Me trying to get up to speed when there is already a checkuser and a Clerk involved won't be helpful. Too many cooks spoil the broth and all that.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:58, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

No problem, GeneralNotability replied to me already, they said they will look over it tonight or tomorrow. Thank you for responding. :)

chatter • paw trail

) 22:22, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Can user:210.55.72.155 and user:2600:1015:B004:F84B:79A2:6BFB:5966:459 please be blocked ASAP for vandalism. CLCStudent (talk) 22:43, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi Ponyo, There are a lot of misleading or fake Keep votes at the AfD over here -> [28] for Aaryan Zaveri, could you please look into this? Also, I have started an SPI too, over here -> [29]. Looking forward to hearing from you. Thank you so much for your time.

UPDATE It has been resolved by

chatter • paw trail

) 19:44, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

There's a bit more to the story. I've added some notes at the SPI.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:49, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

I suspected that too, but I wasn't 100% sure, and regarding the previous case on

chatter • paw trail

) 19:53, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

No need to ping me, just let the SPI process unfold as intended. I took a look at this case outside of the normal SPI report → Clerk review → Checkuser process due to AfD disruption which needed to be nipped in the bud sooner than later.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:57, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

	The Surreal Barnstar
	Thank you for your contributions to the recent SPI case. Very much appreciated. ^_^ chatter • paw trail ) 19:55, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Hey P, this person is setting off alarms. Brand new user, loaded up on tools, moving dozens of articles from Draft to live space, in some cases, doing some of the building. Interests are all over the place: sea sponges, female bicyclists from Latin regions, Laotian politicians, Tamil and Hindi entertainment. Fishyyyy! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:01, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Maybe 0lesson, solely because one of their socks loaded up on tools shortly after opening an account. I haven't analysed behaviour yet. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:07, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

I wish I had seen your follow-up message before my deep dive, because I ultimately came to the same conclusion after an extensive combination of technical and behavioural checks. There are no potential blocks I can place to even try to slow their roll, so we'll get to this all over again in short order. -- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:33, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Gah! Sorry! Thanks for diving. Also, with the barnstar above, AngusMEOW seems like a username violation, dunnit? Y'know...AngusWOOF? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:47, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Hey, I was looking through some of the edits made by this sock operator. This was interesting. If you compare the episode summaries to what's on Amazon Prime, they're mostly identical, but a few words here and there have been changed. "Only" is changed to "simplest", "home" is changed to "domestic", "heart" is changed to "coronary heart", "prospects" to "potentialities". It's almost like they ran it through Google Translate back and forth or something. Is this odd? Is this how the black hats try to mask their content theft? Am I asking too many questions? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 12:52, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

I see that you are the one who blocked this user stating that it was a sockfarm. In that case, you should look into this user for the same thing. 2601:983:827F:6B20:1DD7:CB56:657C:2301 (talk) 00:04, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing it to my attention. I did some digging and then ran a check; the account is now blocked.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 15:49, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Hey P, someone asked me to lower the protection at

@Cyphoidbomb:, yeah, it's time to give it a shot via semi-prot and see how it goes.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 15:24, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Done. Lowered to semi. I'll be up in the tree looking at the article through binoculars. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:21, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

It could be a long slog. I'll send provisions.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:32, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Aaaaand the person who asked me to lower the protection got nabbed as a sock of Amrapahal Pahanswan. Should I re-raise the protection, or should I climb back up the tree? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:40, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Throwing a random figure that feels right out there, I'd say that about 85% of editors who ask me to lower protection, either on my talk or at RFPP, turn out to be socks. Maybe leave at semi for now as a bit of a honeypot? Alternatively, I see that the subject in question wrote "it was a very difficult way for me to complete 500 and above edits" so at least we have confirmation that the EC protection is making a dent in the disruption if we choose to upgrade it again. -- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 15:39, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

You just reverted my edit on Paris Smith's birthday due to a bad source, but what about this? That is her Instagram, and the date is February 1st.

Hi

Ethan Parmet. The Instagram post is just thanking people for birthday wishes, it doesn't actually confirm a date. In addition, there's no point in adding just a month and day without a year. I've left a note on your talk page that has additional information regarding the inclusion of birth dates in biography articles.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots}

17:46, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi there, I have a feeling that this anonymous user, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/91.110.83.83, is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Evelynkwapong539 not logging in again to try to not get blocked.... I do not think they are ever going to agree with other users, just wanted to give you a head's up, have a good day!

Noelephant(talk) 16:02, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

That's

very obviously Evelynkwapong539. Not sure why they can't edit within our policies and guidelines, but I've blocked them now.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots}

16:25, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Memeacus , I believe another sock puppet of theirs. It seems they will continue to refuse listening to other users.

Noelephant(talk) 00:33, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

I've blocked the new account and added some sock tags for easier tracking.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 15:48, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Might be time to add talk page access: [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] - Meters (talk) 19:58, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Never mind, I see we edit conflicted across apges. Meters (talk) 20:01, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Yup, it was Johnuniq's block, I just removed talk page access.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:12, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Ah, that explains why I first posted on his page and then thought that I had pinged the wrong admin. Meters (talk) 20:29, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Could you please take a quick look at the edit history of Miss Finland and my recent addition to WP:Sockpuppet investigations/RadyoUkay819? ☆ Bri (talk) 15:40, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

I see Ivanvector has stick-handled this.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:49, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Sounds like some kid with "i am back on a different device i got hit from my dad he was on it" when using a different IP with the same additions. As a note, I found the article strange as I know something of the ship from its Southwest Pacific wartime role. The article was extensive at one time and suddenly dropped to this less than stub for an historic ship when someone stripped out what was claimed to be copyright infringement. I have not examined it closely, but the extensive information was correct as far as I saw and may have been either falsely accused of infringement or just too closely quoting sources. Major sources are in Dutch, but I have on a far back burner some in English and some in Dutch that will be useful in expanding. In any case these additions are not only not cited, they are poorly done. Palmeira (talk) 13:04, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

The editor who added the material is blocked for extensive copyright violations. Please do add to the article as you see fit, but it's important not to restore the blocked editor's version.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:53, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

I took another brief look at the old article before the stripping of almost all text. The copyright issue is still a bit strange as the text had parts that do not look like professional writing. One major book source was also removed, Three Minutes of Time - the torpedoing of the Australian Hospital Ship Centaur so that could have been the source of the infringement. Anyway, there are multiple sources I've already tucked away. Once I get other stuff done and into a SWPA mood again I will likely take on Oranje. The story of the refugee Dutch ships that served the Allied effort is too little known and poorly covered. Palmeira (talk) 00:41, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Palmeira, you make Wikipedia better for everyone. Thank you. -- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 15:50, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. Palmeira (talk) 15:58, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your actions! Could you attend to the semi-protection request for that page that another editor put up, when possible please? I got a feeling the IP may try to sock-puppet around their block. GUtt01 (talk) 21:26, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

I've left a note at

WP:FRPP. The blocks I've placed should hold them at bay for quite a while. If they skirt the blocks I'll protect the page.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots}

21:32, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Stop deleting my contribution to the article "North American World Cup 2026" referring to the criticism section, it has been several days that I am adding this paragraph and you and probably another administrator, are eliminating it, which is completely invalid and reportable, my contribution is completely comprehensive information, real and of interest and logical concordance with the article, you have no right to be a troll and delete it when it fully complies, so much so that said paragraph is in the same wikipedia article in Spanish version, if you have a dash of professionalism, stop playing troll and eliminate the hard work of others when it is correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexander HK (talk • contribs) 21:56, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

You don't understand how Wikipedia works. At all. You could probably get the gist of where you've gone wrong if you would read the messages on your talk page, but it appears you're too busy calling editors trolls which is eating up your time. I'll make it easy for you; just click and review these two links:

link 2. If you choose not to, that's on you, but you'll have a tough time finding grounds to appeal your inevitable block if you don't make even the slightest of efforts. -- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots}

22:05, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

You should be ashamed to hold the position you have, people who work hard like me enriching (editing or correcting) the articles are what keeps Wikipedia alive, as well as the administrators who really regulate with justice and common sense, not like you, who are you a troll who finds it fun to arbitrarily delete paragraphs that are completely valid and complete for the context of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexander HK (talk • contribs) 22:53, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

You can lead a horse to water...-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:07, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Darn you vandal administrator and your pesky blocks. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:15, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

It's not like they hand out "justice and common sense" at admin school. Some of us have no choice but troll Wikipedia by upholding its core policies.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:21, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

People really want justice today! Luckily you have the block button to dole it out :-D TonyBallioni (talk) 23:30, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Not that you're not special, Ponyo, but I think four of us were called vandal administrators even some nonadmin editors. Basically everyone who posted to their user talk page got this pleasant reply. Maybe a new cabal? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:49, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

I guess that makes you a Rouge admin. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:31, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

I might revert some vandalism quicker. --

@

MirahezeGuy:, you need to make the request at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Rollback, though you should note that you don't yet meet the current criteria for granting rollback.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots}

15:31, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.