User talk:Ponyo/Archive 45

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 40 ← Archive 43 Archive 44 Archive 45

Reply to your accusations

It's not a disagreement and most of all it's not an unfounded accusations as Vaselineee in the past has removed accurate content pertaining to Northern Italy topics. He is removing content from the Emilian language page which poses no disturbance to the wiki page. Let me add that these videos are made by accurate sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Correctman (talk • contribs) 23:21, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Duplicate; already replied on your talk.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 23:24, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Aspersions. That's your opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Correctman (talk • contribs) 23:27, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

It's my evaluation. And if my evaluation leads to the conclusion that your edits are disruptive enough to warrant a block, then that's what I will do.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 23:30, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Emilia Clarke

I remember we went through on the talk page about relationship information and you removed it, I removed it twice now and UditaCh has restored it again. I am not sure, can't see in the history section but I thought I told this person to read the talk page log. Maybe you can sort it out? Cheers. Govvy (talk) 12:36, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

I cannot see anywhere where I have been spoken to. Except it being written in the second revert that "I thought we talked about this". Please correct me if I am wrong but should a confession directly from the person concerned be counted as Gossip? — Preceding unsigned comment added by UditaCh (talk • contribs) 13:26, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

@Govvy and UditaCh: My overriding concern when I removed the information the first time is that it included information, including a timeline of the relationship, that was linked solely to anonymous sources on a gossip website. The inclusion of the relationship with Seth MacFarlane in general can be included in the article, I suppose, according to editorial consensus. My personal inclination would be not to include it, as it is clear Clarke has been reticent to discuss the private relationship and it was essentially a short lived fling that happened several years ago. It really doesn't add anything to a BLP article to note the subject had a low-key relationship for a handful of months years ago. -- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 15:06, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
Alos, here's the previous discussion, buried in an archive. The page wasn't overly long and the topics crop up repeatedly, so I'm not sure why the page needed to be archived. I can see if a year had gone by, but it had only been a month. <shrugs>.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 15:12, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
{{|Ponyo|}} Aye. I did not include the time as the mere confession in Clarke's interview was that MacFarlane and her were together. We don't know for how long but they were in one. Same goes for hers and MacDowell's relationship which she published in her own social media. I found sources saying they parted ways this February but since none from reliable ones and not their own confession, I didn't include it. I mean it's still a personal information and which is why we have sections on them don't we? I didn't elaborate on either keeping with the ethics on writing information on Wikipedia.-- User:UditaCh
@UditaCh: I really don't think we need to write on a wikipedia page, who dated who, that's what OK Magazine is for, it's suppose to be a biography with the important key points about her life, I hardly think dating Seth is that important. That's what the original conversation on her talk page was suppose to be about. Govvy (talk) 15:46, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
I've moved this conversation to the the article talk page. Having the conversation here is essentially the same as having it in a vacuum; by moving it everyone has a chance to participate.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 15:55, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
Wait. So even when the person confesses to having had a relationship someone it's not an important event in their life and is to be omitted from a biography? Going by the implication of OK magazine are we not assuming that she merely dated when all she said was they were together (which is all I mentioned since it came from the horse's mouth itself)? Both events we're certainly important enough for Clarke to have mentioned or put up in her own social media. Might I add it came from her.Neither MacFarlane or McDowell.From the very person whom we are writing on.-- User: UditaCh —Preceding undated comment added 16:04, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
We are not whosdatedwho.com, nor a repository for every bit of trivia that can be confirmed. As I noted above, My personal inclination would be not to include it, as it is clear Clarke has been reticent to discuss the private relationship and it was essentially a short lived fling that happened several years ago. It really doesn't add anything to a BLP article to note the subject had a low-key relationship for a handful of months years ago. -- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 17:58, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

IP disruptive editing

Hi Ponyo, the disruptive IP editor that you recently blocked (31.49.57.131), seems to have now surfaced as 86.134.7.12 and is making the same disruptive edits, removing content, shrinking cladograms, and even has posted the same giant dinosaur template to the IP talk page. Could you confirm and zap as appropriate? Thanks, Loopy30 (talk) 20:10, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, @Loopy30:. Noted and blocked.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 18:52, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Hello again Ponyo, the disruptive IP editor has returned again, this time as (31.49.59.109). Edits include the unexplained wholesale deletion of sourced content and changing cladograms, animal templates and classification systems without providing a new source. Loopy30 (talk) 23:36, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
IP user now blocked by WP:AIV. Loopy30 (talk) 12:40, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
The IP user using 31.49.59.109 is back and is edit-warring like it was never blocked in the first place again. Nevermind, and carry on.--Mr Fink (talk) 13:41, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Unblock request

Hi Ponyo, Hope all is well on your end? I am writing to ask if you could look into restoring User:Victor Okpala's account. He was blocked by Materialscientist for disruptive editing on 27 March 2019. He also made an unblock request which was declined, and currently has one pending. He created another account and resumed editing, oblivious to our policy on socking and block evasion. I don't know of many new users who are familiar with our policies about the abuse of multiple accounts. I believe this user should be unblock because of his track record outside the community. He writers album reviews for Nigeria Entertainment Today, and has a vlog on YouTube dedicated to the Nigerian music industry. He is an excellent writer and I believe he can contribute constructively to this encyclopedia if given another chance. A template similar to this can be placed on the alternative account.  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 03:15, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

@Versace1608: The editor was blocked on March 29th, and when their first unblock was declined (and while the second appeal was pending) created a sock account in order to continue the same disruptive over-the-top promotional edits that led to their initial block. There is no way that I'm going to unilaterally overrule three admins and unblock the account regardless of who the editor is outside of Wikipedia. You are free to provide them advice on how to edit constructively and how to make an additional WP:GAB-compliant unblock request that can be reviewed by admins, but I won't unblock at this time.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 17:12, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
I am confident that had he known he would get blocked indefinitely for evading his block, he wouldn't have done it. He emailed me and I advised him not to create another account. I also told him he needs to go back to using User:Victor Okpala. From his email, it appears that he really wants to contribute productively to this encyclopedia. He doesn't know the policies and procedures governing Wikipedia and would like guidance. I'd like to mentor him. I am confident he can right his wrongs here and become a productive editor. I am pleading with you and other administrators to allow me to offer him mentorship. I can draft up an agreement and have him signed it. If he deviates from that agreement, I will report him. Please Ponyo, I would appreciate a response from you. Thanks.  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 00:17, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
@Versace1608: Victor Okpala wasn't blocked indefinitely for evading their block. They were blocked indefinitely and then created a new account to evade that block when their appeal was declined. You're free to offer them mentorship, and it's kind of you to do so, but they still need to successfully appeal their block on their talk page for that to happen. -- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 16:39, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Stank...

Hi P, some weird behavior has started up recently at Surbhi Chandna and Asian Viewers Television Awards and I think it might be Dimpletisha related. Some guy named Noormohammed satya recently created the Asian Viewers Television Awards (AVTA) article, which had previously been created by Dimpletisha socks. I believe this is an effort to legitimize the award. Noormohammed satya has been a low-level irritant at various articles for his lack of general editing knowledge. I don't think that he's Dimpletisha, but his sudden interest in the AVTA is weird, especially since his edits were immediately followed by an IPV6 editor who has significant intersections with one of the semi-recent Dimpletisha socks, MiaSays. It just has the aroma of collusion.

Jumping forward to Surbhi Chandna, two SPAs, Himanshigoyal1711 and MridhulaSuresh look very similar to me and they both seem to be involved in adding AVTA to Chandna's article.[1][2] They both are mobile users, they both seem to be suddenly focused on Chandna and they both utilise the minor edit button.

Now where this gets slightly more weird, is at Talk:Ishqbaaaz:

I find it bizarre that there are four people requesting the same thing. And frankly I think Himanshigoyal1711 and MridhulaSuresh are probably the same person. Can ye look into any of this, please? Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:57, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Sigh; this is the type of incessant promotional UPE scenario that led me to delete my watchlist. A few things that may be helpful to untangling the mess:
  • MridhulaSuresh and Mritikha are  Confirmed to each other. There's some password reset stuff happening, so it may be inadvertant socking, but they should not be participating in the same discussion.
  • while it's  Possible that MridhulaSuresh and Himanshigoyal1711 are the same person, from a strictly technical standpoint it looks like WP:MEAT.
  • I also don't think these accounts are directly linked to Dimpletisha outside of having the same interest in promoting Asian Viewers Television Awards.
Not sure if this was much help, Cyphoidbomb. -- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 16:31, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

The talk page that you deleted

The talk page you deleted had warnings on it, can the warnings be restored? VanZa39 (talk) 21:00, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Why would you want to restore the warnings? It only serves to give more attention to a trolling vandal account.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:14, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

YGM

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

Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 23:15, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

All done now Yamaguchi先生. I tend to drop off the wiki map for days at a time, so if I don't respond right away an email to the oversight team guarantees a quicker response. Cheers,-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 15:17, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Zaxxon0 at Simple and Meta

Hi. User:Zaxxon0 has rocked up at both Simple and Meta. If this user is problematic, then it would be worthwhile knowing. If it needs to be closely-held knowledge it may be best for you to let the respective checkusers at those wikis know. Thanks. — billinghurst sDrewth 08:02, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

KaranSharma0445

Hi P, do you know if we have any active CU-usable data on KaranSharma0445? I see this person MandanaKarimi345 recreating a lot of redirects that the KaranSharma socks were attracted to. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:46, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

@Bbb23: confirmed NoraFatehi231 as a KaranSharma sock just over a week ago, so there should be a CU trail available.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 18:44, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks to both of you. Sometimes I need to be nudged.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:33, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
All I had to do was head out for a lovely tuna poke bowl and the work was complete when I returned! -- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:23, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

SPI

You recently said you don't spend as much time at SPI as you used to. Maybe I should do the same.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:13, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Always. Oh, and lucky for ANI enthusiasts everywhere, Ritchie has bestowed the community with his take on the subject. No conversation is truly complete without it.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 19:59, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
Ritchie's comments are of course not surprising, although I wasn't aware of that "essay" in his userspace. I'm very disappointed <understatement> in some of the others' comments and very much regret sending PMC a thank you e-mail for helping out in the unblocking after I went to bed. That was, of course, before I saw the let's-kill-Bbb23 thread at ANI. Sigh. One more piece of irony: I did consider the idea of a class/wikithon/edit-a-thon. I've had enough (bad) experience with this sort of thing for red flags to be raised. However, the technical characteristics revealed in the check made me think otherwise; hence, the blocks.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:28, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

FYI

Just in case you're not already aware. AGF has a limit. ‑ Iridescent 21:27, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

I did see that. My intent was to put a cork in the immediate disruption (hopefully saving your sanity in the process) and then seeing where things go.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:30, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Talk:HIV/AIDS denialism

Did you intend to semi-pro Talk:HIV/AIDS denialism for longer than zero minutes? VQuakr (talk) 22:59, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

@VQuakr: I protected it for a month, which ended today.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 23:04, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
And now re-protected as the vandal clearly had circled the date in their calendar.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 23:07, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
That makes soooo much more sense; thanks! VQuakr (talk) 23:12, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Houston Graduate School of Theology

Thank you for the user block. Perhaps you can help with rev/deletion of copyright violation? Thank you, 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 17:08, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Could you please provide a diff of the copyvio?-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 17:11, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
This was the first of several edits adding content copied from the school's website [3]; [4]. 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 17:16, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
I think I zapped all the blatant copyvios.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 17:18, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
Terrific. Thank you, 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 17:20, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

young justice season 3

I'm trying to talk to people politely, and everyone keeps making a big deal, just go to the talk page. -Master2121

I'm not going to the talk page because I'm not interested whatsoever in this lame content dispute other to ensure, as an administrator, that you stop your disruption at the article (i.e. edit warring and inserting/restoring your personal commentary in hidden notes throughout the article). Get consensus for the changes or be blocked, those are your only options right now. As this has now been brought to WP:AN3, I would not be surprised to see the latter.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 19:02, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

A brownie for you!

Thanks for showing me the welcoming Committee I truly appreciate it now I know welcome people that show they are actually trying to help the wiki

I understand that now if you welcome everybody from the start they may be a vandal Thanks!! Jack90s15 (talk) 21:13, 30 April 2019 (UTC)


Use of Euphemisms Explanation - Thank you

I have no issue with any edit, provided there's a sound reason. Unfortunately, Sxg169 refused to respond to my request for communication. Instead, they reverted with a glib policy reference that lacked basis. I reviewed the Manual of Style and even looked up terms and disambiguation pages because I'm happy to learn new things. Your explanation about the use of euphemisms is logical and respectful of cultural differences. I accept that, without need for further discussion as this is a minor issue for me. I appreciate learning this and hope Sxg169 is informed that utilizing Wikipedia's Manual of Style as justification for an edit in an incorrect manner is not allowable. I would consider this a fair outcome. Is this possible? Ouranista (talk) 19:24, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

I can find no fault with Sxg169's edits. They explained why they reverted the first time in their edit summary, then were more explicit with their second revert explaining that "Replaced euphemism "passed away" with "died" as per Wikipedia's Manual of Style." You, in turn, accused them of personal bias and the purposeful misuse of Wikipedia as a bullying tactic. I have no intention of informing Sxg169 "that utilizing Wikipedia's Manual of Style as justification for an edit in an incorrect manner is not allowable" because 1) it's not true and 2) it makes no sense. As you note that this is a minor issue for you, I suggest you just let it go -- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 19:42, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Block evasion: User:SlimShady75

Hi. You blocked User:Slimshady75 yesterday. Thanks for that. Fairly inevitably the user seems to have used at IP address to replace content that had been reverted by User:NitinMlk - for example, this diff. This is on the back of having used at least one other IP address for the same purpose. I'm never sure what the best course of action is here. I'd be quite happy to go through an SPI on this, but that essentially outs the user's location publicly - the other IP address I have for them geolocates to the same location. Could you let me know if that is the best course of action on not? Thanks. Blue Square Thing (talk) 04:27, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Sigh. I sort of thought they might evade the block via IP hopping but I scrounged up enough AGF that maybe they would learn from the block as it is their first one. I've rolled back the IP edits and reset the time on the block for another 48 hours. Please let me know if you see them pop up again, Blue Square Thing.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 15:43, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Will do - thanks. I assume this is a better way to go than any SPI if they're using IP addresses. Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:49, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Yes, just report them here. The edits are so WP:DUCKish there's no point in leaving the report to languish at SPI.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 15:51, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Reports don't "languish" at SPI. They just sit forever.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:20, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
It's the Hotel California of en-wiki.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 16:51, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Okay P. This post and (especially) the edit summary are wonderful. They are also making me nostalgic. When I was in college there were many many Fridays, after the last class of the week, that involved beer, darts and playing that Eagles album. Singing along at the top of our lungs tended to happen as the evening went on. Have a delightful weeend. MarnetteD|Talk 17:10, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 17:15, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

You around?

? --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:30, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

!-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 17:31, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
I was going to ask you to take a look at this AN thread, but it looks like another CU already commented. DQ isn't around, and it looks like there's a time-sensitive CU-related question. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:33, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
If Zzuuzz is on the case then me jumping in will likely throw a spanner in the works. I have no qualms admitting they surpass me with regards to ranges and proxies. -- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 17:38, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, I type too slow to keep up with changing events. Zzuuzz wasn't involved when I first started typing. Fair enough. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:41, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
You would think just typing "?" wouldn't take so long, but there was a lot of thought behind that "?". --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:42, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
If you are around, the relevant details are there. This wanders into unfamiliar territory for me, so a second opinion would be useful. -- zzuuzz (talk) 17:43, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
I read through Lane's request at AN and unblocked the IP prior to the additional info being added here and at AN. Didn't mean to step on any toes! -- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 17:52, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Yup, thanks. <moral support>. DQ can always follow up. That CU log is very interesting. -- zzuuzz (talk) 17:54, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for unblocking, Ponyo, and thanks for looking, {[ping|zzuuzz}}. In case no one tells you often enough, you guys rock. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:50, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Sigh. again. @Zzuuzz:. Come on, Floq... --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:52, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

All my Talk archives exist

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Soibangla/Archive_3

I request you try harder to not suggest nefarious activity by me, and also not try to deny you did, because you made an error. soibangla (talk) 18:51, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

I unequivocally stated "I never accused you of deception" and "It's not nefarious", even after you flat out refused to provide me with a link to the archive yesterday. You have read the situation incorrectly. I appreciate you providing the link now. -- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 18:58, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
What happened to Archive 2??? Someone clearly nefariously deleted it. Sorry, Ponyo, I obviously don't have anything better to do with my time today. Maybe you should leave "work" early.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:46, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
I'm leaving early to go home, put my feet up, and read Nancy Drew and the Case of the Missing Archives.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 19:52, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
There's User talk:Soibangla/ Archive 2. But no Archive 1.... -- Frank Hardy (aka Floquenbeam (talk) 19:59, 3 May 2019 (UTC))
They put a space in front of the name, so I missed it. You're willing to spend more time hunting than I am. The break must have refreshed you.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:16, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Not necessarily more refreshed. Just still looking for procrastination opportunities. WP is really hard to beat for that. Nobody tell Bish, she'll re-block me for immediately resuming the behavior that led to the previous block.... --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:21, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Curiouser and curiouser...-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:07, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Re: this edit summary: Some day when we're both bored, and preferably when there is alcohol nearby, ask me about the time I committed academic dishonesty, and how I got caught and punished, and how it relates to Scooby Doo. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:14, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
(vomit conflict) I was sent to the principal's office in third grade because I said I was sick and they didn't believe me. When I got to the office, I promptly vomited all over the principal's appropriately green carpet. I really wasn't sick, though - I just have always had this unusual ability to vomit at will.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:21, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:28, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
You are my hero. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:29, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
It's not particularly important what you stated after the fact, when I called you out on your blunder. I'm an amateur at these sorts of things, as I rarely (not "regularly," as you falsely asserted) archive my Talk pages, whereas you're an admin, so why should I waste my time in pursuit of an item you should have easily found before you shot from the hip and impugned my integrity? It is noted that you still have not stricken it, but instead have chosen to double- and triple-down on your blunder without apology. Cheers! soibangla (talk) 21:45, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
"Impugned your integrity"? You are wound entirely too tight. -- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:54, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Conduct unbecoming an admin, indeed. soibangla (talk) 23:02, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
If you truly believe that to be the case then you can take it up with mom and dad. They may want you to present evidence demonstrating a history of such "unbecoming" conduct. If so, you can scroll through my archives, prominently listed at the top of this page. Otherwise, I believe this conversation is done.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 23:18, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Nonsense. We're never done until I say we're done. I think you misinterpret the user's complaint. They are obviously talking about the clothes you're wearing when you edit Wikipedia, which the user thinks, understandably, are unbecoming. As a fashion expert, I must say I agree. I mean, wearing charcoal-colored skirts in May?? What are you thinking?--Bbb23 (talk) 17:13, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
Given the glorious weather of late, I've now traded the charcoal skirt in for a two-piece and waterwings. Surf's up!-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 17:23, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Mont Blanc de Courmayeur

Hi Ponyo, Could you please lock the page to IPs as there's some of that pro-Italy vandalism on it that seems to crop up from time and time and which you sorted out once before? Thanks, Ericoides (talk) 05:27, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Protected for a week; I'm sure they'll be back as soon as the protection expires, so I watchlisted the article.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 17:01, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
Many thanks! Ericoides (talk) 17:54, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Requesting your help

User:41.210.147.242 has vandalized the article List of Ugandans by net worth on multiple occasions. Please look into his activities and do what needs to be done. Thank you. Fsmatovu 20:59, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

I've semi-protected the article for 2 weeks as they are IP hopping to add incorrect spellings to the article, breaking a number of wikilinks.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:05, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Block evasion on Iwo Jima

Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/51.7.23.40. Although their IP may have naturally changed, their first edit was continue the edit war (so it is likely they intentionally are block evading). Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 16:17, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

I've responded at the SPI.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 16:22, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Seph Lawless

Just double-checking: You blocked a number of participants at the article space, but did you also check those on the talk page? I'm certain the last popup is a sock (pro topic), but I also have concerns regarding the latest editor to the page, who previously only edited on this talk page (anti-topic). Thank you! 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 20:36, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

I've blocked the newest sock. I haven't checked the second, older, account yet (i.e FranklinBlvdBaller). Which account do you think they may be related to, specifically? There's a range of dynamic IPs being used here, so I need a specific reference point for comparison.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:58, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
It seems to serve the same purpose as Jacobssteph. Some of the phrasing is a bit different, but it popped up recently, only edits this page, desires to remove material and encourages disparaging the subject. It just strikes me as not normal. Maybe it's an unrelated account, and the "ruin porn" discussion groups are going nuts over this individual. I dunno. I'm going to be mostly offline for the next day and a half, so I apologize for that. I truly appreciate your time and diligence. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 04:09, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
PS Lopifalko and Grayfell deserve medals. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 04:12, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
@78.26: The Franklin and Jacob accounts are  Technically indistinguishable and I've blocked them both. -- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 18:14, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

CSD

What does CSD mean? --211.30.183.36 (talk) 11:31, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) It means Criteria for Speedy Deletion, WP:CSD will tell you information about it. MadGuy7023 (talk) 11:33, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Promotional editing at Prajakta Koli

Hi P, is there any way to see if SouravMukherjee1987 and Krishkhanna94 are part of an editing ring? Both of them added the same content [5][6] at Prajakta Koli and it just looks like the usual PR stuff we've become used to seeing: Actress does "first ever creator led" activity.

I also notice Megha Thakker, who seems to be in charge of adding cookie-cutter content about talks held at the India Film Project. In this edit at the Koli article above, he adds "She was also a part of a live talk show at India Film Project where she talked about creating safe spaces on the internet for new content creators along with Meghna Pant." The "creating safe spaces ... for new content creators" seems like flowery promo-talk. Some of his other India Film Project edits: [7][8][9][10][11]. Fun fact: He created the India Film Project article, so there is some blatant COI/promotion going on there. If you can look into any of this, thank you. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:40, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

  • SouravMukherjee1987 and Krishkhanna94 are  Confirmed to each other. There were a bunch of accounts on a small range all being used solely for promotion and certainly in violation of WP:PAID. I've blocked them all:
Thanks Begoon, those two editors are  Confirmed to each other.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:04, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
Wow, great work, the both of you, thanks for the assists! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:59, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Ponyo you are the best.

Drmies (talk) 00:04, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

I've named him Archimedes. He is da bomb.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 18:26, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Likely promo editing at Vijay (actor)

Hi again, P, a recent page protection at Vijay (actor) has expired and I see a flare-up of brand-new, but Wikipedia-familiar users editing together, all mostly using similar edit summaries. Ghangster5, Kandershore, Astronaut456 and Mitrnmabv seem like they could very well be the same person. They all seem focused on Vijay-related articles, so Bothiman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) would be an obvious first-choice for suspects, considering how he basically dominated that article. Help? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:09, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

The following accounts are  Technically indistinguishable:
I've reverted the article to catch most of the recent socking and WP:PAID edits and EC-protected it. Please feel free to modify any of my changes.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 16:41, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
P.S. @DoRD: these are all Bmbb,nknkn, who you checkuser blocked. Not sure if they need to be tagged to a specific master?-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 16:43, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for this - it was getting really obvious something was happening. Ravensfire (talk) 17:27, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks P! So are these not Bothiman? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:14, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure. These types of checks can be tedious, so when I started running into other checkuser blocks with no master specified I called it a day. I can dig a little more later if have the chance.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 15:38, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Vandalism

While you're at it [12] could you please block this IP as well? [13] Besides pov-pushing in Israel/Palestina-related stuff, he's now taking revenge against me for reverting his pov-pushing edits by targeting articles I have edited. Quite sad. EDIT: His block log doesn't look too well [14]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 21:07, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Obviously the same editor, now blocked by Malcolmxl5.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:44, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Edits on the Femke Meines page

Hi Ponyo, Thanks for pointing out some oversights in the trivia section of the page Femke Meines. I've edited the sources to be of more reliable quality. By the way, i logged out accidentally and didn't notice when I reverted the edits. I also deleted some less relevant Trivia. I hope this way its better. Thanks for helping to improve the overall quality of the page. DirtyKamal (talk) 21:58, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

The content is still extremely trivial in nature and the tone is encyclopedic. Please read through the policies I provided on your talk page.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 22:06, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
Maybe unencyclopedic? :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 22:11, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
Gah! Yes, definitely need an "un" in there.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 22:16, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
Well, the editor just restored the disputed content again, so perhaps "Femke is back in 2019 after a 6 month period of silence. Her fans were worried but everything is cool. The reason for her disappearance still remains a mystery" is encyclopedic in tone after all?-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 22:18, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
They're still add it and well beyond WP:3RR now, but the weekend calls! If anyone would like to explain to DirtyKamal how this edit is not an improvement at all, feel free.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 22:41, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
I edited the unencyclopedic terms. I understand you might think that some of the content is "extremely trivial". That's why I removed the most trivial content. Though, I think there needs to be room for some less 'encyclopedic' facts in the trivia section while staying factual and respectful.
  • Ponyo, just because the user is willing to talk to you doesn't mean they are really listening. For that reason, I didn't think the user deserved any additional explanation. I've blocked the user for 31h for edit-warring. Because of my block, I can't revert the user, but some Dutch guy we both know and love (helllloooo Drmies) might want to take a look at an article about a Dutch singer.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:33, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

That's all I have to say. Drmies (talk) 03:15, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

I watched that video late last night. It's been a while since I laughed so much. I had no idea what they were saying, but I suspect it was mostly drivel...over and over again.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:32, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

2nd opinion; possible LovelyGirl17 sock

Hey Ponyo, my SPI request was dismissed here, which is fine; they may be technically unconnected didn't yield any technical evidence. Behaviorally I find the similarities between Tym_Whittier and LovelyGirl7 pretty striking. The user came to my attention when they started asking about recreating a LovelyGirl17 article, using the same kind of casually dismissive language toward the topic as LG. Any thoughts? OhNoitsJamie Talk 00:19, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Jamie, next time can you please bring ice cream or some other snack when you drop by here? Maybe some good bourbon? Bbb is a gourmand, and Ponyo is known to have a drink too. Drmies (talk) 03:20, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
Does charcoal vanilla gelato with Lagavulin work? OhNoitsJamie Talk 03:40, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
Damn, there's work horses and there's luxury horses. Probably better than Old Crow! Drmies (talk) 03:42, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
I'm intrigued. Charcoal gelato? That sounds fancy. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:44, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
Not really. Just ordinary vanilla gelato that's been slow-grilled. A favorite of some Americans on Memorial Day. If Jamie had served gelato at the SPI, as he is required to do, I have no doubt I would not have screwed up.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:37, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

boock evasion reverts

Thanks for reverting the "boock evasion" edits of my new fan. Much appreciated! ElKevbo (talk) 21:55, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

At least I got the link right. Thank god for small miracles.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 22:07, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for blocking 濫用 過濾器

There were some accounts proceeded harassments to me in Chinese Wikipedia in earlier this month, and I am shocked to know that the harassments spread to English Wikipedia. Anyway, thanks for the blocking. ΣανμοσαThe Trve Lawe of free Monarchies 09:02, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

No problem. Please let me know if you see them pop up again.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 15:44, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Xayahrainie34

user:Xayahrainie34 is abusing her talkpage. CLCStudent (talk) 17:22, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Talk page access revoked.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 17:24, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

User keeps vandalizing page you had previously looked

Hello,

A few months back I had a back and forth with an anonymous editor to Hao Li's Wikipedia page. You ended up locking it as this is a disgruntled former employee of his company's who was fired and is now looking for petty retribution. Can you possibly lock Mr. Li's page once again? Last time you cited Wikipedia:BLPCRIME and it still applies here. The offending edits this time came from 217.149.169.136 but they've also come from 207.151.53.1 and 207.151.53.2 so I'm assuming he has a vpn. I just removed the most recent one. Thank you for your attention to this matter!

Dandandan94 (talk) 05:38, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

@Dandandan94: I've reprotected the article for 6 months. Those are definitely violations of WP:BLPCRIME.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 16:14, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Still Not Little David Walker

Hey Ponyo, can you believe there's still not a Little David Walker article? We talked about that years ago. Got to put it on my list, the guy is still alive, I believe. Don't know if you hang around DYK at all, but I'm looking for someone to review Matt Farley (musician), see Template_talk:Did_you_know#Articles_created/expanded_on_May_7. I asked User:Drmies too but I fear he's too busy with serious bizness to lose himself in the absurdity of this guy, but you know I can get lost in something like Godofredo Regalado! I saved the article from Articles for Creation after noticing he has had numerous profiles written about him over the past 5 years. He appears to be the most profilic songwriter in human history. The quality of his output is iffy (he'll release one serious album amidst many MANY albums about poop and office supplies, I'm not joking), but he earns his living from streaming revenue. It seems like the sort of quirky thing DYK readers would like. Not to knock current DYK entry "Did you know ... that Michigan state highway M-343 between Kalamazoo and Richland was part of the M-43 highway for a century until Kalamazoo wanted to assert control over several streets in the city's downtown?" which is surely also riveting and surely something I did not know. Well, anyway hope all is well!--Milowent • hasspoken 12:26, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

My God, Matt Farley cracked the code. It's genius! I have never reviewed a DYK in my wiki-life, however I may be in a position to call in a favour from the very busy but more knowledgeable Drmies. I will also allow a 10-minute cuddle session with little Archimedes the Kitten (seen frolicking outdoors a few sections above) to anyone who will assist one of my most favourite Wikipedians with his DYK review! -- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 16:30, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
Wut. Wut? Kalamazoo? Yeah I've been so busy I actually didn't go to Kalamazoo, even though I had an easy way into a panel. Little David Walker? My old philosophy colleague was called David Walker. He retired and is now flying model planes. OH that one, yeah, I remember you asking me. Sorry I forgot. Also I think I have the flu. Drmies (talk) 00:58, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
Ah! Drmies has emerged and is already wiser, and also made the hook pithier. Sorry about the flu. Hope its not the swine flu!--Milowent • hasspoken 20:49, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
Meh, possibly the butter flu. It's getting better, Milowent, slowly. I could do with a cuddle session. Drmies (talk) 20:50, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

User talk:Arzmovers

You may wish to revoke talk page access.--Cahk (talk) 08:08, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Sock/meat

Hi, it's Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ilmulnafia. Ambeinghari, a sleeper account from 2 years back has awakened only to edit same sock/meat effected pages, endorsing to add same content. Might be using this auto-confirmed account since the talks are protected. Continental Rift (talk) 19:04, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Given the age of the account and the edit summaries I would assume it's more a case of WP:MEAT. The account looks like the typical promotional paid editing that we see from film and TV studios in India. I'd just let it go as they seem to have stopped editing again.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 19:53, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
More sock/meat accounts created solely for this purpose are spamming my talk page [15][16][17]. Continental Rift (talk) 08:31, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
I've blocked all three as obvious WP:MEAT accounts being used contrary to WP:SOCK.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 15:46, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
More single-purpose PR account for adding the promotional producer's claim, creating talk sections instead of edit requests and calling the sourced content "wrong". Continental Rift (talk) 18:29, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Jess Phillips

Hello, I have outlined the issue on the Talk:Jess Phillips and this user Bishonen is welcome to discuss the issue. Given that Wikipedia has NPOV as part of its basic position, I'm not sure that we should be taking the white supremacist side in a conflict with the local Muslim parents in the article mainspace. I would presume that Islamophobia (attempting to paint the Muslim parents in a negative light for not endorsing the social values of the whites in the conflict) would be against NPOV too. Ishbiliyya (talk) 23:09, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

I have already replied on your talk page as well as the article talk page. Even the briefest review of your edits show your bias and POV , with many being outright BLP violations. I have no intention of engaging with you further here.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 23:18, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Notability of State Judges

Hi there! I just wanted to touch bases with you quickly to let you know I will be restoring the list of "notables" to the San Joaquin College of Law Wikipedia page. They are all statewide officials, and therefore fall into the notables category as described by Wikipedia below:

Politicians and judges

Further information: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes § Politicians Shortcuts 

   WP:POLITICIAN
   WP:NPOL
   WP:JUDGE

The following are presumed to be notable: 

   Politicians and judges who have held international, national, or sub-national (e.g., province- or state-wide) office, or have been members of legislative bodies at those levels.[12] This also applies to persons who have been elected to such offices but have not yet assumed them.

Mckai (talk) 16:27, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

@Mckai: The guidelines you cite are for creating articles, not for adding people to lists. Conventionally, we add people to section lists only if they already have articles at Wikipedia. I've reverted your massive addition and warned you on your Talk page. You have a declared COI. Generally, you should not insist on adding anything to that article once it is challenged. You're welcome to take it and your COI to the article Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:56, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
What he said.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 19:05, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

XTMontana/XTMontananew

If XTMontana really was a compromised account, WP:COMPROMISED suggests the user create a new account. I suggest therefore that XTMontananew might be unblocked? --Yamla (talk) 21:38, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi Yamla; XTMontananew is Red X Unrelated to XTMontana, which is why I blocked them for impersonation. -- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:45, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
Also, I'm doubtful they were compromised at all. In their second unblock request they admit "I was trying to test Wikipedia out to see if it really is as easy to edit and mess things up as people say it is, that is why many people distrust wikipedia, will not happen again". That sounds like wilful distuption.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:48, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
Oh, ouch. Thanks. --Yamla (talk) 21:53, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Sandbox

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. This is not about your editing but rather an issue you are involved in. 2001:4898:80E8:3:EA0D:C14:20AB:DA9 (talk) 17:28, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Noted and outlined my concerns there.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 17:37, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Barry Gillis AfD & Sockpuppets

Hi! I've had an open checkuser request sine June 6 related to the sockpuppetry going on with the Barry Gillis AfD. Additional information was asked for, and answered, but it hasn't moved further. I saw you conducted a partial checkuser on some of the involved accounts, and was wondering if you wouldn't mind looking into the status of the request. The report is here" Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/MichaelQSchmidt. Thank you! Orville1974 (talk) 01:27, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi! Thank you for looking into the SPI. I was completely mistaken about MichaelQSchmidt, and including him in the report was not well thought out at all. I was looking at dates and AfDs and didn't look into his overall contributions. I amended the report as soon as I realized it (a day after the report was filed, but too late to change the name the report was under). In the request for more information, I responded: "After a much deeper dive, I've come across conversations on Americanmoviecritic's talk page that lead me to believe that MichaelQSchmidt is not a puppet or master. He did suspect Americanmoviecritic, Vortexxxx, and Barryjedmonton (now Donairpizza9999) of puppetry at the time, though, on a closely-related AfD." I am embarrassed for having originally included him, and will look much more closely in the future. Orville1974 (talk) 01:01, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Email

@Yamaguchi先生: the following are  Confirmed:

The following accounts are likely sleepers as they are the only other accounts on the IP created in the same time period:

Hope this helps with your cleanup! -- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 23:03, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you Ponyo, very helpful indeed. All remaining accounts have been blocked and tagged accordingly. It's possible that this actor has a second network available, also found Abdirahman Googaa (talk · contribs) as an additional. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 23:17, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Abdirahman Googaa is included in the group above, so I think we're good.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 23:20, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Religious statistics IP vandal has returned (again)

Hi, thanks for helping last month with the blocks of Special:Contributions/94.69.63.0/24 and Special:Contributions/2A02:587:5509:8700:3D9F:379C:7C18:EE8E/44. Unfortunately this user (see the ANI report) seems to have returned yesterday on Special:Contributions/94.69.72.230, with the same type of unsourced/false changes to religious statistical figures. Would you be able to take a look? Thanks. --IamNotU (talk) 12:29, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

New IP blocked.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:43, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Kate Siegel

Hi there. I edited Kate Siegel right before you and removed the names of her children, per WP:BLPNAME. I'm not sure why you added them back? Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:48, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

I was removing some sock edits and unintentionally restored the names. I've removed them again; thank you for letting me know!-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 18:51, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. Cheers! Magnolia677 (talk) 18:52, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Daniel R. Hokanson

I could argue that the policy you cited doesn't prevent the inclusion of the information in question. But I won't. It's a minor point that's not worth us getting worked up.

Regards,

Billmckern (talk) 20:18, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

It doesn't prevent it in all cases, but it certainly provides the argument that there is no requirement to include the material if disputed. WP:BLP is much more than "can a source be found"? Our protection of the privacy of private individuals is paramount, and when the inclusion of personal information regarding individuals who are not independently notable is contested based on legitimate privacy concerns, we nearly always err on the side of caution. I completely understand why a United States Army General would not want excessive private information regarding his children being readily available to the hundreds of readers that visit his article each month. I appreciate your willingness to leave the material out as bringing it to WP:BLPN which simply shine more light on the disputed material, which conflicts with the purpose of the removal in the first place. -- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:32, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Joseph2302

For the record: New Zealand is fake news.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:55, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Interesting. Even more evidence this was outright disruption as opposed to a compromised account (not that I had any doubts). -- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 18:01, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
Yawn. Been there, done that. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:44, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
That was...incredibly unwise.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:47, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
It was also eighteen months ago. Let's worry about what's happening now instead. ——SerialNumber54129 22:29, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
It establishes a pattern of disruption rather than an anomalous event. This is important for any potential unblock review. -- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 22:36, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, that was my point: those were in January 2018, but I believe when he was blocked for them The Rambling Man had diffs of disruption elsewhere. He goes on intentional vandalism bouts every so often and I was not shocked at all by this. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:23, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
We went to New Zealand several years ago. Did it disappear subsequently? Too bad; I'll miss Master Samwise.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:35, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

The user is intentionally disruptive periodically. But then 90% of the time is a useful contributor. But when going full tilt, the disruption is overt and would ordinarily result in blocks. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:19, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Speedy Gonzales

You beat me by a few seconds. So sad. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:40, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Come on dude, you've got to let me win one once in a while at least! -- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:41, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
No need to fight over blocks, it seems to busy today for some reason :P - FlightTime (open channel) 20:42, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
They do seem to be like moths to a flame with you today.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:46, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

What did I...

...miss? [18][19] Looks like a botched mix of reverse-reverse(-reverse?)-psychology and sock puppetry: a decidedly 'anti-atheist' contributor impersonating another contributor on a decidedly anti-atheist article... to target specifically me (a contributor who has had altercations with said other contributor on that topic), and... themselves? This also suggests that there's a lot happening off-wiki. Perhaps the messages left on my page would help elucidate some of that, and... (sniff)... it's nice to get fan mail. Is there any way I can see what those messages were? Cheers. TP ✎ ✓ 21:05, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Whatever triggered it, you certainly put a bee in this guy's bonnet.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:08, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
Weren't they (this fellow and the one I diff'd) one and the same? And I'm not sure what that one is doing (seems on both sides of the issue). Thanks, will look more into it tomorrow. TP ✎ ✓ 22:41, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
(after sleep and a new over-coffee perusal) I still don't get it (after completing post: but maybe I do). This 'contributor', presenting an obviously 'anti-atheist' stance, was impersonating another contributor 'B' (that they obviously 'know') targeted me specifically and an article I'm involved in[20], but this (rather strange for an article edit) edit comment[21] indicated that they were a sockpuppet of three other 'contributors'[22] who seem to have a very... referenced idea of who 'is' or 'isn't' an 'atheist'. But in looking at banned-puppet-master's talk page history to try to elucidate the what and where of all this,[23] we see a comment by yet another 'contributor' imitating... the same contributor 'B' used to fan-mail me (although it looks as though they copied their signature from elsewhere, this time)[24]. And looking at their contribution record[25], we see that they also left a little nugget on my page using the same 'fake sig' technique[26]. Imho, the latter is a 'reverse-psychology' attempt-to-pin-the-sock-puppetry-they-were-just-banned-for blame on me by the same... author. Don't you think this merits a further looking-into?
In any case, I can find no record of got caught by me and other wikipedia editors,[27] even in sockpuppet investigations. Email complaints?
All this indicates that, somewhere, there is an off-wiki discussion going on targeting specific Wikipedia articles and contributors (I'm thinking something like conservapedia), and perhaps this merits looking into, too.TP ✎ ✓ 06:31, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
[Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Illuminus Knight These editors] are all the same person and are blocked as such. Huitz90, who popped up a little later, was editing from a webhost so can't be conclusively tied to the same person. They are either the same editor or a sock of another master account just looking to stir the pot. I think you're reading way to much into the intent and actions of the sock accounts, it really is best to just block and move on. Let me know if you see any new accounts appear with the same behaviour.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 15:53, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
Just gathering all the data I could - I'm sure you'd be curious too, if it happened to you. For sure, I'll let you know, thanks, cheers. TP ✎ ✓ 21:21, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
No problem at all, I just didn't want you to tie yourself in knots trying to connect the dots. This individual is not worth your time or the effort.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:35, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, but it's not about me, and I'm not 'in knots' about it: I've just had a long history with exactly this sort of thing (an off-wiki skyscraper-fan forum WP:GAMEing wikipedia to promote their view that Paris is skyscraper-filled like New York City is - it's not, and it took ten years (and a lot of unnecessary 'noise') to bring proper attention to the mess), and wikipedia seems pretty toothless to fight it because of a mix of WP:AGF, beleaguered admins, tl;dr-fatigue, and short-sightedness. A lot to ask for people working for free, I know, but whatever. Take care. TP ✎ ✓ 05:59, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for stepping in quickly here. Best wishes 82.39.96.55 (talk) 22:51, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

That last edit obliterated any AGF I may have had.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 22:53, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
Yes, quite. Enough was already enough! Cheers 82.39.96.55 (talk) 23:03, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for blocking some impersonators - keep up the good work

Hi Ponyo,

I appreciate you blocking indefinitely an imitation account by Illuminus Knight a few days back for the fake Huitzilopochtli1990. I sent you a public thank for that since you were very quick on June 19. I was looking around to see if an admin could do an SPI and I even reverted an edit by the impostor [28] when I first saw it but you were on top of it.

In any case, I saw that another account was made in a discussion in a section above to try to imitate again Huitz90. Thank you for blocking that one too.

I think that Illuminus Knight seems quite interested in impersonating me by making account with the nickname I had for a signature, which is "Huitzilopochtli1990". But I will return my signature to "Ramos1990" since it is clear that the sock puppets may keep on popping up. Keep up the good work.Ramos1990 (talk) 23:31, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

I noticed in the discussion above with you and User:ThePromenader that Huitz90 may be a different editor? I don't see Huitz90's account linked to Illuminus Knight's sock puppet history of accounts - so is someone else involved? Two editors trying to impersonate me? It seems that whoever they are they were familiar about a very recent discussion between me and ThePromenader over the State Atheism page in a WP:Fringe Noticeboard [29]. I am gathering data on all of this too.
I also noticed that Illuminus Knight and/or another editor have been leaving messages to User:ThePromenader's talk page (Huitz90 [30] + Huitzilopochtli1990 [31]).
This is something I have not done as can be seen from my contributions page [32]. Actually, me and ThePromenader already discussed our stuff in my talk page a few days ago too [33].
Huitz90 was linking his/her signatures to me and my talk page using an interesting technique. [34]. I have never seen that, but I guess it is possible since signatures can get adjusted and cross linked, but considering that Huitz90 is signing with a link to my talk page and user page, is there any suggestion to prevent anyone from doing such things? A bot actually signed correctly for Huitz90 [35] so you can see the manipulation. This is pretty problematic since this Illuminus Knight editor and/or another editor seem to be working in sync in trying to impersonate me.
By the way, you can see from my contributions page that I have not made any comments to anyone [36]. Any words of wisdom would be of great help. Considering that I have not had any such issues before.Ramos1990 (talk) 00:09, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
I just looked at Huitz90's contributions and it looks like he/she is somehow linked to Illuminus Knight because of his/her contribution history [37].
In any case, is there a way to prevent fake accounts from using or linking to another person's user and talk page? Ramos1990 (talk) 01:39, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
No, there's not.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 19:27, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
Appreciate the response. It looks like they have calmed down in making fake accounts but I will keep an eye out.Ramos1990 (talk) 22:24, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Lawtheagoraphobic / Kitcatx

Hi! I see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ultimateuserxx/Archive which includes a report of the user's previous username. As the user has changed their username, I wonder if it is appropriate to add a new report with the user's new username simply mentioning the user previously used "Lawtheagoraphobic" and a note like "see previous report". After archiving the report, if people wish to search the new username in project namespace they should be able to find the SPI. -★- PlyrStar93 →Message me. ← 19:14, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Hmmm. It's all rather confusing. I'm not sure how, from an SPI standpoint, we typically handle unblocked socks that have been renamed. Let me think on it a bit and I may drop a note at WT:SPI.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 19:26, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ponyo/Archive_45&oldid=1190256252"