This is an archive of past discussions about User:Ponyo. 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.
... but have no idea who? Mleczekofficial gamed autoconfirmed, and immediately began using twinkle to send welcomes, request page protection for no reason, and revert good faith edits. At first I was thinking CafeGurrier66, but there's not enough dumb template stuff for that. Is it worth going to ANI with something like this? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:26, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
What I found interesting was that almost all the new users they welcomed were students, and not from the same course.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:40, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
Hey, wiki-admin. You blocked me a few months ago for "conspiracy theories" about the Covid-19 clot shots. Here's a recent, peer-reviewed study by MIT indicating a 25% increase in severe cardiac incidents directly associated with the vaccine roll-out: [1] . Would your block and the reasoning behind it be a violation of WP:OR, or is being anti-science acceptable for admins and moderators here? 96.255.69.229 (talk) 01:01, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
I moved an article out of my sandbox today only to find it had been deleted. Can you help me understand why? The note says this: [Create=Require administrator access] (indefinite) (Repeatedly recreated: article repeatedly created in incorrect wp space), but I'm confused by this cryptic explanation. I created the article back in January, then modified it based on feedback and moved it out of the sandbox today. If you can provide me with some guidance, I'd very much appreciate it. I haven't created a new Wikipedia article in quite a few years, and this is my first article about still living (my other articles were about historical figures). If I put it in the incorrect wp space, can you help me understand where I should have placed it? Bskaat (talk) 21:23, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
@Bskaat: You've twice moved the article from Draft space to Wikipedia project namespace, which holds administrative-type pages. What you're looking for is the mainspace, which hosts articles. I would be hesitant to move it there due to the lack of reliable sourcing and promotional tone of the draft which may lead it to be deleted, especially if you have a conflict of interest with the subject.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots21:33, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for your help. I didn't realize I'd moved it to the wrong space. I think I accidentally "moved" it there a second time because I was editing it and it was saved back into that same space again. I'm a novelist, not an encyclopedia-ish writer, so my style doesn't suit this space. I'll work on correcting the tone and add some inline references so that sounds more like an encyclopedia entry. Bskaat (talk) 21:46, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for doing the CU block on the IP! However, I believe there's most likely a longer ban in place as it's block evasion. Yamla blocked an IP range for similar reasons and I provided this info as he went on vacation. – The Grid (talk) 12:55, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
Are you asking about extending the block? It's been used for three months, so I blocked it for three months. I'm aware of the block evasion, hence the checkuser block.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots15:32, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
I had to dig up those socks with my bare hands and bleeding fingers. Do you see a hidden connection I do not/can not? I filed a SPI. Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:21, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
Not sure if it would be better to post this at SPI rather than here, so apologies if I'm wrong. Anyways, 86.187.174.137 appears to be more block evasion of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ZestyLemonz: requesting things from other users (such as here), same targeted articles (edited on The Masked Dancer (British TV series) with a recent sock of theirs on there as well), as well as an almost-exact revert to what a previous sock of theirs posted (see [3] vs. [4]). Either way, seems like a block would be appropriate here... thanks in advance. Magitroopa (talk) 22:20, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
That editor may have been here a few years ago with a different AbortionIs handle and a couple of others. I've put a SPI on their user page. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 21:10, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
Based on some of the post-block activity, I'm wondering: are we sure this not an LTA? I mean, that post you reverted by one of the socks...not just the major nastiness but naming so many users.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:09, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
There are days when I feel like all sock accounts are LTAs. Like Wikipedia hit mass saturation of sock accounts and now it's the same 30 or so LTA groups just cycling through accounts. When I poked around in the case I don't remember seeing any links to older cases, either directly or by running IPs through the CU log, but I may have missed something. I was heading into a 5-day holiday weekend, with one foot already out the door.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots21:45, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
Hi @Ponyo, I saw that the page Talk:Vickers Type C was deleted per Wikipedia:CSD G5. While I am not contesting this deletion, your mass deletion summary was that you were deleting pages edited by Patachonica. Could I please have some background on this?
Renewal6 I suggest that you create an SPI with Bestf123 named as the master where you outline the behavioural evidence that the IPs are evading a block and request that the articles be deleted per G5 if a clerk or admin finds that they are behaviourally related. Or ping me and I'll delete them after the SPI closes.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots22:02, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
@Clovermoss: It's all very confusing and this sock likes to make multiple moves of similar pages which I'm trying to end with the protections. A look at the corporate page for the company shows the use of the ampersand across their platforms, so even if the article didn't start as Capital North West & Wales, that may be the best place for it. I assume that's why Hughpugh2 ultimately moved it there? If that's the wrong title I can move it somewhere else, just let me know! -- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots15:52, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
@Ponyo That works then. I was wondering if you meant to keep it at that title since that was what the sock moved it to, but if it's the right title then it's the right title. I was just casually looking at things in the new pages feed and I agree that it was confusing. Clovermoss(talk)18:07, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
@Deepfriedokra: Some people are just not suited for editing here. Rereading Lallint's talk page brings that back, and I don't find their UTRS appeal particularly persuasive. On their Simple talk page, they're still making the same tired jokes as they did here that led to me just running out of patience. I won't protest an unblock if that's what the community wants, but I'm not very supportive of one at this time.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots23:24, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
They've only edited that one once. Let's see if they come back to it (I've watchlited it for a bit). The Aussie ranges they're using are large and dynamic, unfortunately. Even liberal rangeblocks wouldn't stop them.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots15:39, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
I actually met Jello Biafra at H2K2. He hung around after his talk and chatted for a while, then bummed money off everyone who stayed to chat with him. He said he got kicked out of the Dead Kennedys so they could sell out their music rights. I gave him $20. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:46, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
Sometimes I wonder when socks come to your tp and Yamla's if they're trolling and actually looking for a block. I refuse to believe any human capable of going through the steps of registering and what not is actually stupid enough to think they're not that obvious. PRAXIDICAE🌈21:29, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
this should be of interest to you since you just warned them yesterday about inappropriate draftifications (most of which I undid) but they seem to just be creating more and more problems. I suggested the editor who requested admin input just take it to ANI and I'm tempted to myself (as a case of WP:CIR and WP:DE) but figured you might want to take a peek since they completely ignored your warning and just reverted it. PRAXIDICAE🌈21:52, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
This feels like Galendalia, redux. Cases like this are excruciating as many editors have a hard time grasping the extent of the disruption from an editor that, from all appearances, wants to improve Wikipedia but doesn't understand nuance and essentially bull-in-china-shops their way through the encyclopedia. It's often only after mentors step up then throw their hands up in frustration that a block sticks.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots22:06, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
The problem with this one is that they're taking any reason their edits are undone and using it against everyone else. ie. if you revert them for adding trivia, they then go to every article and remove sourced content on the basis that it's "trivia" (among other things) but sometimes wanting to improve the project isn't enough. Le sigh... I also generally oppose the use of mentorship because I can't think of a single (at least recent) case where it's worked. PRAXIDICAE🌈22:11, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
Agreed, there is the potential that this could be a viable dab page one day, but not until the articles are written. Right now the page is disambiguating nothing at all as there is only a single extant article with that name.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots17:48, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
Query
Hello, Ponyo,
I have run into an interesting new editor by the username of DownAndUp. They have been here for just 3 weeks, they are nearing 100 edits and they spend all of their time at AFD, nominating beauty pageants for deletion. Getting rid of these articles on pageants and beauty contestants is their primary focus. I don't need to say that this is unusual behavior for a new editor, to jump into deletion discussions right away (I don't think I even know AFD existed for months after I started editing) but it's such a specific editing focus, I assume that this would ring a bell for our regular checkusers and SPI clerks if it matched the profile of a sockmaster. Or maybe one of your TPS will recognize it. I know Bri also worked on AFDs & PRODs in this subject area, maybe they will have an idea.
First edit is creating a blank userpage? Always a sign of a non-first account. It doesn’t look to me like a sockfarm that I have encountered before. In fact, right now I don’t see why it couldn’t be a legitimate alt account even for one of our regular editors. ☆ Bri (talk) 14:23, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
An editor using an undisclosed account solely to participate in AfDs doesn't fall under any of the WP:VALIDALT scenarios. There are a couple sockmasters who fit the bill. I'll have to check behaviour to see if they match.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots18:13, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
Just seeing this now after closing some of the AFDs they started. I thought they were a sockpuppet but I never would have guessed Neelix! I thought they had moved on from Wikipedia years ago. How do you go from being an admin to a sockmaster? There is probably no answer to that one. But habits, like editing, are hard to break.
Well, I'm glad I brought it to your attention. Thanks for following up on this. LizRead!Talk!
Regarding my view that this might have been a valid alt account. Obviously not so if it's Neelix. But if it were anyone else, it looks like the RfC this year concerning WP:PROJSOCK did not reach consensus, so I'm not sure where we stand currently. Maybe OK to participate in AfDs with alt account? Maybe not? ☆ Bri (talk) 22:08, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
Outside of privacy issues, WP:VALIDALT accounts are expected to connect the accounts per WP:SOCK#NOTIFY. I very much doubt that creating multiple accounts to create and vote in AfDs without disclosing the connection between the accounts will ever get community consensus. -- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots18:36, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
@Ponyo on another note, 3rr doesn't seem to be his only problem. Dude literally pinged me to his talk page and then reverted my explanation and included an attack. It's like the trifecta! I seem to be setting a record the last few weeks...PRAXIDICAE🌈19:52, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
Yah, I suspect they belong to a rather nasty master...Imagine being that passionate about CPU chips and not being a troll. PRAXIDICAE🌈20:06, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
I blocked both users, not Ponyo. She did revoke TPA for Steadee, although that doesn't matter anymore now that both accounts are globally locked. Sometimes CheckUsers will reblock an already blocked account as a CU block - depends on the CheckUser and the circumstances. It's a judgment call. Oh, sorry Ponyo, it's a judgement call. :p--Bbb23 (talk) 13:39, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
As Bbb23 notes, the account wasn't blocked based on checkuser evidence, they were blocked based on the behavioural evidence provided at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Chiscomalaga. I only checked and confirmed the account when they were contesting the block by claiming to be unrelated. I sometimes modify a regular block to a CU block if there is new evidence (e.g. modifying a block for edit warring where the blocked editor turns out to be a sock), but in this case the check only confirmed what we already pretty much knew-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots17:03, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
I find it very helpful with block logs are modified to show an editor has also been found engaging in sockpuppetry although they were originally blocked for other reasons like NOTHERE or disruptive editing. Sometimes patrollers will tag a page as a CSD G5 and it's necessary to check and make sure there is sockpuppetry and ban evasion going on. LizRead!Talk!23:03, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
Help with AfC situation
Hi Ponyo, my name is Allison and I'm here to ask a question about a declined draft at AfC, as it looks like you blocked the editor who declined it. I wanted to ask the editor for more feedback on what is needed for the draft but from their talk page I can see that they'd been blocked and that the reason was their reviews of drafts at AfC not being well-informed. Before I go further, I should disclose that I work for JLL (company) and have a financial conflict of interest with the company and any related pages, and I don't intend to edit live Wikipedia pages, only to discuss with editors. The draft is for the company's CEO, Draft:Christian Ulbrich. It was submitted by a colleague of mine who has moved to another role, which is why I'm the one following up. (Sorry this is so complicated!) Since the editor wasn't properly reviewing, what should I do about the declined draft? Is it ok to remove the decline? Or should I resubmit? The draft had been awaiting review for a while. I saw that there are a lot of drafts affected by this, so hopefully your guidance on this can help others too. AHatJLL (talk) 16:55, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for the candid feedback, Ponyo and Praxidicae. I'll take a close look at the sourcing to see if anything can be improved. The Handelsblatt and Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung pieces focused on Mr. Ulbrich seemed to fit the requirements for reliable, independent and in-depth sources but perhaps I missed some nuance in the guidelines? As well, was there anything specific that you'd point to re: the draft being not well written? I believe the structure and content was based on similar biographies on Wikipedia. Any pointers you can give me would help me make sure I'm not resubmitting before it's appropriately updated. Thanks! AHatJLL (talk) 15:47, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
Ponyo, you blocked User:Xselant on Aug. 16. A new editor named User:LagoonMoon has started editing just today. Based on both editors editing Maya Hawke, Adria Arjona, and Angourie Rice (three articles is a pretty big coincidence for a 1-day editor), and both editors' obsession with using rowspan in WP:FILMOGRAPHY tables (and both denying that it's a WP:STYLEVAR issue), I believe it is very likely that User:LagoonMoon is a sock of User:Xselant.
Wrong! Because Ponyo rarely edits on the weekends, I get the "first look". :p I thought that the sandbox created by LM (now deleted) about chipsets was also a strong bit of behavioral evidence. Blocked and tagged.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:52, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
You had blocked 184.144.102.2(talk·contribs·WHOIS) about a week ago for adding unsourced content. They're now on 184.144.102.219(talk·contribs·WHOIS), making similar changes to dates of birth. They've generally been on two different ranges - 184.144.101.0/24 (where 184.144.101.3 was blocked for six months in April) and 184.144.102.0/24. Nearly all edits from that range seem to be that user. Usual tells include changing the capitalization of templates, zero-padding numbers in date of birth templates and just unsourced edits. Would you mind taking a look? Thanks! Ravensfire (talk) 18:13, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
Normally I'd be more precise with the removals, but the edits made that talk page unreadable. They have a bunch of ranges available to them, so whether it's the same individual or WP:MEAT, you can expect they'll be back.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots22:56, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
User:ColorfulSmoke/LOSS1990-1999--there's a whole bunch more of those and I don't know what to do with it. Well, I know--NOTWEBHOST, but there's been an admin, maybe two, who suggested that if someone has a few article edits then such stuff gets to stay. Drmies (talk) 03:10, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
Hi. I heard that you were the one who locked the Rama-Tut redirect due to sockpuppet account edits. I was wondering if you can have it redirect to the Rama-Tut section of Kang the Conqueror like I had to do with the Scarlet Centurion redirect. I'm just asking a favor here. --Rtkat3 (talk) 14:35, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
Sockpuppet of [9] is back being disruptive right now, making changes and removing content
Collapse messiness
This Gowri Nandana S panicker seems like It is a sockpuppet of [10]. This user is consistently being disruptive right now, making changes and removing content. This user focus on puffing down others by change the real fact of Indian film, actor articles and awards.
Evidence for sockpuppetry is given below.
Removing awards and content, reliable sources
This Nehansaxan is certainly possible the same person (Sock) who tried to comback as a New ID, who tried to impersonate on my same name. Nehansaxan is surely a sock of Fazmi Haris and GowriNandanaP please check and investigate about this. Please take action on user Nehansaxan (talk) 02:00, 1 September 2022 (UTC) Gowri Nandana S panicker (talk) 02:07, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
Obviously not. I'm doing good faiths revert/edits here. For sure you are sockpuppet of [30] who keep disruptive right now, making changes and removing content Nehansaxan (talk) 02:11, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
See how this fake Nehansaxan is puffing up actress Meena and Sneha. Check the previous history of Nehansaxan and see how Ridiculously trying to make an edit war over the pages Meena, Sneha and Tamil Nadu state Award for Best actress . so immatured behavior like a mixed versions of both a man and woman🙄. Gowri Nandana S panicker (talk) 02:12, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
I have provided all your criminal info up there. Don't trying to justify your ugly work. Seriously no idea why you trying to remove the fact, content with reliable sources and info of some actresses and actors. Back to back come with new ID to puffing up your favorite. Degrading others by removing their contributions. Must be insane Nehansaxan (talk) 02:21, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
Copy the exact same words and link from me and paste here. It's so obvious who is fake and immature now. God is great Nehansaxan (talk) 03:26, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
This immature user just blindly copying my whole text that I have written as a report at RoySmith and paste here. This is enough to prove how fake and cheap is this user
Check their profile first... That fake Nehansaxan making edit warring over their personal favourite things with an immatured behaviour... Coin is of two sides... Check well so you get what Nehansaxan are doing very cheap here with a mentality of mixed gender behaviour🙏🏻👍🏻🙄 Gowri Nandana S panicker (talk) 04:25, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
You are welcome to check my contribs. I have never done any disruptive editing or vandalize wikipedia. This is the same immature kid sockpuppet of [32] who consistently being disruptive right now. Copy pasting my own summary as well. What is happening here?? Nehansaxan (talk) 08:00, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
Joseph Quinn (Actor) Protection
The extended protection on this page is too much. It's overprotecting. I'm actually one of the people reverting unsourced or random information and semi-protected pages are manageable enough. So my request is to go back to semiprotection, because I saw edit wars worst than this, but the one on this page is barely mild.
Also, why you administrators don't discuss to rise like at 30/40 edits for be an autoconfermed user? This would calm things also on other pages. Koala Wiki (talk) 05:55, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
Regarding the level of protection specifically, I've replied to your message on the talk page. I'm not opening the article back up to persistent BLP violations by editors who are logging in to old accounts with a handful of edits to bypass semi-protection. It doesn't matter that you believe the edit warring is mild, we don't leave articles open to persistent violations of one of our most fundamental policies. If there is talk page consensus regarding the subject's WP:DOB prior to the protection expiring, I'll lift the protection. Regarding your question on autoconfirmed limits, administrators don't determine such policies, the community does. If you think a change would be beneficial, you can start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:User access levels.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots15:29, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
I, for one, support the extended confirmed protection on that article. Judging from the number and quality of edit requests I've handled there, it's a good idea. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:34, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
@Ponyo@ScottishFinnishRadish I explain better my concern: It's an actor that recently got into the spotlight, so it's an article that could need updates. And with updates I mean reliable ones, like awards or new movies, or similar, NOT change his birth date because someone hear it in a convention.
My point is, the article may become outdated pretty fast if extended confirmed users or administrators don't keep up, may harm the encyclopedia by excluding or driving away potential editors, serious editors.
I proposed to rise the number of edits exactly for discourage this "old accounts with a handful of edits to bypass semi-protection" behaviors and not sacrifice with the extended protection users like myself that want to genuinely help. Thanks, I didn't know where ask for it. Koala Wiki (talk) 16:48, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
@Koala Wiki: None of the points you raise above qualify as a reason to remove the protection. There is no deadline on Wikipedia; restricting the article to extended-confirmed editors for two weeks isn't going to affect the quality of the article and, at this point in time, serves to actually improve both its quality and stability. BLP policy specifically states we need to get the article right, not right away. -- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots16:59, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
Hello, Ponyo. Please check your email; you've got mail! Message added 16:10, 2 September 2022 (UTC). 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.
Will you please undelete the pages that were deleted? I haven't done any loutsocking ever since my tempblock, so could you undelete them? You did promise to vouch for me in the unblock appeal section. Furthermore, I would like User:Patachonica/sandbox1 to be undeleted and moved to my userspace? I fully admitted to socking as Patachonica as seen in my unblock request.
If you would like to know about which of the pages that you deleted (pretty much you deleted most of them), here is a complete list of them.
I had previously done so on my talk page but you didn't respond (only Anthony Bradbury responded), and so now I have decided to message you directly on your talk page.
At no time did I promise to vouch for you; I left a note for Tamzin stating "If at any point you would like the G5's to be reversed, just ping me and I'll help with the restoration.... That you is clearly Tamzin. Given the continued issues that have occurred since your unblock, I'm not overly-keen to go thorugh the effort of undeleting a bunch of stuff just to see your block reinstated.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots21:15, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping. As long as there's been no recurrence of socking issues, which I gather there hasn't been, I'm willing to do the button-pressing, if you don't object, Ponyo. I don't think a warning for projectspace disruption should preclude the restoration of unproblematic mainspace content—although definitely understand why it makes you disinclined to personally spend time on the matter. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe)21:58, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
I have only restored the pages that I deleted; I will not reverse another administrator's valid deletions. You'll need to request undeletion from the relevant admins.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots20:27, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
@FMSky: Ranges from this region are notoriously large and dynamic making rangeblocks ineffective due to the collateral. Revert and report is, unfortunately, the most efficient way to deal with them. Liberal protection of repeat targets can sometimes help as well. -- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots18:23, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
"Three revert warning" about two contributions banned by censors: one in the "Colliding beam fusion" topic and the other on the "Solar energy" topic
I received your warning. I understand Wikipedia. I will not insist and leave these contributions banned (as I have no real choice). However note that what happens is problematic for the future of Wikipedia, because a certain form of fundamentalism appears in science.
I posted two contributions, one on a new type of colliding beam fusion reactor and the other on a new type of solar plant (for desert areas). I worked in the Nuclear industry (now I'm retired).
Both contributions were banned because the EPE (Energy and Power Engineering) journal where I wrote the article is supposed to be a predatory journal !
This form of arbritary censorship is dangerous because it is a direct return to mediaval age method.
“My contribution has been banned today because the EPE journal is supposed to be a predatory journal!
I added this contribution because it could be of interest for readers to present an alternative way to generate electricity and, in the same time, desalinated water, mainly for desert areas. Now this contribution is banned and I will not reverted it. Censors have won.
Now, who decides to blacklist the EPE journal? After some investigation, I found that the EPE journal pertains to SCIRP and that a certain Jefferey Beall posted a predatory list in 2012 and 2014, where SCIRP appears. Now it's just the opinion of this person. Another person would have posted another list. But in any cases, this list is now considered by several persons (let's be optimistic, a very small minority I hope) as the "truth". This list appears to be equivalent to the "List of Prohibited Books" ("Index Librorum Prohibitorum") with several self-appointed censors in charge to remove all the contributions refering to an editor present on the list. No lawyer to defend the editors and no possibility given for the editors to improve their methods (supposing that they were reprehensible). The editors of this list are condemned for eternity. This is really sad. I'm just an engineer and I had an high consideration for science and its tolerance. Today, I lose my illusions and I'm afraid for the future, if this minority imposes its rules by a form a violence (as to directly ban contributions). Moreover, I don't understand how intelligent people can lose their time controlling if a journal pertains or not to a condemned editor, rather than reading what the contribution says.”
Patrick Lindecker —F6CTE (talk • contribs) 13:32, September 11, 2022 (UTC)
@F6CTE: Your contributions weren't "banned", they were reverted. When your edits are disputed and reverted, you are expected to follow dispute resolution to determine consensus. My warning regarding edit warring on your talk page was placed in my role as an administrator; administrators do not involved themselves in content disputes when also acting as an admin in the same article, so I have no opinion as to the legitimacy of the journal outside of specific policy concerns, of which I have several. You are attempting to add material/info regarding an article that you wrote, which is a conflict of interest. Don't do that. You are repeatedly crying "censorship" when what you are actually experiencing is consensus-building on a private website. If you believe that reverting an edit to an article on an online encyclopedia is equatable to violence, then this is very much not the place for you. If you can see through your conflict of interest and control the hyperbole, I will again direct you to this page which explains the dispute resolution processes available.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots18:41, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
I did know that presenting an article writing by yourself was a "conflict of interest". So supposing this, ban my contributions is normal.
Now the reason given was that the EPE journal was a predatory journal given that the editor SCIRP is supposed predatory. In this case, there is, of course, no possibility to find a consensus, as the contribution is not the problem and obviously has not been read.
You can ignore this reality, but this means that a minority of persons control scientific topics (by censorship), according to objectives which have nothing to see with Science. And it is really a pity, for the ones as me who love Wikipedia and use it a lot.
However, congratulations for being a Wikipedia Administrator which must not be easy, not speaking of the time that you must pass reading complaints... (☺)
Hello, thanks for reverting the contentious contributions of the other contributor to the Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex article. Your reasoning in the summary was incredibly valid and constructive; also, the image they used of Fort Worth is ripped from a copyrighted website when searching with similar Google images and has been wrongly licensed on Wikimedia Commons; I do not know how to motion for that file's deletion there so may need your assistance with that. Additionally, the image they used of Dallas was from 2006, yet they are stating the current image from 2015 was out of date, and the grainy-image of 2006 was an "upgrade." If you would, I would love your assistance by also looking at the edit summaries on the Dallas and Fort Worth, Texas articles, as it appears they are now merely reverting out of personal preference without regard to discussion. If they lack discussion and establishing consensus, by being ever-bold, would it be justifiable for me to escalate this to the noticeboard as I intend to? - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 21:40, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
@TheLionHasSeen: They haven't edited since being warned for edit warring by C.Fred, so let's see where that goes. It's a content dispute, so discussion should take on the relevant talk pages, not a noticeboard (unless there is a breach of WP:3RR). Can you prove a link to the image you believe is a copyvio?-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots21:46, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I don't know if Meta is an exception, but even if it were, I don't see how that would work. Generally, global locks involve cross-wiki abuse but not very often abuse at Meta, more likely the language projects, and usually at least one of the language projects has the largest interest in deciding whether to unblock.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:36, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
I'm not sure whether they're being abjectly arrogant enough to be BKFIP. Do they have a specific beef with you in particular? This reads more "troll with an axe to grind". And yes, that's axe with an "e".-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots20:25, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
They are most obviously anti-Bbb23. Did you look at the unblock request they made before I reverted them and revoked TPA? And the edit (since reverted) they made at ANI? I have absolutely no idea who they are. As an IP, they don't have enough history for me to even attempt to figure it out. That's where you come in, Miss Battle Axe. :p --Bbb23 (talk) 20:29, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
Ah, yes, a rather lengthy history. Starting in about 2018 I blocked many named users as BKFIP socks, some with a lengthy - and often constructive - contribution history. Before that I of course blocked many IPs. And I blocked no one at that time without checking first. That's when I started realizing how sly he was behaviorally and technically (Berean Hunter and I discussed this privately). I don't know if others realize this, but at least in the beginning years he did a lot of good hand/bad hand socking. BTW, I like the phrase "abjectly arrogant", although he's not when he's being a good hand sock.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:51, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
I've blocked them a lot too, but haven't dealt with much blow back. They could create an account and sneak under the radar if they could avoid being such an enormous dick to everyone (ZOMG personal attack!). -- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots21:13, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
The user Bhoothana heavily biased towards Jyothika (blatant violation of WP:NPOV), and deleting so much content. Back to back with New ID. Consistently being disruptive right now. Please take action on that Nehansaxan (talk) 17:48, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
Dear Ponyo, once again I start having problems with the article Fortaleza Airport, which you have protected last time 23 June 23, 2022. A person living in Hamburg, Germany insists in adding information outside the scope of the airport article as per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Airports. Furthermore, now the person insists in using a lay-out different than suggested by Wikipedia. This is not the first time that this person does it; actually this problem has been going on for years. Before he/she used accounts without any information and always erased the talk page. Now the person simply uses multiple IP's. It is very common that an editing war quickly escalates. For this reason, once again, I request your help in protecting the page, while I do the necessary adjustments. Thanks so much. (15:19, 12 August 2022 (UTC))
Dear Ponyo, it did not work. The person found a way around the block by using a different IP and was able to revert everything what was done yesterday. This issue has been going on for a few years. I cannot know for sure but since 2012 this account has had problems originated in Hamburg, Germany, possibly by a Brazilian living there. At first, blank accounts were used such as Crucks (banned in 2012), Monart (blocked in 2014), SeasSoul (blocked in 2019), CBG17 (blocked in 2019), and Mateusportuga (dormant). Other administrators such as MilborneOne and Jetstreamer tried to intervene but were received with coarse language. I myself have received messages in Portuguese in the edit summary line. A good example of content that is always reverted is about the VASP accident on 8 June 1982, which happened during final approach. The person always deletes it on the grounds that it was 'too long ago'. Apparently, since 2019, the person acts only under IP's that change constantly. The situation is quiet for the duration of the protection but as soon as it ends the person goes back to his/her last edition regardeless of wikipedia guidelines set by the project airports. For this reason, once again I request a protection of the article. Thanks (Brunoptsem (talk) 11:34, 13 August 2022 (UTC))
Dear Ponyo, as expected, as soon as the protection of Fortaleza Airport expired, an IP originated in Hamburg, Germany without any suitable explanation reverted some notable changes made in the last month and kept others, placing the article according to his/her own will, particularly as related to the Airlines and destinations table and the 1982 VASP accident. The problem is old and apparently related to the same person holder of several blocked accounts and IPs. We already know that blocking IPs do not work and the person ceased to use accounts after several of them were blocked. So far, the only succesfull action was to leave Fortaleza Airport under long protection. Therefore, I once again, kindly ask you to protect the article. Thanks for your usual help. (Brunoptsem (talk) 11:43, 17 September 2022 (UTC))
Leaving aside Azim's notability, which is not in question, a) was the article created by a sockpuppet of a blocked user acting in violation of their block? b) if so, had other editors modified it so that it was substantively different from the version produced by the sockpuppet?
@DragonflySixtyseven: I was the original deleting admin. I restored the article upon Sdkb's request but forgot to remove the old CSD tag when I restored it, which led to you to again delete it. Are you saying that you are unwilling to restore it? -- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots19:23, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
That's not what I'm saying, no. I'm asking if this is substantively similar to content created by a blocked user in violation of their block. DS (talk) 19:25, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
Yes, it was "substantively similar", which is why I deleted it as G5. There's no policy requirement that such content must be deleted though, so when Sdkb requested that I restore it due to the notability of the subject, I had no problem doing so but forgot to remove the original CSD tag once it was restored. -- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots19:36, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
Actually, it was identical. The only changes were the insertion of wikilinks.
We could argue about this, but it'll be simpler if I just take 20 minutes and rewrite the thing from scratch. DS (talk) 19:58, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
I don't intend to argue. Nobody is arguing that either deletion (my intital one and your subsequent redeletion) was invalid at the time. My initial thought was that you had, understandably, deleted it without realizing I had just restored it. As it appears that you want to stick with your deletion, that's the end of the conversation. I have no intention of wheel warring to restore it.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots20:20, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
@DragonflySixtyseven: The page was on my watchlist and I noticed that It was deleted because the creator was sock, then undeleted and deleted again. I read your conversations. I was wondering that is that possible to copy the texts of the article to my sandbox so that I can rewrite it? I can't give certainty that I can rewrite it within days or months because I have tasks to translate and create articles. Just asking. Mehedi Abedin20:03, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
You beat me to the notice [43]. Suggestions on what to try next? I'm finding this too disruptive to try much beyond getting the editor to stop the edit warring and disruption. --Hipal (talk) 20:48, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
I'm unclear if there's a content dispute at this point, but just an excuse to harass and attack after stalking me to that article. --Hipal (talk) 21:10, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
I've gone ahead with a detailed description of the content in dispute, in preparation for a BLPN discussion to get more eyes. Thanks for your help. --Hipal (talk) 22:40, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
Ponyo, this is yet another of many, many examples showing why so many good editors have fled from Hipal/Ronz, or Wikipedia altogether. See the nightmare he caused for four years on the Scott Baio talk page. I had planned not to say another word about Hipal when I reached out to Timtempleton and made my offer to stop editing Lori Greiner. I even told Tim to please feel free to revert any of my edits if he felt it was the right thing to do. But, since Hipal has chosen to continue antagonizing me with his insulting comments instead of simply letting Tim do his work, I will respond and provide a timeline (below). It's not surprising at all that Hipal chose to run to an administrator (you) even though this problem was well on its way to being resolved. But Hipal has a long history of doing this; running to the talk page of an administrator who recently warned or sanctioned one of his "enemies". He loves to try and create a "bond" with administrators in this way. Look at his history.
laundry list of complaints
04:59, September 22, 2022 - I ask Timtempleton to be a neutral reviewer of the disputed article.[44]
05:00, September 22, 2022 - I fix a typo in my prior comment.[45]
13:24, September 22, 2022 - Hipal/Ronz accuses me of improperly canvassing, and questions Timtempleton's suitability to assist.[46]
13:45, September 22, 2022 - I tell Hipal/Ronz that it's not canvassing.[47]
14:25, September 22, 2022 - Timtempleton replies to Stoarm about how he can help.[48]
14:36, September 22, 2022 - I explain to Hipal why I contacted Timtempleton.[49]
14:55, September 22, 2022 - I reply to Timtempleton and clarify my proposal to fully withdraw from editing Lori Greiner if he'll step in to collaborate with Hipal/Ronz.[50]
14:56, September 22, 2022 - I make a minor addition to my prior comment.[51]
16:48, September 22, 2022 - Two hours after I contacted Timtempleton and offered to stop editing the Greiner article, and three hours after my last edit to the article, Hipal runs to an administrator, Ponyo, to complain about my editing of the article.[52]
16:51, September 22, 2022 - Hipal complains to Timtempleton about my editing of the article, even though it had ended long before, and says that he wanted to go to BLPN but that an admin got involved. Hipal fails to mention that he had actually initiated the contact with the admin (Ponyo) by going to his talk page, and that the admin chosen happened to be the one who warned Stoarm about edit warring three hours earlier.[53]
17:00, September 22, 2022 - Ponyo posts one sentence in reply to Hipal, saying that it looks like Timtempleton will assist and be neutral.[54]
17:10, September 22, 2022 - Hipal pleads his case about the content dispute to Ponyo, insults me, and falsely accuses me of stalking him to the article.[55]
For the record, Hipal has repeated that nonsense claim that I stalked him to the Greiner article several times to various editors. It's a complete lie. And he never even asked me about it first; he just started posting the paranoid lie. I watched an episode of Shark Tank, in which Greiner co-stars, which prompted me to go to the show's article on April 16, 2022, either during or shortly after the show. I made a few edits and had no idea at the time that Hipal had edited the article. Editors don't go to the edit history to see who's edited an article before they make their own edits. They simply go to an article and start editing if they see something that will be an improvement. And I assure you that the absolute last article I would ever want to edit is any one that Hipal has edited. And if I was stalking him to that article, why the hell would that be the only one where it's happened? I've edited dozens or hundreds of articles, so why would I choose that one, and no others, to stalk him? The guy needs to get over his own ego and stop repeating the lie. As many editors who've dealt with him will attest to, he is the kind of guy you run from, not to. In any case, my first edits were on April 16, 18 days after he last edited it. Once I discoverd his edits in the history, I wasn't concerned because my edits were pretty basic and not in conflict with any of his. In fact, he and I were essentially doing the same types of editing; removing crap and unsourced content. So, no, I did not stalk him to the article.
18:34, September 22, 2022 - Timtemplton provides his initial assessment of the current version of Lori Greiner, saying, I took a quick look at the article and everything looks fine to me casually. Sources look good, content seems neutral, no flags, nothing really stands out. So had I not gone to the history or the talk page I wouldn’t give it a second look.[56]
18:40, September 22, 2022 - Hipal inexplicably contacts Ponyo again to update him on the content dispute and inform him that he's planning to go to BLPN.[57]
18:47, September 22, 2022 - Hipal replies to Timtempleton's previously stated assessment by telling him that he's detailed all his concerns on the Lori Greiner talk page, and "thanks" me.[58]
I'm not interested in reading through a long list of complaints related to a content dispute, which should be dealt with in the appropriate forums. I warned you for edit warring because you were at three reverts on an article where you'd already received a block for edit warring. The short history of your account shows a propensity for edit warring and a battleground attitude. I suggest you reassess how you deal with conflict on this website. Just my advice, you can take it or leave it. -- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots15:57, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
I did notice that. Oh, and a hearty congrats from me on your new mop! If there's anything admin-y that looks interesting in my .js scripts, pilfer away, my friend!-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots16:36, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
Neither criteria used really apply though. A7 is for articles, not redirects. G4 doesn't really work either as the page is not a substantial recreation of the previously deleted content, it's just a redirect. If Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Exorcise Tape results in deletion, then WP:CSD#G8 could be used. Or WP:RfD is an option. Sorry if I sounded terse in my edit summary, it was definitely not intended!-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots21:07, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
I was just joking with you BUT...read the AfD because you are going against consensus. Vanamonde93 chose not to redirect for obvious reasons and went with delete. Why would you overrule that decision not act to delete it? It has nothing to do with the current AfD. I feel like I am wasting my time at NPP. Atsme💬📧21:26, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
I don't think it's fair to frame it as overruling a decision. If I had personally restored the article, or created the redirect myself then that statement could be made. Not acting to delete a redirect where the two deletion criteria provided don't apply is not overruling anything, it's just boring everyday admin work. I suppose an admin could apply an WP:IAR deletion, but I don't think it's necessary when WP:RfD is just down the street and around the corner.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots21:44, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
My apologies for a crappy choice of words. Now fixed. The frustration of being an NPP reviewer will probably require a night out on the town. Atsme💬📧00:09, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
Thanks
I really wasn't sure what to do with Mystic Band. I know BLP says it's OK to revert with that type of info but I don't feel I have enough experience as to what to do next. Knitsey (talk) 21:03, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
That's why they pay me three times as much as a normal admin makes. I find the big action. Didn't look like they were very successful at what they were trying, at least. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:55, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
I'm knee-deep in Stubes99 at the moment, I'll try to get back to this. If I don't, please ping me. Anyway, it's not the salary, it's the WMF stock options that make this all worthwhile. When they IPO, I'll be able to retire to Slobbovia. -- RoySmith(talk)23:03, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
Everything's blocked and tagged according to what's been confirmed so far, and at this point it's pretty much WP:DUCK territory, so there's no harm nor foul if the cases remain separate for now.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots23:08, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions about User:Ponyo. 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.