User talk:Ponyo/Archive 46

Archive 40

←

Archive 44

Archive 45

Archive 46

Sockywocky

Hi P, any chance you could look into any Paavada socks? I don't know anything about this guy, but Anon mentioned on my talk page that Mahamagadh might be a suspect. They both seem oddly interested in biotech companies (Mahamagadh created an article about one and Paavada edited some like Genome Valley and HITEC City.[1] And they both edited Mikhael (film). Actually, now that I look at Paavada, it has the mercaptan stench of Padmalakshmisx. Did I win anything? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:45, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb: Winner winner chicken dinner! Paavada was blocked as  Confirmed to Uricnobel and Contrib2, both of whom you blocked as suspected Padma socks. I didn't bother checking further to link Paavada to a master as the confirmation of socking in general was enough to block indef.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:30, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Buskan007

user:Buskan007 is abusing her talkpage. CLCStudent (talk) 22:27, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Got it, thanks.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:48, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

User:Abbycarroll

Hi Ponyo. I saw your post at User talk:Abbycarroll about COI. I previously posted something similar here as well, but it was removed. She's denied any such connection in a couple of other posts since then, so I'm not sure what more can be done about that. Even if there's a COI, they probably can still work on the draft as long as they submit it to AfC for review. I have no real opinion on the draft itself, other than I think it might be a case of TOOSOON and that there might be still some BLP concerns (you need to check their user talk page history/contributions for details on that since they've blanked the page a couple of times). I think this is a new editor trying to find their way and perhaps being a bit surprised and frustrated that Wikipedia doesn't exactly work how they thought it worked; there's been a bit of lashing out, but maybe that will stop once they cool down. Now that she's been warned by you and another administrator, maybe things will settle down a bit. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:48, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Abbycarroll can't both be photographing the subject who is posing for them at a hotel and have no connection to the subject. Regardless, the sole purpose in creating the account has been to 1) promote a non-notable individual and 2) add BLP violations to a related article, repeatedly. To me, Abby is being obviously dishonest regarding their connection to the subject, but the more pressing concern is the Mel B article edits. I admire your patience and willingness to work with Abbycarroll (seriously, you're a star!), but I respectfully disagree that they will be able to edit neutrally regarding Dujuan Thomas. And it's extremely important that they stay away from the Mel B article altogether and stop including the BLP violations anywhere on Wikipedia.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:05, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm not really disagreeing with you here. I'm just saying what they posted elsewhere; at the same time, I'm aware of WP:PACT and feel now that they've been warned that the onus on is on them to modify their behavior. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:27, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Agree completely.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:39, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

PS Why aren't you an admin yet?-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:45, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

YGM! -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:43, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Today has been MADNESS at work. I will definitely take a look over the weekend. -- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:22, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Her last series of edits on the draft she's editing are telling. First source is an archived press release from his high school (with a false title) to reference his attendance (for which it is likely satisfactorily, but shows a likely error elsewhere in the article. Is he actually in the NG, or is she just claiming that based on his participation in NROTC?) The second source doesn't mention him at all and of course does not verify her claim. I'm sorry, but between her obvious lies about the image and her cluelessness about references, it appears we either have an infatuated child, or a complete lack of CIR. Frankly, I am at the point that if she resubmits the draft without some solid media sources (and at least one from outside Paducah) the draft needs to be 86'd and so does she. John from Idegon (talk) 23:08, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

The file has been tagged with {{OTRS pending}} which means it's copyright ownership, etc. will be sorted out by OTRS. Now, whether, as part of that sorting out, any possible COI is also clarified is something only OTRS will only be able to say. I believe that administrators can see OTRS emails; so, perhaps Ponyo can check to see if the OTRS email clarifies the source of the image and any connection between the uploader and Thomas. As for the other concerns, I think those are valid and will not necessarily be resolved by OTRS verification of the image. They may need to be addressed separately from the image. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:31, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Just to update, the file's licensing has been verified by OTRS; so, that should at least resolve that particular issue. The other issues about a possible COI, the Wikpedia notabality of Thhoms and the content/sourcing about the alleged Mel B incident, however, still may require some further discussion. Since Ponyo is an admin, he can probably see the OTRS email to check whether COI is an issue. The Mel B stuff might require Abbycarroll going to WP:BLPN and WP:RSN to seek other opinions if she still feels content about it should somehow be included in that article, particularly since the article talk page discussion seems to be in disagreement about adding it at the moment. As for Thomas Wikipedia notabiliy, it still seems like it might be WP:TOOSOON for a stand-alone article to be written about him by anyone, but at the very least WP:GNG for things other then the alleged Mel B incident is going to need to be met. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:54, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Another mess on my talk page

Hello Ponyo. Hope everything's good on your end. Can you please Semi-Protect my talk page for another 3 months? My talk page has recently experienced another spate of vandalism, and one LTA in particular has taken a liking to long-term trolling. I'm getting sick of seeing their nonsense over and over again. Thanks. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 23:27, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Ponyo's not around (generally true on weekends). I semi'd your Talk page for three months.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:01, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

BBC IP - yet again!

Hello Ponyo, I wonder if you can help? Some months back I asked User:Ronhjones to look into the activities of a IP, based in the West Country of the UK - who was making a host of unsourced/unreferenced edits on BBC pages. Ron eventually blocked then for a year. Unfortunately, the IP has re-surfaced as 86.151.58.139 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) making exactly the same type of edits as before and refusing to use their Talk page. Ron, unfortunately, has not edited since April 2019, so could you help? Regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 10:54, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

I recognize this guy. New IP blocked.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:23, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Many thanks for your help. Regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 18:03, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Regret to say, they have now re-surfaced as 86.189.157.35 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) with exactly the same style of edits. David J Johnson (talk) 19:47, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Blocked as well. Interestingly, that IP was previously used by another LTA.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:02, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

My thanks again, just hope they don't re-appear with another IP or User name. Regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 20:03, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

If they keep hopping around, let me know and I'll just semi protect the articles.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:10, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Will do. They seem to not want to abide by Wikipedia conventions. David J Johnson (talk) 20:13, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Just re-appeared, yet again, as 86.164.218.122 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). If they carry on, then all the BBC News pages, plus Channel 4 and various race articles will have to be protected? Thanks for your help. David J Johnson (talk) 11:35, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

They've probably moved on for now, and the edits have been reverted. Given their persistence it may be necessary to protect the articles soon.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 14:55, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

• I think you are right regarding protection, they have now moved to 2A02:C7D:8439:B200:90E3:16b0:2FB4:A7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) in the same south of England areas, making exactly the same unsourced edits on BBC News at Nine and BBC Weekend News. They ignore any advice/warnings on the various Talk pages and supply absolutely no references/sources. This abuse of Wikipedia conventions has to stop. Regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 11:05, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

They've used that range before; as they're the only one on it I've blocked it for a year.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:17, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Many thanks and regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 16:46, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Persistent edit warring

Hello,

I wanted to bring to your attention an editor who has been persistently edit warring on Somalia today. They have received numerous warnings today [2] [3] about edit warring. You yourself have warned the editor about going beyond 3RR and to cease reverting [4], yet the editor continues to revert the page [5] without reaching consensus on the talk page. I was wondering if you could look into this? Koodbuur (talk) 22:36, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Wadaad ignored my final warning (even though they were already past three reverts) and reverted again. I've blocked them for 48 hours.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:39, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your prompt response. Koodbuur (talk) 22:55, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

112.200.77.67

user:112.200.77.67 is abusing her talkpage. CLCStudent (talk) 23:06, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

TPA revoked.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:08, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Article Deletion - Banita Sandhu

Hi, you deleted this page that I was working on - I've now read the deletion log history and can see why the page would be picked up for review. I thought that this actress would meet notability criteria, and I don't think the draft was biased, but I'm not planning to contest the decision. Is it possible for me to get what I had drafted so that in future, if she achieves a higher level of notability, I can add to what I'd started on? Thanks for your vigilance! BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:31, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

The article did not contain any more material that demonstrated the subject meets WP:NACTOR than when it was deleted per consensus in 2018. I have never seen a deletion log like this, all over an individual who's sum contribution to the world of entertainment has been 2 ads and one film appearance. Keep an eye on your email and I will send you a copy of the deleted text.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:41, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! Received the details. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:47, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Ice hockey/hockey roaming IP

The banned IP appears to be roaming and also going after High school boys ice hockey in Minnesota. Editor IPs seem to be in the same range. Yosemiter (talk) 02:48, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you Yosemiter; I've blocked the /64 range.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 15:40, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Dan Leno

Hi there, what is wrong with mentioning that Leno was portrayed in a film. Hundreds of decent articles have such facts in. Thanks :-) Cls14 (talk) 22:38, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

I've replied on the article talk page, where the discussion is taking place. As noted there, please ensure you get consensus to restore the content as its inclusion is disputed.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:47, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

I can manage to be civil, more than the other guy in the discussion can manage. Who decides if something is disputed though. One person? Genuine question this, promise! Cls14 (talk) 22:49, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

No one has to decide if an edit is disputed, the revert of your edit means the content is disputed. Again, please read WP:BRD. You were Bold, your edit was Reverted, now you need to Discuss in order to obtain consensus. Cassianto's first revert was not starting an edit war, it's a standard part of the editorial process. Regarding your claim of civility your hands are not clean in that regard. -- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:58, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Fair point. There is a reason you are admin it appears, you know your stuff :-) Anyway I've left that page well alone. I'll say it now it's out in the open, editors like him are driving people away from Wikipedia (there was an essay on Wikipedia not long ago about declining editor numbers). He appears arrogant, bullish, unsympathetic and the history of the page is littered with him acting like he alone can edit it. For the record I'd hardly say making an edit was being bold but I'm not going to argue. Thanks for being a reasonable figure between two other editors. Respect. Cls14 (talk) 23:03, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

If you find yourself in a dispute, this page is your friend. -- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:06, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thank you for applying protection to Hemphill, Texas, I was just about to request protection! — Preceding unsigned comment added by OXYLYPSE (talk • contribs) 23:06, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

While there may be a discussion to be had regarding how much of the case to include, repeatedly blanking the well-sourced content wholesale is outright based on what amounts to "I don't like it" is disruptive. Hopefully the protection will push the IP/new editor to the talk page to discuss their concerns. I made a point of noting that legal threats won't be tolerated as they appear to be heading in that direction.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:12, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

help

can you show me how to edit it in the right way i am new here example, maybe ?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Andromeda517 (talk • contribs)

I have responded on your talk page. You are adding an entry to a disambiguation page that has no related article.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:50, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks you...

for this. Best regards. Bernard (talk) 17:39, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

No problem. The message they left on your talk page pretty much melted Google Translate.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:42, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

jaja. Is a "old friend" of es.wiki CU and he was never too kind. The original account. Bernard (talk) 19:45, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Asking a favor

Hello Ponyo. I hope you are well. Next week I will be seeing La bohème at the Santa Fe Opera and yes I am very excited. Any time I go there I remember (and miss) User:Viva-Verdi. The first userbox on his page is about the first opera he ever saw. I would like to add it (with my first) to my user page but, as his page is protected, I can't do a copy paste. I am not sure whether it is a full userbox template or just the raw markup that needs formatting into a template. In either case when you have a moment would you please copy it to the workspace section of User:MarnetteD/Sandbox2/formatting. I hope you have a marvelous weekend. MarnetteD|Talk 18:04, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Always lovely to hear from you, especially on happy occasions such as this! I've provided you with the template code on the page you linked. Cheers, -- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:08, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you P. Much appreciated! MarnetteD|Talk 18:10, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Just stopping by to say the performance was delightful as was the rest of the trip. Cheers and enjoy your week P. MarnetteD|Talk 01:38, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Consistent sockpuppetry on Talk:Uncyclopedia

Hello Ponyo. I have noticed that your auto-protection on Talk:Uncyclopedia has been ineffective at stopping sockpuppets from trying to spread their "opinion". This edit-war will probably go on forever without arbitration. Could you raise the level of protection to extended-confirmed (30/500) for a week, in order to cool down the heat? Thanks. Kevindongyt (talk) 04:31, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

P.S. : Could you also auto-protect my user talk page (User_talk:Kevindongyt) for some time? I'm tired of undo'ing sockpuppets all the time. Kevindongyt (talk) 04:36, 28 July 2019 (UTC) Already done by another admin. Kevindongyt (talk) 17:54, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Donald Leifert

Would you mind if I moved this discussion to his talk page? Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 18:03, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Which discussion? The one on your talk? If so, feel free, but I have already responded on the article talk page so the material may be redundant.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:09, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

OK, good deal. I will respond on the talk page in the future - let's keep the comments related to this article on it's talk page. Thanks. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 18:23, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan!-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:24, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

A word of thanks.

I don't know how you noticed the actions of User:Riqui Puig el millor but I would like to thank you for handling it. I am not familiar with manually reporting users, had essentially given up on trying to figure out AN3, and was just coming to the realization that this person really had nothing better to do today. Thank you for intervening. 8.20.65.4 (talk) 19:21, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

No problem. No one should have to tolerate the threats and harassment they were heaping on you. -- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:22, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Possible conflict of interest/promotional/sockpuppet editing in Austin Music Foundation article?

Hi Ponyo - I've made some IP edits on Wikipedia, but really know nothing about the internal processes. I have been reading some on how Wikipedia works lately, and in the process (I think through WikiProject Orphans) ran across what I think are problematic recent edits in the Austin Music Foundation article, which have been reverted thrice, once by you, for COI/promo problems. It looks to me like the users https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:AustinMusicFoundation&action=edit&redlink=1, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:AMF_Events&action=edit&redlink=1, and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Elg0429&action=edit&redlink=1 are all the same person or persons, and are editing their own article. (obviously I don't even know how to link to a user yet, sorry...)

The user AustinMusicFoundation appears to be blocked, but not the more recent two. Could you take a look, and see what might need to be done, if anything? Or forward the information to whoever might need to see it? Thanks. 74.111.24.128 (talk) 00:45, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

• Yes, those two accounts are  Confirmed to User:AustinMusicFoundation. I tried to edit the article to be less promotional, but it was spam down to the studs and there was nothing salvageable, not even the lead! This isn't surprising given that it was created by a single purpose account in 2006 and has only really been edited by WP:COI editors since. I've speedy deleted the article as unambiguous promotion.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:30, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your quick response and action on this! (And also for demonstrating how to link to a user :) I noticed that myself, sometimes literal years between edits in that article.
    
    If ever I create a user account, this event will be an important reason why. Thanks again, and in appreciation I award you with the IP Editor's Barnstar ⭐️ Lol 74.111.24.128 (talk) 19:39, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Big Boss sock account?

Hi! Would Special:Contributions/Srinesh.saravanan be a sock for the Big Boss-related edits? There hasn't been much IP activity lately and then this account pops up immediately asking for confirmed and then proceeds into the exact same articles doing essentially the same edits. Let me know if I need to make an actual SPI page instead of contacting you directly. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 12:11, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Blocked by someone who didn't take a five day holiday!-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:50, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Was it a good holiday?--Bbb23 (talk) 19:52, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

I feel like I'm paranoid about every other account now, but Special:Contributions/Sarvesh2005 appears to fit the pattern exactly with lots of edits to the same articles. Already managed to change key values to what appears to be false information. The whole history of these articles is just new, similarly-named and single-purpose accounts and IPs, so I can't even tell anymore who is or isn't a sock... Then there are account like Special:Contributions/Adarshkrishna22290 that have been editing these pages in the sameish way for years and never reply to talk page concerns. (I feel like there's gotta be an easier way to deal with this, but there probably isn't without just constantly monitoring it with CU tools.) —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 10:57, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Bbb23 on the case again. Coincidence? 🤔 —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 13:21, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

hide IP

Hello, I'm not sure if there's a centralized form for this, so I'm just contacting an overseer(correct form of role?). I recently edited Mandatory_retirement. I thought I was logged into my account, and I didn't notice the usual not logged in banner that I see if I get auto-logged out. I'm at a friend's house right now, so I don't want his IP showing up in public history log for something I edited.

Is this something you can help with?

Pokeswap (talk) 17:48, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

@Pokeswap: I've hidden the IP, but please send such requests to the Oversight Team in the future. You will receive quicker (and more private) action.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:53, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

More of the same - Spawn of Bwooooood?

Hello. Thank you for blocking this unuseful editor. I don't know if your Magic Admin Tools show you account creations too (and if they do, sorry, and I will stfu now) but I noticed that this user and this user appear to have been created by the unmissed Bwooooood before their unfortunate vaporisation. Do I (by which I mean you) need to worry about these other accounts and perhaps yet others? I don't really know how that side of things works so please forgive me if it is an unusually stupid question! Neither has edited yet but I don't really see why they were created and what good they will do. With thanks and best wishes DBaK (talk) 22:18, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know; I've blocked the two additional accounts as well.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:23, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 22:44, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Zoe Telford

I am really at a lost as to why you keep discarding my changes. They are all well sourced. I am not paid by anyone. And your explanation that my edits "did not appear constructive" seems very subjective. The current page was last updated in 2014. I simply updated the page and included personal information that is readily available to the public, including UK registries. If you want me to source those as well, I would be happy to. I spent a lot of time to get her page right. I have some information that I chose not to disclose because I couldn't verify or cross check them. Zoe Telford's page has been legitimately and diligently updated.

Zoe Telford is one of the most recognizable faces on British TV. She is not a fly-by-night actress. And no, I am ABSOLUTELY NOT BEING PAID by anyone remotely connected to her. There is a dearth of information on her that is simply frustrating to fans like myself. Her Wiki page, as it is, is doing her a disservice. She deserves more.

So please, I am asking you to bring back the changes I made. If you have any question on my sources or intentions, please send me an email.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack.D.Tipper (talk • contribs) 16:27, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

@Jack.D.Tipper: I think perhaps you have me mistaken for another editor. I haven't reverted any of your changes, nor have I ever said your edits "did not appear constructive". I did, however, leave a message on your talk page regarding editing with a conflict of interest. Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view, and you including claims such as "Telford is one of the most recognizable faces on British TV" and "Telford has worked alongside some of the UK’s most revered actors" include a promotional tone common in editors who have a conflict of interest or are editing for pay contrary to the Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use (hence my note on your talk page). While I understand that it is frustrating to see your work undone, it may be helpful to take a step back and review the links I've provided in my reply here.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:44, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying that those 2 statements equate to “promotional tone” and I will be happy to change them to a “more neutral tone”.

I will edit the last version I have and you can judge for yourself if they are neutral enough. Thank you. Jack.D.Tipper (talk) 16:52, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

I would also update her body if work, which is far more extensive than what is there right now. Please bring back the page I created and give me 24 hours to make all the changes, then you can judge for yourself.

Thank you. Jack.D.Tipper (talk) 17:03, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

@Jack.D.Tipper: As other editors have reverted your prior changes, I would suggest outlining your intended changes on the article talk page as opposed to editing the article directly at this time. This will allow other editors to review and make suggestions if they choose. There are also many suggestions outlined here as to how to proceed if you find yourself in a content dispute. -- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:13, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Honestly, I wouldn’t know where to begin. It seems that this process has become cumbersome. I don’t intend on engaging in an “edit war” - I didn’t even know the term until today.

I have already spent more time than necessary on a writeup that more than likely only British people would appreciate.

Thank you for your response. Jack.D.Tipper (talk) 17:20, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Your edits were clearly made in good faith and I understand that Wikipedia can be a daunting place at first, full of policies and guidelines that can be difficult to navigate. I've left a welcome message at the top of your talk page; it contains plenty of helpful information on how to get involved if you're still interested. -- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:25, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Sock

I was wondering who the random Russian was, and why he suddenly wanted to get involved with me (or maybe with the admin who had reverted me?). Whose sock was that, anyway? Dicklyon (talk) 22:09, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

@Dicklyon: I didn't dig too deep into my check once I saw all the globally locked accounts related to the same editor. I don't think you were their target at all, they were just trying to create the most amount of damage possible before the inevitable block and AN/I is a great venue for said disruption. -- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:20, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Ain't that the truth! Dicklyon (talk) 22:24, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Possible sock at The Chronicles of Narnia: The Voyage of the Dawn Treader

Hi Ponyo, earlier today/yesterday you range-blocked an IP for edit-warring on The Chronicles of Narnia: The Voyage of the Dawn Treader. Since that time a different IP has started making similar edits. In their last revision they did provide a source (which I haven't reviewed), though they retained non-neutral language. As I question the need for the edit in general I warned them for NPOV and encouraged them to discuss the matter at the article's Talk page, but felt you should be aware that the same editor may be utilizing a new IP. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 05:43, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

I've blocked the new IP as well.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:34, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the assist! DonIago (talk) 20:02, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

User talk pages

Hi there! Out of sheer curiosity as I am inexperienced here, what are the unique circumstances that will cause a user talk page to be deleted? Thanks in advance. Geo ^talk 17:27, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

@Geojournal: If the page was created in error, or if it has been used solely for vandalism/trolling or was created as an attack page it may be deleted at an admin's discretion. Also, copyright violations with no edits from others or user talk pages created by socks and not edited by others and certain instances where suppression is required and there is no "clean" version to revert to.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:43, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

awman

I didn't even get to see what they said!--Jorm (talk) 19:37, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

It was...unoriginal at best.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:39, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Was it someone challenging me to a fight? Those are my favorite.--Jorm (talk) 19:44, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Nope.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:47, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Block adjustment

Hi Ponyo. I hope you don't mind, and feel free to revert me if so, but I changed the block on 2601:540:C400:2CA6::0/64 to three years after looking at that range. This user has been adding unsourced BLP violations to articles since May of last year, and been warned many many times. I didn't even notice this myself before, and the user had actually popped up on more than one page on my watchlist. Something something stupid mediawiki ipv6 handling. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:30, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

No problem-o.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 15:41, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

BBC IP - yet again and again!

Hello Ponyo, Sorry to bother you again, but the BBC IP has started-up yet again using 86.9.95.201 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), just returned from a one-year block by another admin on this IP. They have been warned multiple times by yourself and several other administrators, to no avail. The changes they make are always without any sources/references and recently they have not responded to any warnings on their Talk page. Hope you can help again? Regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 15:53, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

I've reblocked the IP for another year.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:00, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Many thanks for all your help. Best, David, David J Johnson (talk) 16:07, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Berke Özer

Hello, why did you delete Berke Özer? He played on fully professional level for Fenerbahçe SK and KVC Westerlo. He played at week 1 and week 2 of Belgian First Division B with 2 clean sheets, including being selected into team of the week (here [6]). His article is Wiki legit and compliant,just requiring a stats update. Please return this article immediately. Thank you. Isik (talk) 16:32, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Ok, don't bother. I did it with necessary updateds, including information with 1st hand references about his debut in Belgium and his second game. Thanks. Isik (talk) 17:22, 17 August 2019 (UTC).

sock

Hey I’m mobile right now so can’t get derailed but the CIR editor your just blocked is a sock of the creator of their article I just tagged for G4. Praxidicae (talk) 21:12, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

There is a long history of socking regarding Vivek Verma. I'm sure it's tied to paid editing, but everything is stale and the ranges used are enormous and diverse. It's easier just to block for disruption and general incompetence in this case.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:16, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Ryan Harris (cricketer)

Thanks for protecting that. I'm having the same problem with the same editor (who's used at least 8 ip addresses in the last 8 hours) at Nathan Coulter-Nile and, to a lesser extent at Paul Reiffel. I was just about at the stage of asking formally for their protection - do you think it would be worthwhile protecting those two as well for now and then we can see what happens. Thanks Blue Square Thing (talk) 21:12, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Well my attempt to semi-protect the articles to drive discussion to the talk page didn't work as they continue to blank your posts there; I've had to protect the talk pages as well. The /20 range is full of collateral so I don't want to perform an anon-only range block unless I run out of options. I have a feeling they're just going to pop up elsewhere, so please let me know if you see the same IP hopper on other articles.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:23, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I imagine that will happen and I understand why a range block would be daft. I'll keep an eye out. Blue Square Thing (talk) 21:28, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Undisclosed paid editing?

Hi P, could you take a look at this guy, please and tell me what you think from your experience? His new articles are all over the map. A Danish brand dealing in ready-to-wear clothes, a mattress-in-a-box company, a 19-year-old entrepreneur, a brand new author, an ethical hacker, a young-playback-singer-slash-state-shooting-champion, an Indian haute couture company. I know that I'm very cynical, but this just smells funny to me. That said, I can't really fault all of the content. The brand new author, for example, has a few in-depth news articles written about him, so he is potentially notable. Same with the 19-year-old entrepreneur. So, there's that. Thx. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:39, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

I would guess it's indeed UPE. I'd provide them with the {{subst:uw-paid}} template to ensure they're aware of the Foundations policies regarding disclosure, and if none are forthcoming I would point MER-C in their general direction; they're the expert!-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:16, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Stimeems

Thanks for blocking that sock. I got busy with real life this morning, and was just going to start researching to see if they had any issues. They had left a message on my talk page regarding the List of World Transplant Games (WTG) article, and since World Transplant Games is blocked from creation, I thought something might be up. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:22, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

@Onel5969: see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rowingasia.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:33, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Wow. Gotta give the person credit for persistence. I mean seriously? Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:34, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Request for temporary protection to my user talk page

Would it be possible to request to have temporary protection to my user talk page? Because I've received quite a few messages recently, and none of them were of any value. (If you check the last few that I've received, you'll know why I've labelled them as not having any value) I was thinking of requesting that my talk page be temporarily protected so that only users with autoconfirmed status and up can post messages on my user talk page. ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 11:32, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

@C.Syde65: I've semi-protected your Talk page for one week.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:53, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Hopefully that will break the pattern of unnecessary messages on my talk page. Though I have my doubts once the protection expires. ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 00:14, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

If the disruption resumes after the protection expires, you can always ask Ponyo or me to reprotect (and at that point probably for longer). You an also make the request at WP:RFPP if neither of us is around.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:21, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

I'll try to keep an eye on it also. I be a admin here! Bishonen | talk 20:17, 26 August 2019 (UTC).

Socking it

Hi, you blocked Simransharma7440 yesterday as a promo-only user. Today I present for your delectation SharmaSimaya who is not just similar in username but identical in behaviour, changing dead links in various articles to le-corps.com spam. Too obvious for an SPI - could you do the needful? --bonadea contributions talk 21:12, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

She could if she graced us with her presence on the weekend. Meanwhile, I'm her leisure agent (I'm not smart enough to take any time off), so the unimaginative sock is now blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:06, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

My leisure agent? Love it! Can I clone you for real life too?-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:25, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

The cloning fee is $US100,000. If you wish a perpetual license for future clonings, it would cost you 5x that. But think of the benefits!--Bbb23 (talk) 17:33, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

That's like...a bazillion Canadian dollars! Can I pay you in maple syrup, Coffee Crisps and unrelenting politeness? -- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:38, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

That's not offering much. You're already polite. I don't like coffee or coffee-flavored anything. And maple syrup in and of itself isn't much good. Now if you're willing to come over and make Belgian waffles and pancakes (both from scratch) and provide the (real) maple syrup, that would be at least a starting point for a serious negotiation. And you clean up after the mess you make. Oh and we need a real Belgian waffle iron, too.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:52, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

You are vastly underestimating the extent of my laziness. How about I slingshot some Timbits in your general direction?-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:02, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

What is this? Canadian Food Day? Donut holes are fattening. Belgian waffles are healthy and nutritious. Besides, one of the languages they speak in Belgium is French, and one of the languages Canadians speak is sort of French.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:10, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

I'll swap out the Timbits for a Swiss Chalet rotisserie chicken. I'll call it "Jacques" and tape a beret to its breast to keep with the French theme you find so desirous. Final offer.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:18, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Ah, c'est charmant, le fast-food canadien qui prétend d'être...je ne sais pas quoi. Franchement, je suis étonné de recevoir une telle offre. Mais puisque moi aussi je suis poli, je ne dis que non. Et non. Toujours non.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:41, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

C'est dommage. Tu es si difficile! -- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:47, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Merci. C'est gentil.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:12, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Sockpuppeteer

You know how you just blocked 2606:A000:FC11:7400:FCAB:44C5:DB3C:12C9 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) and 2606:A000:FC11:7400:A4E1:F6D4:DEDF:8D0 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) a few hours ago? I just want to let you know that those IPs' edits and edit summaries are continuations of this user Deekafinate (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki).Mr Fink (talk) 02:38, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

I blocked the named account for the duration of the rangeblock. Those are some odd edits indeed.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:25, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Unblock appeal #26511

Hi Ponyo, I just received a reply to unblock appeal #26511 from you stating it has been denied as I have been able to make edits. I submitted that request as I am using multiple IP addresses, some of which are blocked and I will be on the blocked IP addresses more often than this one. Can this be re-opened? Hintswen  Talk | Contribs  17:15, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

The problem I've run into is that you have barely edited at all since January 2016 until yesterday whereupon you have edited prolifically without hitting the blocks. It's a bit of a borderline case. How long did you say you needed it for? -- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:24, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Probably around 3 Months, possibly even less but I couldn't say. Hintswen  Talk | Contribs 

I've provided IPBE for a month. If you find you still need it beyond this time it can be extended.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:32, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Great thanks, if I still need it in a month I'll put in another request. Hintswen  Talk | Contribs  17:37, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Please reconsider

Hi Ponyo, I wasn't ever suggesting that this user was related, as I noted in the SPI (which I also objected to.) These are a set of different users who are using Wikipedia as a webhost, you can see more http://www.city-data.com/forum/weather/2478491-dream-climate-battle-cubitsville-vs-clearstown.html here where they are using Wikipedia to generate "dream climate" charts with fictional data. Praxidicae (talk) 21:14, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

This is so weird. Another Checkuser did a few checks regarding a cluster of similar accounts a few months ago; @MusikAnimal: do you have anything to add to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ClimateFictions12345 based on your checks around your CU block of AJ1391?-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:29, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

I’m headed off to a happy hour but I can explain a little later what I think is going on. Praxidicae (talk) 21:32, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

I'll be heading into an extended Happy Hour myself shortly, not returning until next Tuesday. My Leisure Agent will be less than pleased that they have to pull double duty for a week whilst I enjoy the peaceful ambiance of the North Shore.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:37, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Your beloved leisure agent is a bit grumpy after the cavalier way in which you (mis)treated him in our recent negotiations, so I wouldn't count on his stepping in during your unsanctioned absence. XXOO --Bbb23 (talk) 21:48, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Ahhh, merde.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:51, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Everything I know is at User talk:QIDb602#Your sandbox and User talk:MusikAnimal/Archive 40#Sandbox Vandalizing Continues - QIDb602. They all came from some external forum and are using their sandboxes to visualize climate data. There is one person who was banned from that forum, and that's who's behind the accounts I blocked. The rest of the accounts are innocent. I originally turned a blind eye from these sandboxes (which seemingly go against WP:NOTWEBHOST), but if we keep having to deal with the sockpuppets they attract, then we might suggest they use a different wiki. Administrative resources should be reserved for protecting the encyclopedia, not fake climate data. — MusikAnimal ^talk 22:50, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

URGENT

I just saw that you deleted my sandbox which I had put years of hard work into, both for observation purposes and for the embetterment of various wikipedia articles. I had previously gained clearance from a wikipedia admin to use my sandbox in the way I had been utilizing it. I need that information back so I hope you have some way to access it. Thanks

AJ1399 (talk) 21:36, 27 August 2019 (UTC)AJ1399

AJ1399, if you associate an email address with your Wikipedia account I or another admin can email you the deleted data. On the condition of course that you don't use Wikipedia to store fictional climate data anymore. – bradv🍁 21:42, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Please send the deleted data to (Redacted)

Thanks

AJ1399 (talk) 21:48, 27 August 2019 (UTC)AJ1399

You've made a minuscule amount of edits to improve Wikipedia, while the vast majority of your edits have been to use Wikipedia as a webhost for your own personal use. I can send you the content of the deleted page, but you will need to find another venue to host your fake climate group content, which I assume is related to this discussion. -- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:49, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Perfect. I won't use Wikipedia for that purpose anymore. Please send me the data.

AJ1399 (talk) 21:51, 27 August 2019 (UTC)AJ1013

You just need to go in to your Preferences and click "Allow other users to email me" at the bottom of your User Profile tab. You can disable it again once I send it, if you wish.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:53, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Done

AJ1399 (talk) 21:57, 27 August 2019 (UTC)AJ1399

Ok, the full content of the most recent version has been emailed to you.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:59, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

The version you sent me is incomplete

AJ1399 (talk) 22:07, 27 August 2019 (UTC)AJ1399

I've resent it, but it was a complete cut and paste of the last version of the code from your sandbox, beginning with {{User sandbox}} and ending with the complete weatherbox for "Equinox Winter".-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:14, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

I've only recieved down to "Tucson 1949-1976"

Equinox winter is the correct end point but I didn't receive it.

AJ1399 (talk) 22:16, 27 August 2019 (UTC)AJ1399

Nevermind, the message was clipped.

Thank you

AJ1399 (talk) 22:18, 27 August 2019 (UTC)AJ1399

• So, all good?-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:21, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

False claims

"restore sourced content removed without explanation"[7]

I explained my edits in the edit summaries. What is your reason for lying? Doktor Rotkod (talk) 23:19, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

You are stripping sourced content and introducing a non-standard lead into a good article. Take your concerns to the article talk page and get consensus for the changes.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:22, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Another likely sock of Farah.moonfairy

• Farahaquarius (talk · contribs)
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1016#User_Farah.moonfairy

This new account added four entries, where three of the four new references are unreliable. Three of the entries may be new, but the fourth was added by Farah.moonfairy [8], and had been recently removed [9]. Given the similarity between the usernames, I think this is likely another sock. --Ronz (talk) 03:19, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

 Done.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:48, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Padmalakshmisx

Hi friend, a new (6 month old) sock of Padma was brought to my attention, Rvls Might you look around if you get a sec, please? Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Padmalakshmisx Thank you, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:27, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Go away

Can't you tell date?--Bbb23 (talk) 22:11, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm just doing some fun stuff. I'll still leave all the hard work for you -- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:16, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

BC1278

Can I ask why it's inappropriate to point out ethically questionable behavior by BC1278 on his talk page? He has a disturbing history and has been admonished by several editors DaRonPayne (talk) 20:31, 5 September 2019 (UTC).

I've left a message on your talk page. See WP:BLANKING.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:32, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Understood. I think that there needs to be a permanent and easily accessible place to document this editor's behavior. It doesn't necessarily belong in the COI section, because it seems like he is abusing Wikipedia's rules in an aggressive and unethical way that several other editors have admonished him for in the past.DaRonPayne (talk) 20:34, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

If you find yourself in conflict with another editor, follow the dispute resolution policy. All talk pages have an easily accessible history; an editor blanking the page doesn't actually serve to hide anything. -- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:40, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you!

Just wanted to say a quick thank you for my talk page protection. Always appreciate your help! -- LuK3 (Talk) 17:31, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

No problem.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:33, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Regarding My Edits

Hello. Regarding my edits on Trish Bertram's page, I feel the need to clarify a few things. First off, there is no conflict of interest seeing as i don't know her. Also, the article is uncited/referenced because everytime I add one, it gets taken down. Editing this page is not a five minute job and i need time to add what is required and edit the information. If you could please leave it until I'm finished, there might be a page worth seeing. Thanks ever so! -- Hellfirehound (talk) 22:12, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Hellfirehound, rather than restoring unsourced material and then subsequently working through it to add references, you should only restore it with a reference. If that means adding it bit-by-bit, then that is what you should so. WP:BURDEN is very clear that the responsibility to provide sources lies with the person restoring deleted material. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:40, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2019).

Administrator changes

Bradv • Chetsford • Izno

Floquenbeam • Lectonar

DESiegel • Jake Wartenberg • Rjanag • Topbanana

CheckUser changes

Callanecc • LFaraone • There'sNoTime

Oversight changes

Callanecc • Fox • HJ Mitchell • LFaraone • There'sNoTime

Technical news

• Editors using the mobile website on Wikipedia can opt-in to new advanced features via your settings page. This will give access to more interface links, special pages, and tools.
• The advanced version of the edit review pages (recent changes, watchlist, and related changes) now includes two new filters. These filters are for "All contents" and "All discussions". They will filter the view to just those namespaces.

Arbitration

• A request for comment is open to provide an opportunity to amend the structure, rules, and procedures of the 2019 English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee election and to resolve any issues not covered by existing rules.

Miscellaneous

• A global request for comment is in progress regarding whether a user group should be created that could modify edit filters across all public Wikimedia wikis.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:37, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

ANI follow-up

Hello Ponyo. Regarding this thread, would it have been better for me to report the accounts to AIV to begin with? I was hesitant to do so because no single account was persistently vandalizing. Also, the sock appears to be back at it again with Levine’s beard. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 23:28, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

I have one foot out the door, but yes, please report to AIV. You can link the AN/I report I closed or this discussion if you think it would help or if you receive any push back the admin reviewing your AIV report.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:33, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Alright, will do. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 21:46, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Possible sock skirting a block

Ponyo, since you were involved last time in a block at User talk:Hickskevin2212, thought I'd make you aware that another user with the same editing tendencies (amusement park articles, edit summaries, etc.) is now back editing on Wikipedia under Khicks2212. I don't have the tools to verify, but thought I'd bring it to your attention. Thanks. --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:28, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Yup, that's them. Now blocked.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:34, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Minor edits

A few days ago, you joined me in asking a user who was inappropriately marking every edit as "minor" - [10]. I am now experiencing this with another user , see for example this, a nearly 3000-byte addition to the text, inappropriately marked as "minor", and misleadingly labeled as "CE" in the edit summary. I was hoping you'd drop him a cautionary note about this, seeing as my own advice was simply ignored. Here come the Suns (talk) 23:39, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

The edit you highlight definitely should not have been marked as minor, but it was made over two months ago. There are bigger fish to fry at the moment.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:49, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

when you don't take action, the bad behavior is reinforced and it is inevitable that it continues - [11] - another 3000-byte addition to the text, inappropriately marked as "minor", and misleadingly labeled as "CE" in the edit summary, this one from a few days ago. Here come the Suns (talk) 04:16, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Admins are not supposed to "take action" on incidences that occurred well in the past, and if your message is meant to be some sort of "I told you so", it has not been well received on this end. Marking edits as minor when 1) they're not and 2) you're aware of WP:MINOR is a dick move, but isn't disruptive enough on its own to merit a block or sanction. Other admins may disagree, but that's my take. -- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:49, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

The actions did not occur well in the past, they were ongoing when I pointed them out, I just gave you one very egregious example. There were many others, on the same day. I didn't ask for a block or a sanction, I aksed that you use your authority, as an admin, to let the user know on their talk page that their editing is inappropriate. If you don't want to get involved fine, I'll find someone who actually understands their role and responsibilities as an admin. Here come the Suns (talk) 01:42, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

You have no idea how liberating it has been for me to spend eight years wielding the admin mop with no understanding of my role or responsibilities! I just stick around for all the perks and fat cash stacks. I guess you'll have to find a real admin (perhaps Drmies or Bishonen?) to cater to your requests. -- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 15:48, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

The more trivial or inappropriate the request, the higher my rate. I'm thinking I might get a few car payments out of this one. Oh, Ponyo, your pink slip is in the mail, of course. Drmies (talk) 16:13, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

BTW I'm looking into that editor: a real gem. Look at this. Drmies (talk) 16:19, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

A history of edit warring and incivility? Now that's something I could dig into, if only I was more in touch with my administrative role and responsibilities. On another bummer note, I'm afraid I'll have to return the pink slip as it will clash terribly with my auburn tresses. -- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:44, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Gender

I'm male, by the way. There's a passing mention of it on my user page. I don't particularly care what gender-pronoun people use to refer to me, unless they are deliberately trolling. :) --Yamla (talk) 00:01, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks!

For this. I was going to say something to them about their edits today. Planned to do it last night but internet conked out at the crucial moment :)-- 5 albert square (talk) 00:15, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

I have a feeling they will be back, perhaps with a new account name.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:57, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Sockpuppet

Hi there. I filed this report which builds on some previous work you'd done with User:Kundaliniwar. I would also appreciate some advice as a new sysop - is this a case where I should just make a Duck block or was filing the SPI the correct move? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:19, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

A duck block cuts through a lot of red tape, but if you have any doubts about the connection between the accounts or if the sockmaster has a history of creating many socks at once and/or sleepers, it's best to run it through SPI. You can always duck block and still ask for a CU check for sleepers at SPI. Also, congrats on the new buttons! -- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:03, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

KingOfGangsters

I dropped the originally-blocking admin WGFinley a note here, but since they appear to be sporadically active and you undid KoG's talk page shuffle I'm messaging you as well. I recommend re-blocking KingOfGangsters; one of the conditions of WGFinley's unblock was to leave the unblock discussion on KoG's talk page for a month, and KoG's attempt to clear their talk page and delete the history looks like a clearly bad-faith violation of those terms. ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 17:49, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm not impressed by their actions in at all; I can't fathom a good faith scenario for the end run at talk page deletion, but I've given them one more opportunity to explain themselves. -- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:07, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, much appreciated. ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 19:55, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up on this. With prior behavior and violation of an agreement I spelled out I have reblocked for 1 week, further discussion is on his talk page. --WGFinley (talk) 21:14, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

@WGFinley: What KingOfGangsters did was to move their user talk page to a supposed "draft" subpage, then to nominate the subpage for deletion in order to strip the entire talk page history. They did, however, cut and paste the verbiage of your agreement to the new talk page that was created after the move. This is difficult to pin down in the form of a dif (which you have to dig through the deleted edits to find) due to the outright disruptive page move and subsequent restoration of the history. Ultimately the page move served to sever the context of your discussion from the actual history of the page. The unblock conditions may not have been blatantly violated, but the spirit of it (i.e. maintaining accountability) certainly was.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:34, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Trader Joes

Again, this conversation has run its course
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hi - further to your messages such as [12]: The tag is sound. That more than one person is mistaken is irrelevant, and a logical fallacy (argumentum ad populum) Also, the legitimate edits have been explained in edit summaries, whilst the reverts were not. You will also note the editor who started the difficulty is blind reverting this legitimate edit, does not post edit summaries, posts fake warnings, make false accusations of vandalism, has prevented messages being posted on his talk page and hence stifles discussions. I have added relevant comments to the talk page of the article [13] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C5:9313:B900:44CE:4463:2E4A:F6A8 (talk) 19:47, 18 September 2019 (UTC) The tag may very well be sound, and I noted as such on your talk page, however the article talk page is the place to make such an argument. Reviewing admins at WP:3RN don't play "who's edit summary is better" nor do they make personal judgements as to which version of the article is better (outside of evaluating the usual exemptions) and continued reverts on your part would have led to a block as you were restoring the disputed tag despite three other editors disagreeing with its inclusion. In addition to the talk page discussion you started, there are dispute resolution suggestions listed here that you may find useful.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 19:59, 18 September 2019 (UTC) ’... don't play "who's edit summary is better"’ which wouldn’t be possible anyway given the blind reverts did have an edit summary. ’... despite three other editors ...’ a further example of argumentum ad populum. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C5:9313:B900:44CE:4463:2E4A:F6A8 (talk) 20:07, 18 September 2019 (UTC) Wholly irrelevant in this case as 3RR is policy and your belief as to how things should work is not. I'm starting to pick up a BKFIP vibe; best you not head down that road.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:12, 18 September 2019 (UTC) Whether you consider these relevant does not prevent them being correct, and ‘pick up a BKFIP vibe’ makes no sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C5:9313:B900:44CE:4463:2E4A:F6A8 (talk) 20:25, 18 September 2019 (UTC) The problem is that everyone believes they're "correct", which is why the 3RR policy was developed by the community in the first place. Since your continued arguments here have no bearing on the outcome of the process, there's no point in making further posts here. Good luck with your talk page discussion. -- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:40, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello

Can I ask a question? رفاقت (talk) 16:18, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

I believe you just did.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:33, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

UNCivil UNOwenNYC

Hello Ponyo — I'm thrilled when others make constructive edits to articles I've contributed to. I'm not exactly thrilled when an edit summary reads, "There's SO much WRONG ... People who wish to contribute should have at MINIMUM the literary, and grammar capabilities of someone 18 years old." (See Bob's Big Boy September 19 edit by UNOwenNYC.) UNOwenNYC just won't stop making snide edit summary comments. They serve no useful purpose except to antagonize and demoralize editors. What to do? Thanks pal — βox73 (৳alk) 11:24, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

That's both unfortunate and unacceptable. I don't understand why UNOwenNYC can't edit civilly or collaboratively; I've given them a two week break to find it within themselves to follow each of our five pillars.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:21, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

User:DangDaniel1

Hi Ponyo. Just wondering if DangDaniel1 should be added as another sock of Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Antiracistzwei. Perhaps it doesn't matter much at this point, but Rodianreader was CU blocked for socking. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:25, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

It was actually Zzuuzz who ran the check and blocked, I just revoked talk page access. I'll let them make the call on the tagging. -- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:29, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

OK. Thanks for clarifying. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:36, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

I will leave it for anyone else. As far as I'm concerned the user is confirmed as Rodianreader. A different CU made the confirmation to Antiracistzwei (something denied[14]). Let's be honest it looks quite likely. But when it comes to these things I often ask myself whether there is any point in doing any more paperwork. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:39, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Sock block

Hi, Jez. I see at User talk:Kelly princeoj you blocked the editor for sockpuppetry. Would you like to close Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Clever west? JBW (talk) Formerly known as JamesBWatson 23:19, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm going to pretend that I wasn't in the midst of doing so when you left your note here and instead say "your wish is my command!". And I like the new sig; it's sleek.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:23, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes. I came back to say "I see you are ahead of me", but I see that you are ahead of me again. I will never catch up. Zeno would have understood. JBW (talk) Formerly known as JamesBWatson 23:25, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Mama needs a new pair of shoes!-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:30, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Hmm. I now see it should have been at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wizkizayo, so a request for a clerk to merge might be in order. I'd do it myself, but I am out of time and have to go. JBW (talk) Formerly known as JamesBWatson 23:22, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

• Since I had my user name changed I have had several people tell me they preferred the old one, but your comment about my new signature being "sleek" is the first positive one I've had. You've quite cheered me up. JBW (talk) Formerly known as JamesBWatson 13:38, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

• I like your new username. If nothing else, it's short! As for your sig, with all due respect to Ponyo, I have trouble thinking of it as "sleek".--Bbb23 (talk) 15:03, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

I like "sleek"; the new sig is "well-groomed" so to speak. In fact, it's sleek and on-fleek!-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 15:51, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm with Bbb23 on this. The shortness of the new user name was one of the considerations I took into account when choosing it, but like Bbb23 I can't understand how "sleek" applies. However, if you see it that way, Ponyo, that's fine. I'm not actually keen on tacking Formerly known as JamesBWatson onto my signature. I find things like that in signatures distracting, and I prefer just the plain user name on its own, but I thought so many people know me by the old name that it would risk confusing people if it looked as though I was someone completely different, so I put it in for clarity. I am wondering how long I need to keep it before I get rid of it. (And if Ponyo gets upset then because it isn't sleek enough for her, well hard luck, Ponyo .) JBW (talk) Formerly known as JamesBWatson 20:20, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

I had to look up fleek. Ponyo knows I'm not a with-it kinda guy. I give her full marks, though, for coming up with a fitting, interesting word that rhymes with sleek.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:27, 25 September 2019 (UTC) (formerly known as no one)

It's the brevity that makes it sleek (as opposed to messy, unkempt signatures). When the time comes to ditch the italics, I imagine I'll like it even more!-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:30, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

My favorite admin sig: User:B.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:10, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

You liked it so much you triplicated it!-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:13, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Reading that, I wondered if I should change my user name again, and become just J, but it turns out there's already an editor with that user name. I'm afraid P has gone too, Ponyo, but Po is available, in case you might think of sleekifying yourself a little. Bbb is available too, so Bbb23 could become even sleeker than now. JBW (talk) Formerly known as JamesBWatson 10:47, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Sock of PandaBuzzLightyear (talk · contribs)

Hey, could you run a CU on BackyardDirt (talk · contribs)? Thanks! Eagles 24/7 (C) 14:47, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

@Eagles247: Can you provide some context? You've already blocked them, so a check is only warranted if you doubt the connection or expect there to be sleepers.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 15:54, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Oops, yeah could you check if there are any sleepers? Eagles 24/7 (C) 15:56, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm just stepping into a meeting. I'll take a closer look in a bit.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:01, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

I found a sleeper on the range they used previously, but nothing new.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:25, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:09, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

WP:NONDEF and LGBT Cats

Pro or con I would really appreciate your input at: Some really interesting statements are being made. I won't be able to respond until later today. --Luke Kindred (talk) 19:13, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

References

Thanks...

...for the block of the Daniel C. Boyer IP sock. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:13, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

No problem. What a PITA.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:15, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

page deleted?

Hey just confused on why my page was deleted, I felt I was following the guidelines, and I also use templates of Similar personalities One person who’s actually a coworker, and one is a former coworker but both American radio personality. Wasn’t using it for resume our extended advertisement as the title stated. so can you please help me places Article we’re it supposed to be placed, or tell me what I need to remove from the article so it wouldn't be deleted!!!

Tank you!

--MusicweLovey (talk) 23:55, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

@MusicweLovey: For a biography article to be included in Wikipedia it must consist of reliably sourced content, be written in a neutral fashion and the individual must meet our notability criteria. The article you wrote regarding your coworker does not meet any of these three requirements. In addition, creating articles on your coworkers creates a conflict of interest; please don't continue to do so.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:12, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

You’re abusing your power

I’m not advertise anything if you consider what I’m doing advertisement that every page on Wikipedia should be deleted MusicweLovey (talk) 17:12, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

No; you're miusuing Wikipedia to promote individuals you know personally and work with. As I noted in my response to you above, it needs to stop.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:14, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

About disput on Immigration Voice

Hi, Ponyo. Yes, people dispute about Immigration Voice and its' proposed S386 and HR1044 act. The act is claimed to be Fairness for all green card holders, while only Indians are the beneficiary. People from other country are not satisfied with their proposal. If you are Indian, please judge before abusing your power to ban peoples' criticism or claim them to be unsourced POV, because the whole Immigration Voice is unsourced POV: it does not represent green card applicants from Other countries except India, there are no shown evidence that people from other country support it! If you are really against POV, this Immigration Voice article should be deleted or banned.

If you continue to edit disruptively by adding your unsourced POV commentary to the article, you will be blocked. Your concerns regarding the article could be valid, but you're so wrapped up in your own personal beliefs on the subject that you are incapable of editing in the neutral manner required by policy.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:03, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Now I will undo your revision and collect criticism voices toward this. Wiki should not mislead people. IV does not represent non-indians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.80.178.5 (talk) 22:58, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

And the inevitable dénouement of this familiar story has unfolded as predicted.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:18, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Especially since the IP has returned in the form of FreeSpeachRight (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)--Mr Fink (talk) 23:28, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks - I am new to wikipedia, didn't understand all of the rules. Thanks for enlightening me (and no, not myself) Jqwerty1 (talk) 14:49, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Archive 40

←

Archive 44

Archive 45

Archive 46