Misplaced Pages

User talk:Ponyo: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 14:33, 31 July 2021 editTheProWrestlingFanatic (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users571 edits Undid revision 1036436193 by 2601:189:481:8160:810C:1FA2:8865:5B69 (talk)Tags: Undo Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit← Previous edit Latest revision as of 23:36, 21 January 2025 edit undoPonyo (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators171,969 editsm →January 2025: typo 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Busy}}

{{Archives|collapsed=yes|search=yes| {{Archives|collapsed=yes|search=yes|
*] *]
Line 44: Line 46:
*] *]
*] *]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
}} }}




== Barnstar ==

{| style="border: 1px solid gray; background-color: #fdffe7;"
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align:middle;" | ]
|rowspan="2" |
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | '''The Admin's Barnstar'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | Don't know what you did to acquire such a fan base at UTRS, but it must've been good. Thanks for all you do. --<b>] ]</b> 09:25, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
|}
:I've never been so popular! Even while away an ever-revolving list of IPs left lovely well wishes and sweet missives on my talk page. Clearly I'm doing something right.-- ]<sup>]</sup> 22:13, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

== User Kambliyil ==

Hi Ponyo. I contact you, because you recently blocked @]. I found that the user is again editing on the Kerala related pages in a rather disruptive manner under the IP ]. May I request you to check if it is the same user? Thank you. ] (]) 15:03, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Identically, an anonym {{U|150.129.101.67}} is doing mass edits by projecting the features of ] on numerous articles. I don't recognize who he was. Please have a look. ]<sup>]</sup> 14:55, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
:{{ping|ThaThinThaKiThaTha|Outlander07}} My block of Kambliyil was a checkuser block; any IP socking that may be occurring needs to be raised at ] as I can't link accounts to IPs.-- ]<sup>]</sup> 22:07, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

==User Alandyept==
Hi. Can you check whether the ] is a sock puppet of ]? <!-- Template:Unsigned --><span class="autosigned" style="font-size:85%;">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </span>
:This has been handled by {{U|ST47}}.-- ]<sup>]</sup> 22:02, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

==Radixsaurus==

Hello,Ponyo! I just wanted to inform you that, evidently, a user whom you recently banned indefinitely for disruptive editing (] – ]) Additionally, they constantly mention you on ]. Anyway, ] is already semi-protected for a month by {{u|Sfs90}}, well? — ] (]) 05:56, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
:Radixsaurus was blocked for 24 hours, not indefinitely, and they've never mentioned me once on their talk page. I have no idea what you're asking me.-- ]<sup>]</sup> 22:00, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

==Hello==
Please can you remove the protection from ] page as it was protected in 2015 by you and now it's been more than 6 years. The page is not properly written so please remove the protection so I can edit it.
] (]) 18:25, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
:The article has been, and continues to be, a perpetual sock target. There is no reason to lift the protection.-- ]<sup>]</sup> 21:54, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

== Talk:Suicide ==

Hi Ponyo. I stumbled upon the problems at ], and see another SPA that should be blocked, {{user|KillerMachina}}. I rarely consider partial protection for a talk page, but what do you think? --] (]) 17:07, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
:{{re|Hipal}} I think that both {{user|KillerMachina}} and {{user|92.40.200.2}} are socks of {{user|Buscalotumismo}}. --] 18:19, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
::Obviously. I've asked for partial protection, and notified Materialscientist that the problem is continuing. Looks like there's a response already to the protection request. --] (]) 18:22, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
:::{{U|Ohnoitsjamie}} has blocked 92.40.200.0/25 for a month, so that should provide some relief.-- ]<sup>]</sup> 21:50, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

== Figment ==

It's July 7. You're not here.--] (]) 18:20, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
:But. But...why not?-- ]<sup>]</sup> 18:22, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
::No ifs, ands, or buts, please. Why not the figment asks? Because.--] (]) 18:35, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

==Query==
I am curious about ], an account that made two edits almost 15 years ago, returned today to very active editing. Any ideas here based on patterns you've seen? <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 23:46, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
:{{ping|Liz}} It looks to me like a sleeper that's been revived and has loaded a script to burn through extended confirmed. I have no clue who it could be though.-- ]<sup>]</sup> 15:54, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
::Yes. But there's nothing to see, unfortunately. ] (]) 15:56, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

== More Block Evasion ==

Hi, the vandal you blocked at {{checkip|152.166.160.88}} appears to have returned at {{checkip|152.0.55.247}}. Or, at least, may I request a checkIP thingy to make sure that this isn't the same vandal?--] (]) 18:29, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
:Those edits are from yesterday. It does show that they have access to more than one range as I blocked 152.166.0.0/16. The 152.0 range has more activity on it, so I won't block it. ] (and ]) will be the order of the day I suppose.-- ]<sup>]</sup> 18:36, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
::Understood.--] (]) 18:48, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

== Thank you ==

Hi Ponyo - hope you are well. Thank you for your work with page protections, etc, with the anon. LTA. Much appreciated. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 18:03, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
:I'm used to dealing with their nonsense; sorry they seem to have now turned the spotlight on you.-- ]<sup>]</sup> 18:04, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

== LTA CU ==

You CU-blocked {{noping|Happy FJ 2021}} without publicly identifying the master, which is fine. ] LTA-blocked {{noping|Bkonad}} without publicly identifying the master, which is also fine. But one of Bk's two edits is the same as one of Happy's edits. Could you confirm if Bk is a sock of whatever drawer Happy is? ] (]) 04:47, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
:Generally when blocking LTAs the master isn't tagged or named because it just provides them with more attention. I can't really check Bkonad because they're already blocked and LTAs typically have multiple dynamic ranges and ISPs (or VPNs etc.) available to them to keep churning out accounts. Checking several days later won't help prevent further abuse. Given the edits at ], it appears obvious they're the same person.-- ]<sup>]</sup> 21:55, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
::Also, check out the history of ]. This has been ongoing for eons.-- ]<sup>]</sup> 23:25, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

== Nabi Mammadov ==

Hey Ponyo, you protected ] the other day as a result of ]. Did you mean to set the protection level to template editor? That doesn't really seem right to me (since it's not a template), but maybe there's something I'm missing here. ] (]) 20:41, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
:{{ping|GeneralNotability}} Whooops, drop-down menu click error. Fixed now!-- ]<sup>]</sup> 22:01, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

== Thank you ==

Hello Ponyo, thanks for dealing with the LTA who moved my userpage when I was away - much appreciated. They had registered that username, which is now blocked. Best, ] (]) 10:53, 14 July 2021 (UTC)


==Ian Fleming==
{{atop|Jesus wept.-- ]<sup>]</sup> 22:01, 15 July 2021 (UTC)}}
{{atop|This discussion is done. I have more than met ] regarding your partial block.-- ]<sup>]</sup> 18:04, 15 July 2021 (UTC)}}
I restate I was not the only one editing warring.
I followed the rules. Reverted my entire edit which is a violation of the policy of reverting. I would also point out his edits were adding inaccurate information i.e. Ian Fleming failed his Foreign Office exam which I corrected. If he thought I made a mistake. I should haven't have kept reverting and apologize.] (]) 23:16, 14 July 2021 (UTC).
:If you believe you were following the rules, you are clearly unfamiliar with them. As I noted on your talk page, ] is still available to you. If you believe the block was in error (i.e. you weren't edit warning), you can appeal it on your talk page.-- ]<sup>]</sup> 23:20, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
:: I know I reverted three times within 24 hours. It was a mistake, I apologize and I won't do it again whether unblock or not. I figured they would just stop when they read the policy of if somebody has an issue, just fix the mistake rather deleting the every edit I made unrelated to his complain including adding inaccurate information. I get their mistake doesn't mean I can make my own. I know there is a discussion about Ian Fleming broken engagement , but I mentioned the other changes on the Talk Page without objection . ] (]) 23:28, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
::: I have written my appeal. Please forgiven any poor spelling or grammar on my part. I read his/her concerns on my edit. I don't agree he/she should I revert completely unrelated edits and still believe if he/she could have just fix the mistake rather than revert instead, but I am not here to concern myself with other people's editing, just my own. I realize this isn't my personal website and only wish to improve the article particularly the inaccurate parts. If unblocked now or before one week, I wouldn't revert, but simply fix the issue he/she raised myself.
::: If nothing else, the Talk Page of Ian Fleming shows I am not opposed to discussion. Obviously I wish to be unblock hence I am writing this, but eve if unblocked, I won't edit the Ian Fleming article again today to cool off. ] (]) 23:44, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
I looked again and I think you were in error in saying I edited warred. Explained on my Talk Page. I only reverted twice in 24 hours rather than three. ] (]) 00:20, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
:Although I maintain I did 2 and didn't do 3 reverts within 24 hours, but you mentioned to me to learn the guidelines better and here is the guideline I was trying to remember which doesn't excuse me totally ]. Other contributors reverted non-controversial and discussed things probably because hadn't bothered to read the Talk Page ] and ] because often don't noticed some of the reverted were already discussed. So this wasn't me just being petty or vindictive. The only disagree was slight wording changes to a single sentence yet the other contributor, who has never participated in any discussion which I get he/she isn't required to do, reverted the entire thing which Misplaced Pages warns is move which often leads to edit warring. I thought I was in the right even repeatedly reverting, even just twice, wasn't the way to go about it. Again, outside blocked/unblocked only asking what I misinterpreted about this guidelines? ] (]) 01:52, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
::You were blocked for ], not ]. Again, despite being blocked previously for the same policy violations and multiple warnings on your talk page, you don't seem to understand what edit warring is. Your unblock request on your talk page was malformed and showed as closed. I've fixed it for you.-- ]<sup>]</sup> 15:39, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
::: I'll never understand how the exact information so under dispute on Ian Fleming's article is right now on two other articles and nobody cares or how much time people devote to reverting good faith edits while stuff like this goes totally unnoticed, but not what the issue here is. You don't tell me how I edit warred, just that I must not understand it. I think and hope Misplaced Pages believed in ], but no matter what, because I was blocked FOUR YEARS AGO, I must be wrong now because I was wrong before and I will never get a fair hearing or slightest benefit of the doubt or presumption of good faith intention on this specific issue? I'm always hesitant to involve admin since I worry they'll just throw in my face prior bad acts no matter how long ago and dismiss me, but you proving me right wasn't helpful. I'd point these are type of contributors who accused me of edit warring since my last block on my Talk Page. Getting accused of something doesn't make it so and I tried to avoid it since the last time. Also I asked on the notice board about what to do and posted it nobody has responded. I was reverting harmful edits and did so only twice. Also feels like 99 times of a 100 admins just tell you to have more discussion hence my love of blah-blahing on Talk Pages. ] (]) 16:52, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
::::When you make an edit and it is disputed (i.e. reverted), the ] is that you go to the article talk page to discuss the changes and get ] for the change. The moment you restored your edit, you were edit warring. You did this repeatedly. '''That is edit warring'''. It's very important that you understand that if multiple editors and administrators are telling you that you're edit warring, then the most likely explanation is that you are edit warring, not that you understand the policies and everyone else is somehow mistaken. The edits were not harmful simply because you believe you're right. There really is nothing more to say here.-- ]<sup>]</sup> 17:40, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

===Don't understand===
::: Why are there so many guidelines on bad faith ''find consensus'' reverts like ] or ] and ] and ] and ] and ] if admins seem to believe it never happens or at least admins seem to have an impossibly high standard that effectively means it never happens? ] (]) 17:58, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
{{abot}}

==Citations==
Separate from the block/unblock, may I ask a question on citations. Unsure it that is something you do.] (]) 23:50, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
:The best place to ask questions about formating, referencing and such is ].-- ]<sup>]</sup> 15:40, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
:: Thank you for the suggestion. ] (]) 20:43, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

==July 2021==
]
] There is currently a discussion at ] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.<!--Template:Discussion notice--><!--Template:ANI-notice--> ] (]) 18:33, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
:Any response from me will have to wait until I've finished my delicious Kung Pao Tofu.-- ]<sup>]</sup> 18:39, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
::The ANI report is apparently written in invisible ink, so you'll need to brush your monitor lightly with water (or kung pao sauce) to see it. --] (]) 18:58, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
*{{tps}} I looked into this situation, as it's played out on a couple of pages on my watchlist, and I have to say that I'm utterly scandalized that you would impose an extremely mild sanction on a user who was edit warring and put an end to an 18+ hour-long conversation that was clearly going nowhere. I have no doubt you'll be desysopped and likely community banned for this. Criminal prosecution may follow. ] <small><small>]</small></small> 19:13, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
:::Well folks, it was only a matter of time. It's been a good run!-- ]<sup>]</sup> 19:20, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
::::Not to add insult to injury, but I'm afraid we're going to have to ask for the company car back as well. --] (]) 19:23, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
:::::<small>ideally minus the tofu crumbs. ]&nbsp;]] 19:24, 15 July 2021 (UTC)</small>
:::::: ]. ] (]) 19:30, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
:::::::]. --] (]) 19:33, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
:::::::] here should actually read pages like that before linking to them, lest they come down with a bad case of ]. ] <small><small>]</small></small> 19:55, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
::::::::If your guys' day was even slightly brighten with a laugh at my expense then it has also brighten my day. ] (]) 20:38, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
:::::::::I really don't think the jokes were at your expense, particularly; we (or at least I) are just having some fun about the general thanklessness of editing Misplaced Pages. That said, I'm sorry for causing offense; it was definitely not my intention, and I bet that's probably true of the other editors in this section, too. ]&nbsp;]] 20:58, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
::::::::::My comment was less about humor and more about offering some good advice, but yes; if I ever crack a joke at someone else's expense, the point is very rarely to cause offense, but to extract humor from a situation that could probably use a laugh or two. If I suspect it'll cause offense, I usually won't say it, and if I do cause offense, I try to apologize whenever possible.
::::::::::I think anyone familiar with my block log can recall what happens when I decide to send someone a direct "Screw you and the moustache you rode in on." ] <small><small>]</small></small> 21:12, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
:::::::::::<small>No, sir, I’m not biting my thumb at you, but I am biting my thumb.-- ]<sup>]</sup> 21:16, 15 July 2021 (UTC)</small>
::::::::::::Do you quarrel, sir?? ] <small><small>]</small></small> 21:24, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

==Ian Fleming==
So ] recommended trying to discuss it and I don't want to assume you don't care if I ever make another edit ever again. Honest didn't noticed the switch in reverts. Originally it was reverting over minor wording then it escalated to everything. What's point of this idea ] and wondering in a week if it's alright to fix the non-contentions part i.e. more direct wikilink to and uniformity of the use of {{nee}}. Basically to the last version by this other contributor as the Talk Page nobody cared let alone opposed the other stuff, just the wording around why he broke off his engagement. ] rather just revert, revert which didn't do any good and that's on me. I get this is probably all better discussed on the article's Talk Page for the actual article, but the page for what to do when one is blocked tells me to also discuss with the admin on the block on how best to prevent future ones and wanted to know if these were good ideas or not and seem to get in disputes hence why I check with all those guideline pages to check what to do since my understanding is questionable. ] (]) 20:38, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
:{{tps}} Okay, so I think part of your confusion is that you keep referring to the page ] for guidance, but I think that's probably not the best idea. That page is ''not'' policy; it's an opinion essay written by a single user almost ''17 years ago'', and it hasn't really been significantly touched in almost 10 years. That's not to say that it's worthless, but it is of ''vastly'' lesser importance and utility than ]. If your edits are reverted, you should go discuss them on the talk page before continuing to push for them. That's it.
:And yes, that can absolutely be frustrating, especially when it feels like you're 100% objectively right, and the other people involved aren't giving you the time of day. But that's how it goes on Misplaced Pages. If you can't form a consensus among the other editors, then you seek ]. If, when you get reverted, you stop making edits and take it to the talk page, then you won't get in trouble for edit-warring; that's ultimately all there is to it. ]&nbsp;]] 20:56, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
::Cladeal832, imagine that my job as an admin is to ensure that no one makes waffles in Jimbo's Pie Factory. You made waffles, were clearly warned not to, yet continued making waffles. As a result, I took your waffle iron away, leaving you all of the ingredients and tools you need to still make pie if you choose to do so. From the moment I took away that waffle iron, your arguments to me have consisted of explanations as to why you felt compelled to make waffles and why you used very specific ingredients in your waffles. The details are not relevant to me or my job. Waffles are not pie. -- ]<sup>]</sup> 21:02, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
::: So if you were a bakery, you just sell waffles and nothing else even pies and probably go out of business pretty soon. That's a terrible analogy. One, I'm not asking asking about the past, but prevent future blocks which is part of the job otherwise why do it. ] (]) 21:26, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
::::I thought the buck had been passed to {{U|Oshwah}}?-- ]<sup>]</sup> 21:30, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
::::<small>i'm so sorry about your inbox, Ponyo</small> Have you ever heard of the expression "those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it"? We're trying to get you to understand what to do to avoid getting blocked in the future, but if you don't understand why you were blocked, you're not going to understand what to do to not get blocked again. If all you got out of Ponyo's analogy is that "selling waffles at a bakery is a bad business plan", then you didn't even ''try'' to understand what she was telling you--I mean, you even got the waffles vs. pie part exactly backwards. We're all doing our best to be helpful, but you don't seem to be listening. ]&nbsp;]] 21:42, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
::::: I have to wonder if User:Ponyo reads the posts since User:Oshwah recommended discussing any sincere questions with you again and that's the first I wrote. ] (]) 21:45, 15 July 2021 (UTC).
::::: I am listening. Other admins can be helpful, I'm sorry I expected this one to be also and rather then some waffle analogy to tell me they only cares about blocking, perhaps provide some advice if not help. ] (]) 21:49, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
::::: I haven't been blocked for over four years so yes, I have learned from history. ] (]) 21:53, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
::::::{{ec}} ] - Was there anything in my response that was unclear or confusing to you? I took quite a bit of time to try and explain exactly where you went wrong. I just want to know so that I can help you. Ponyo's analogy (though funny) was spot-on. He's trying to tell you that repeating the same undesired behavior is going to result in you not being able to perform that action at all (temporarily, of course). This is why you were partially-blocked from the article. I feel like both myself and ] have done our best to try and explain the relevant Misplaced Pages policies to you in a clear and easy-to-understand manner, and with patience and the ] in mind. It seems like you're stuck on the fact that the ] essay page exists, and I feel like your thoughts regarding your actions are centered around it. This page is only an essay; it's not a Misplaced Pages ]. Please feel free to direct any future questions or concerns to my user talk page ]. I'll be more than happy to answer your questions and help you to the best of my ability. ]<sup><small><b>] ]</b></small></sup> 23:06, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
{{abot}}
::::::: I guess I also stuck on this one too ]. ] (]) 23:09, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

== Searching for multiple additions of the same text. ==

Your Ponyoship, I am curious if there is some tool out there that can look for multiple identical changes. ] (]) 22:55, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
:If there is, I'm unfortunately unaware of it. I'm a "fifty tabs open to compare diffs" kinda gal.-- ]<sup>]</sup> 22:59, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
::Thanks. That person you recently blocked who was adding his tribute to Mata Hari to multiple articles could, for all we know, be right back at it under a slightly less eyebrow-raising username, and us none the wiser. ] (]) 23:05, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
:::Hmmm. I'm intrigued. Can you give me a hint?-- ]<sup>]</sup> 23:08, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
::::]. ] (]) 23:58, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
:::::Oh I see. You're concerned that this same editor may have been "sexying-up" other articles using the same text as some point (or may in the future). I pulled a snipped of the text and ran and search, which only returned the expected articles (), so I assume the coast is clear for now.-- ]<sup>]</sup> 15:37, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
:::::::Nahh, nothing so specific. The last bunch I saw before this was someone claiming that a great many prominent folk were, in fact, hedgehogs. ] (]) 16:04, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
::::::::If only!-- ]<sup>]</sup> 16:12, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

== WP:PAID interpretations==

Re Sixarp25, thanks for pointing that out. I am all for proper disclosure but it gets tiring, as you can see from that discussion. Are you saying that the internship qualifies as a paid disclosure by our standards, because they get something from it? I am very curious to hear your thoughts, as our PAID and COI policies leave a lot of room for users to employ loose interpretations. I had someone tell me recently that WP:PAID only applies to company employees if they work in the publicity or communications department. That struck me as patently wrong. It would be great to hear your thoughts. --- ] ] 22:40, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
:I wrote it <small>very small</small> on your talk because I know it's an enormous pain (and resource drain) dealing with these cases and my note just made it even more complicated for you. I'm sorry! The policy at ] does state that ''"'''Interns''' are considered employees for this purpose. If they are directed or expected to edit Misplaced Pages as part of an internship, they must disclose"'' (emphasis original). I don't see anything in the policy that limits the disclosure requirements to company publicists and the comms department and would be surprised to find that to be the case. {{U|MER-C}} is really experienced with dealing with the whole paid editing realm; they may be able to provide additional advice. -- ]<sup>]</sup> 22:51, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
::Thanks, I am glad you pointed it out to me. Feel free to use any size text you like on my talk page. --- ] ] 22:53, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
:::{{Huge|Are you sure about that?-- ]<sup>]</sup> 22:58, 20 July 2021 (UTC)}}


== Lil Durk on[REDACTED] ==


== Opinion on Zhoban predecessor ==
Hi. you recently removed edits that were made on the ] Page as there are no reliable sources, i did forget to add them but i do have some sources, Let me know if i forgot some
Hey, Ponyo. Happy holidays! I was wondering, would you be able to take a look at a now-archived query I brought up on the ]? I remain fairly convinced that because of the IP ranges and editing styles that before he created his Zhoban account, this vandal was JohnRamirez. RoySmith opined in 2021 that it wasn't really relevant to merge the pages as neither case is active nowadays, but I believe that consolidating it to one investigation could be helpful, in case he rears his ugly vitriol once more. What do you think? ''']'''<sub>&nbsp;(]•])</sub> 19:57, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
:Or, perhaps we could merge everything ''into'' the JohnRamirez investigation, given it preceded his Zhoban days? ''']'''<sub>&nbsp;(]•])</sub> 14:00, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
::I agree with Roy. There are enough active cases that reaching back a decade+ to evaluate and re-tag accounts is not a great use of volunteer time. Thank you, though, for keeping tabs on this LTA.-- ]<sup>]</sup> 17:28, 7 January 2025 (UTC)


== 2030s ==
Terrance "Lil Moe" Hollins (https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-bn-xpm-2009-07-16-28502737-story.html) (durk mentions him in his breakout hit L's Anthem)


Can you add 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 years on their own page I think it's time to add those years because we are like near the 2030s by 5 years sorry for asking you ] (]) 21:25, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Devon "DThang 3x" Varner (https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/breaking/chi-cops-man-escapes-gunman-only-to-be-found-killed-short-time-later-20110914-story.html) (Durk had him tatted before his brother DThang passed away)


:@] {{Not done}}: it's unclear what you're referring to. <span style="font-family:monospace; font-weight: bold"> <span style="color:ForestGreen;font-size:1.15em"> ]</span> (<span style="color:#324c80">she/they</span> {{pipe}} ]) </span> 04:45, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
Leonard "L'A Capone" Anderson (https://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20130927/south-shore-below-79th/la-capone-rapper-friend-of-lil-durk-shot-killed-outside-studio/) (They all appear together in the Play for keeps music video by anderson and fellow rapper and another friend of lil durk Rondonumbanine, And the trio have made a song called brothers)
::{{ping|Chenkens}} Any pertinent info regarding individual years can be added to ] until there is enough notable and reliably-sourced information to create standalone articles on the individual years.-- ]<sup>]</sup> 17:23, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
Incase this is needed, Tweets of lil durk reacting to the death of Leonard
:::Didn't 2025 have an article back in like 2010 I looked on its edit history goes way back to 2006 why dont y'all do that to 2030 to 2039 as standalone articles and we are 5 years from 2030 just saying I will stop bothering you after this ] (]) 17:29, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
Before passing away (After the shooting) "https://twitter.com/lildurk/status/383394733982113792"
::::The article was created in 2002, however it's important to check the article diffs from the past and to note that things have heavily changed on Misplaced Pages since the time frame you're talking about. / ] <sup><nowiki>]<nowiki>]</nowiki></sup> 23:43, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
After passing away "https://twitter.com/lildurk/status/383441412986896386"
Let me know if i forgot someone else <!-- Template:Unsigned --><span class="autosigned" style="font-size:85%;">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </span>
:{{ping|Lmoooggg}} Please feel free to restore any of the information I removed as long as you include a reliable source to support its inclusion.-- ]<sup>]</sup> 15:35, 21 July 2021 (UTC)


== A barnstar for you! == == You've got mail ==


{{You've got mail|dashlesssig=]}} I explained you the situation, I'm not sure why I've been blocked. There's a user named 'Sinclairian' who repeatedly deletes edits from others, including mine, without providing any explanation. I'm sure you would agree that a proper explanation should accompany the reversal of any edits. Otherwise, what distinguishes a responsible editor from a dictatorial approach in this context ] 00:16, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
{| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 1px solid #fceb92;"
:You are blocked because you continue to edit disruptively despite much advice on your talk page in March 2022 as to how to discuss your concerns with the article on the article talk page. You have multiple unblock requests on your talk page (you should have only 1, please delete the extra one), another admin will review the block.-- ]<sup>]</sup> 00:20, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | ]
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 3px 3px 0 3px; height: 1.5em;" | '''The Admin's Barnstar'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | Thank you for the AV and CSD-related assistance tonight! :-) ]<sup>]</sup> 23:26, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
|}


== Something you put on my talk page == == Brazilian Stalinist "year" Vandal blocked by you ==
Can I ask what the reference is that you made on my page and where this was? Thanks ] (]) 19:44, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
:{{ping|Peterrrroblox}} In you added content to a ] article without a ], which is required.-- ]<sup>]</sup> 19:46, 22 July 2021 (UTC)


]
Hello, for some reason it doesn't let me add a reference and a source to the page so do you mind adding it with this link https://metro.co.uk/2021/07/02/stacey-solomon-and-joe-swash-are-having-a-baby-girl-after-four-boys-14866123/ ] (]) 19:49, 22 July 2021 (UTC)


]
Apologies now it works I have added a source. ] (]) 19:50, 22 July 2021 (UTC)


]
== Egyptian drafts ==


]
Looks like the sockpuppetry is happening again with drafts related to Zamalek TV presenters in draftspace. I've tagged what I could for G5 (cannot find master), but there may be more duplicate drafts out there that aren't already the ones you semi-protected. I just don't have the time to find them all. ] ] 03:42, 27 July 2021 (UTC)


== July 2021 ==


]
Why did you block ]? Some of their edits appear to be in good faith, while at least one was a correction. ] (]) 22:58, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
:{{ping|Mvcg66b3r}} I think it's pretty clear from , the ] and the ] I left on their user page.-- ]<sup>]</sup> 23:06, 27 July 2021 (UTC)


I think they should be linked together. ] (]) 21:24, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
== Query==
Hello, Ponyo,


:I've reverted their disruptive edits. ] (]) 21:28, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
Two days ago, JalenFolf tagged a lot of pages as being the work of a blocked sockpuppeteer but the page creators and main contributors were a variety of IP editors. The accounts weren't blocked, as sockpuppets or for any other reason, so I untagged the pages. These accounts are still not blocked! You later deleted these pages and, from a non-checkuser admin's point of view, how can I tell if this CSD tagging is justified in the future? I generally untag pages if the page creator, and main contributor, is not blocked as a sockpuppet and warn editors not to tag pages based solely on their own suspicions but this time, you confirmed that they were justified. I have encountered cases where editors prematurely judged accounts to be sockpuppets before they'd been confirmed at a SPI case or independently by a checkuser and it turns out they were wrong. Advice? <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 00:24, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
::{{ping|Theofunny}} If you see addition socking or block evasion, start an ] using the name of the oldest account for the case name.-- ]<sup>]</sup> 21:30, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
:Hi {{ping|Liz}} - I anticipated your questions and tried to answer them but it looks like my ping to you didn't work. There are accounts behind the IPs that are blocked that I can't link directly as a checkuser. I can't block the IP ranges that continue to evade the blocks and litter the draft space with promotional junk because the ranges are simply too varied and dynamic to be effective. To block them simply for process sake (i.e. to be able to easier identify their regurgitated spam as G5 material) would be next-level bureaucracy. But that does put you in a bind in that, if you don't specifically recognize the socks in cases where IPs are evading blocks, it's difficult to know if the G5 is valid. As I noted on JalenFolf's talk page, your declines were procedurally correct based on the information you had available to you.-- ]<sup>]</sup> 15:47, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
:::], they are at it again. ] (]) 21:32, 13 January 2025 (UTC)


== Æ's old account wasn't working ==
== User talk:184.99.24.100 ==


Hi Ponyo, I rarely disagree with your administrative actions. Although I understand why you chose to pblock the user rather than block them sitewide, based on these edits, and , plus their history, I think an indefinite sitewide block is in order. In addition to their repeated disruptive behavior, I don't think the user is mentally competent to edit the project.--] (]) 00:33, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
I'm not sure what {{user|184.99.24.100}} is up to, but it looks like they're well on their way in repeating what got them blocked last week. --] (]) 00:44, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
:They reinstated their edit to ].--] (]) 00:34, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
:Thanks for letting me know. It all looks semi-legit (though unsourced) until you hit outright bit of vandalism they keep adding. -- ]<sup>]</sup> 15:46, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
::{{ping|Bbb23}} It was near the end of the wiki-work day for me, so I did what I could to start the immediate disruption but admittedly didn't look deeper in the history of the account. If you think an indef or timed site-wide block is more appropriate in this case, then please take whatever action you think appropriate.-- ]<sup>]</sup> 16:42, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
::Thank you for taking care of that. Yeah I had forgot about the edit that drew my attention in the first place.
:::Do you think the edits I reverted at ] makes me ]?--] (]) 16:45, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
::Just a note, could you please review the ? Fwiw, I Google searched each of their future exhibit claims and also checked each zoo's website against their claims and found nothing to support them, ''except'', Lake Superior Zoo. They got the exhibit names correct per the zoo's site, but the list of animals was mostly unsupported. That was the one I really didn't know how to handle at the time and why I let it go. to that article removed ''some'' of the exhibits they mention, . Was that your intention? --] (]) 16:25, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
:::Definitely not my intention, and fixed now. It seems to be some form of sneaky vandalism where there's a mix of fact and fantasy. Tough to tell sometimes. Thanks for going the extra mile to try to verify the info!-- ]<sup>]</sup> 16:40, 29 July 2021 (UTC)


== Thank you for blocking the sockpuppet... ==
== Question ==


I've suspected since ] first appeared that it was a sockpuppet for ] but they seemed to be behaving and making useful edits before their latest meltdown. Did I shirk some responsibility by not reporting my suspicions? ] (]) 00:40, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
Hi, you recently a problematic IP user ({{Ipuser|178.4.50.110}}) at ANEW. In your comments, you noted that they were also the same user as {{Ipuser|2.206.214.192}}. In an article history, I came across {{Ipuser|2.203.242.68}}, who along with editing the same articles, posting the same snippy edit summaries, and being located in the same city with the same ISP, seem to be this same user as well. It appears they were blocked last January for 3 months, but at the same time there was a range block until next January (I'm not really familiar with range blocks). The admins comments were: "''{{tq|Persistent disruptive editing, personal attacks, and block-evasion, using this and several other IP ranges}}''". My question~ is, given the latest block, the similar behavior and this info about this other account with the block, should some sort of action be taken? Should there be an SPI? Or some other action? Has this person evaded the range block? (is that a thing?) It's entirely possible this user is currently blocked on another IP account. Should that be looked into? (can it?) Anyway, I figured I would bring this to your attention, if there was something to be done, you would know (certainly better than I). Thanks again & Cheers - '']'' 13:56, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
:When disruptive IPs are hopping from one IP range to another ] is sometimes the only effective tool. -- ]<sup>]</sup> 15:50, 29 July 2021 (UTC) :It could be that any SPI would have been closed without action of the evidence wasn't strong enough to make a determination. All buttoned up now though.-- ]<sup>]</sup> 16:43, 15 January 2025 (UTC)


== The Holiptholipt Saga ==
== Books & Bytes – Issue 45 ==


Hello there, I'm writing this to thank you for the relief that the block of Holiptholipt's IP range has brought me! If the block expires and the topic returns, well, I suppose we will worry about it then (another admin suggested edit filter to me, which seems like a great idea). However, there is an IP range that was missed and which the ban evader continues to use - it has been mentioned by me and ] on ]. If you have time, would you be willing to extend the block to that range as well?
<div lang="en" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr">
<div style = "color: #936c29; font-size: 4em; font-family: Copperplate, 'Copperplate Gothic Light', serif">
] '''The Misplaced Pages Library'''
</div>
<div style = "font-size: 1.5em; margin: 0 100px">
]</div>
<div style = "line-height: 1.2">
<span style="font-size: 2em; font-family: Copperplate, 'Copperplate Gothic Light', serif">'''''Books & Bytes'''''</span><br />
Issue 45, May – June 2021
</div>
<div style = "margin-top: 1.5em; border: 3px solid #ae8c55; border-radius: .5em; padding: 1em 1.5em; font-size: 1.2em">
* Library design improvements continue
* New partnerships
* 1Lib1Ref update


Thank you so much, and have a great week! ] 23:24, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
<big>''']'''</big>
:Thanks for the note {{U|Brat Forelli}}; I've updated the SPI.-- ]<sup>]</sup> 23:30, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
</div>
::You're welcome, and thank you! ] 23:38, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
</div>
<small>Sent by ] on behalf of The Misplaced Pages Library team --11:04, 30 July 2021 (UTC)</small>
<!-- Message sent by User:Samwalton9@metawiki using the list at https://meta.wikimedia.org/search/?title=The_Wikipedia_Library/Newsletter/Recipients&oldid=21707562 -->


== January 2025 ==
== I want to tell you something. ==


] Please be careful about what you say to people. Some remarks, such as your addition to ] can easily be misinterpreted, or viewed as ]. Misplaced Pages is a supportive environment, where contributors should feel comfortable and safe while editing. Thank you.<!-- Template:Uw-harass2 --> ] (]) 22:22, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Are you sure Rotten Tomatoes is not a reliable source? According to the source Megan Taylor Harvey was born in 1992. to be honest i am not sure the information is unreliable source so i think it will be correct info.
:{{U|Valorthal77}}, I'm an admin and a checkuser. Noting that you are creating and using multiple accounts on this Misplaced Pages every time your old ones get blocked for socking at ar.wiki is not harassment. I'm advising you to declare your accounts and stick to one so that you don't end up blocked here as well.-- ]<sup>]</sup> 22:24, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
::I am aware of all that, and I am not editing with two accounts simultaneously. Why did it occur to you to conduct this check at this specific time? Isn’t this a breach of policies on your part by revealing my identity publicly? What is your purpose behind this action? Do you intend to discourage me from contributing to Misplaced Pages? ] (]) 22:26, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
:::I can see that you're not editing with two accounts simultaneously, which is why I didn't block you. But you ''are'' editing the same topics without declaring your previous accounts, which is an issue. There is no breach of policy, if was your edit history that made the connection to all of your previous accounts clear - I didn't even have to run a check! As there are many, many issues with the articles and drafts you create, you should declare your previous accounts. Editing not only the same topic area, but the same articles, without declaring the intersection of the accounts, can be seen as avoiding scrutiny, especially given your history of socking on another project. -- ]<sup>]</sup> 22:34, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Correction: I have not used sockpuppets in Arabic Misplaced Pages or any other project while having another active account. That old account has not been used there since November 2022. I had an issue with one of the administrators and decided to leave it behind. My matter with that Wiki is unrelated to the English project. I do not understand why you are taking this serious action and disclosing my identity publicly, especially when the original topic is entirely different. What you are doing could lead to significant consequences. ] (]) 22:39, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::I'm not disclosing your idenity publicly, I have no clue who you are outside of Misplaced Pages. What I have gathered through even just a brief look at your contributions is that you're editing with multiple accounts on this project without disclosing them. is extensive. And you are banned from editing for socking at ar.wiki per and . I had suggested that you declare the accounts on your talk page and restrict yourself to one account so that 1) your editing history is clear and 2) there is no concern that you are also evading scrutiny on this project. There to make the declaration.-- ]<sup>]</sup> 22:52, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::We have something called the email feature; you could have used it to communicate with me instead of creating an atmosphere of discomfort and intimidation here! ] (]) 22:42, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::There's no reason to use email in this case. Subterfuge is not required.-- ]<sup>]</sup> 22:52, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::I have only '''one '''active account, and I am not concerned with anything else. I do not edit using two accounts simultaneously because I am fully aware of this policy. My user page is my right, and I can put whatever I want on it.
:::::::Question for you: Why did you bring up this topic now when we were discussing something entirely different? ] (]) 22:57, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::{{ec}} Well, I'm concerned. Socking doesn't just mean using multiple accounts simultaneously. What you're doing is essentially stringing one ] after another, except they're invalid clean starts due to the fact that you are using multiple accounts to edit the same articles. The reason I brought it up in the first place is because it was clear from just a quick look at your editing history that you were operating multiple undeclared accounts contrary to ] given the myriad concerns raised regarding your article creations under your other accounts and especially your particiption in ] articles. -- ]<sup>]</sup> 23:11, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::{{tpw}} In addition to the other things you're doing wrong, you've been editing logged out since August 21, 2023, with ]. And your edits with those IPs are as prolific and rapid-fire as your various named accounts. And you '''cannot''' put whatever you want on your userpage.--] (]) 23:08, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::What does this have to do with me as well? Is there a problem with contributing to the encyclopedia in a calm manner? Do we need to ask for permission if we want to make quick edits? ] (]) 23:11, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::I created this account because my previous account was blocked on Arabic Misplaced Pages without making any edits. I did not create this account with bad intentions or to achieve anything specific. I did not ask for any privileges! ] (]) 23:13, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::I'm not sure why you're not understanding this. If you are editing the same articles here, including ] where your accounts are receiving ] notifications, you should be declaring all of your accounts in order to having issues on en.wiki as well.-- ]<sup>]</sup> 23:17, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::"''However, if an editor uses their new account to resume editing articles or topics in the same manner that resulted in a '''negative '''reputation in the first place (becoming involved in disputes, edit warring, or other forms of disruptive editing), the editor will probably be recognized (as a "sockpuppet") and connected to the old account, and will be sanctioned accordingly. Changing accounts to avoid the consequences of past '''bad '''behaviors is usually seen as evading scrutiny and may also lead to additional sanctions''".
::::::::::::None of this happened. You are falsely accusing me with incorrect allegations. I already told you the reason I created this account is to avoid having any account with issues (i.e. blocked on a wiki)! ] (]) 23:21, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::::You've been warned for edit warring. You've edited contentious topics and received CTOPs notifications. Myriad concerns have been raised about your article creations (many of which you just blank from your talk pages). You're creating new accounts without connecting them to your previous accounts despite these issues gives the appearance of avoiding scrutiny (the exact wording of the ] being ''"Using alternative accounts that are not fully and openly disclosed to split your editing history means that other editors may not be able to detect patterns in your contributions. While this is permitted in certain circumstances (see ]), it is a violation of this policy to create alternative accounts to confuse or deceive editors who may have a legitimate interest in reviewing your contributions."'' '''You are creating alternative account that confuse editors who may have a legitimate interest in reviewing your contributions'''. Stop. Stick to one account. Log in to edit. It's really simple. You don't need to post here any more, just don't use multiple accounts on multiple projects.-- ]<sup>]</sup> 23:35, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 23:36, 21 January 2025

This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.
Archiving icon
Archives



Opinion on Zhoban predecessor

Hey, Ponyo. Happy holidays! I was wondering, would you be able to take a look at a now-archived query I brought up on the Zhoban SPI page? I remain fairly convinced that because of the IP ranges and editing styles that before he created his Zhoban account, this vandal was JohnRamirez. RoySmith opined in 2021 that it wasn't really relevant to merge the pages as neither case is active nowadays, but I believe that consolidating it to one investigation could be helpful, in case he rears his ugly vitriol once more. What do you think? BOTTO (T•C) 19:57, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Or, perhaps we could merge everything into the JohnRamirez investigation, given it preceded his Zhoban days? BOTTO (T•C) 14:00, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
I agree with Roy. There are enough active cases that reaching back a decade+ to evaluate and re-tag accounts is not a great use of volunteer time. Thank you, though, for keeping tabs on this LTA.-- Ponyo 17:28, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

2030s

Can you add 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 years on their own page I think it's time to add those years because we are like near the 2030s by 5 years sorry for asking you Chenkens (talk) 21:25, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

@Chenkens  Not done: it's unclear what you're referring to. TheTechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 04:45, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
@Chenkens: Any pertinent info regarding individual years can be added to 2030s until there is enough notable and reliably-sourced information to create standalone articles on the individual years.-- Ponyo 17:23, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
Didn't 2025 have an article back in like 2010 I looked on its edit history goes way back to 2006 why dont y'all do that to 2030 to 2039 as standalone articles and we are 5 years from 2030 just saying I will stop bothering you after this Chenkens (talk) 17:29, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
The article was created in 2002, however it's important to check the article diffs from the past and to note that things have heavily changed on Misplaced Pages since the time frame you're talking about. / RemoveRedSky 23:43, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

You've got mail

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

I explained you the situation, I'm not sure why I've been blocked. There's a user named 'Sinclairian' who repeatedly deletes edits from others, including mine, without providing any explanation. I'm sure you would agree that a proper explanation should accompany the reversal of any edits. Otherwise, what distinguishes a responsible editor from a dictatorial approach in this context talk 00:16, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

You are blocked because you continue to edit disruptively despite much advice on your talk page in March 2022 as to how to discuss your concerns with the article on the article talk page. You have multiple unblock requests on your talk page (you should have only 1, please delete the extra one), another admin will review the block.-- Ponyo 00:20, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Brazilian Stalinist "year" Vandal blocked by you

User contributions for 2001:8003:DDB1:C600:B015:1D76:F1EC:EED4 - Misplaced Pages

User contributions for 2804:D59:1502:E190:C87B:7449:7AED:608D - Misplaced Pages

User contributions for Wladimiroclarine - Misplaced Pages

User contributions for 2804:D4B:9A19:8900:DC7:FA7C:29E5:65C7 - Misplaced Pages

Pilar Primo de Rivera: Revision history - Misplaced Pages

User contributions for 2804:D4B:9A08:D000:718F:F8C6:4B73:7AE6 - Misplaced Pages

I think they should be linked together. Theofunny (talk) 21:24, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

I've reverted their disruptive edits. Theofunny (talk) 21:28, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
@Theofunny: If you see addition socking or block evasion, start an WP:SPI using the name of the oldest account for the case name.-- Ponyo 21:30, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
User contributions for 2001:8003:4000:0:0:0:0:0/35 - Misplaced Pages, they are at it again. Theofunny (talk) 21:32, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Æ's old account wasn't working

Hi Ponyo, I rarely disagree with your administrative actions. Although I understand why you chose to pblock the user rather than block them sitewide, based on these edits, AN3 and this one, plus their history, I think an indefinite sitewide block is in order. In addition to their repeated disruptive behavior, I don't think the user is mentally competent to edit the project.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:33, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

They reinstated their edit to Misplaced Pages:Lamest edit wars.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:34, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
@Bbb23: It was near the end of the wiki-work day for me, so I did what I could to start the immediate disruption but admittedly didn't look deeper in the history of the account. If you think an indef or timed site-wide block is more appropriate in this case, then please take whatever action you think appropriate.-- Ponyo 16:42, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
Do you think the edits I reverted at Misplaced Pages:Lamest edit wars makes me WP:INVOLVED?--Bbb23 (talk) 16:45, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for blocking the sockpuppet...

I've suspected since PonapsqisHous first appeared that it was a sockpuppet for Spooninpot but they seemed to be behaving and making useful edits before their latest meltdown. Did I shirk some responsibility by not reporting my suspicions? G. Timothy Walton (talk) 00:40, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

It could be that any SPI would have been closed without action of the evidence wasn't strong enough to make a determination. All buttoned up now though.-- Ponyo 16:43, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

The Holiptholipt Saga

Hello there, I'm writing this to thank you for the relief that the block of Holiptholipt's IP range has brought me! If the block expires and the topic returns, well, I suppose we will worry about it then (another admin suggested edit filter to me, which seems like a great idea). However, there is an IP range that was missed and which the ban evader continues to use - it has been mentioned by me and User:JayCubby on Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Holiptholipt. If you have time, would you be willing to extend the block to that range as well?

Thank you so much, and have a great week! Brat Forelli🦊 23:24, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the note Brat Forelli; I've updated the SPI.-- Ponyo 23:30, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
You're welcome, and thank you! Brat Forelli🦊 23:38, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

January 2025

Information icon Please be careful about what you say to people. Some remarks, such as your addition to User talk:Valorthal77 can easily be misinterpreted, or viewed as harassment. Misplaced Pages is a supportive environment, where contributors should feel comfortable and safe while editing. Thank you. Valorthal77 (talk) 22:22, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Valorthal77, I'm an admin and a checkuser. Noting that you are creating and using multiple accounts on this Misplaced Pages every time your old ones get blocked for socking at ar.wiki is not harassment. I'm advising you to declare your accounts and stick to one so that you don't end up blocked here as well.-- Ponyo 22:24, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
I am aware of all that, and I am not editing with two accounts simultaneously. Why did it occur to you to conduct this check at this specific time? Isn’t this a breach of policies on your part by revealing my identity publicly? What is your purpose behind this action? Do you intend to discourage me from contributing to Misplaced Pages? Valorthal77 (talk) 22:26, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
I can see that you're not editing with two accounts simultaneously, which is why I didn't block you. But you are editing the same topics without declaring your previous accounts, which is an issue. There is no breach of policy, if was your edit history that made the connection to all of your previous accounts clear - I didn't even have to run a check! As there are many, many issues with the articles and drafts you create, you should declare your previous accounts. Editing not only the same topic area, but the same articles, without declaring the intersection of the accounts, can be seen as avoiding scrutiny, especially given your history of socking on another project. -- Ponyo 22:34, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Correction: I have not used sockpuppets in Arabic Misplaced Pages or any other project while having another active account. That old account has not been used there since November 2022. I had an issue with one of the administrators and decided to leave it behind. My matter with that Wiki is unrelated to the English project. I do not understand why you are taking this serious action and disclosing my identity publicly, especially when the original topic is entirely different. What you are doing could lead to significant consequences. Valorthal77 (talk) 22:39, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
I'm not disclosing your idenity publicly, I have no clue who you are outside of Misplaced Pages. What I have gathered through even just a brief look at your contributions is that you're editing with multiple accounts on this project without disclosing them. This article overlap is extensive. And you are banned from editing for socking at ar.wiki per this notice and these tagged socks. I had suggested that you declare the accounts on your talk page and restrict yourself to one account so that 1) your editing history is clear and 2) there is no concern that you are also evading scrutiny on this project. There are many to many templates to make the declaration.-- Ponyo 22:52, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
We have something called the email feature; you could have used it to communicate with me instead of creating an atmosphere of discomfort and intimidation here! Valorthal77 (talk) 22:42, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
There's no reason to use email in this case. Subterfuge is not required.-- Ponyo 22:52, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
I have only one active account, and I am not concerned with anything else. I do not edit using two accounts simultaneously because I am fully aware of this policy. My user page is my right, and I can put whatever I want on it.
Question for you: Why did you bring up this topic now when we were discussing something entirely different? Valorthal77 (talk) 22:57, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Well, I'm concerned. Socking doesn't just mean using multiple accounts simultaneously. What you're doing is essentially stringing one WP:CLEANSTART after another, except they're invalid clean starts due to the fact that you are using multiple accounts to edit the same articles. The reason I brought it up in the first place is because it was clear from just a quick look at your editing history that you were operating multiple undeclared accounts contrary to WP:SCRUTINY given the myriad concerns raised regarding your article creations under your other accounts and especially your particiption in WP:CTOPS articles. -- Ponyo 23:11, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) In addition to the other things you're doing wrong, you've been editing logged out since August 21, 2023, with Special:contributions/2001:4645:B0B3:0:0:0:0:0/64. And your edits with those IPs are as prolific and rapid-fire as your various named accounts. And you cannot put whatever you want on your userpage.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:08, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
What does this have to do with me as well? Is there a problem with contributing to the encyclopedia in a calm manner? Do we need to ask for permission if we want to make quick edits? Valorthal77 (talk) 23:11, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
I created this account because my previous account was blocked on Arabic Misplaced Pages without making any edits. I did not create this account with bad intentions or to achieve anything specific. I did not ask for any privileges! Valorthal77 (talk) 23:13, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
I'm not sure why you're not understanding this. If you are editing the same articles here, including contentious topics where your accounts are receiving WP:CTOPS notifications, you should be declaring all of your accounts in order to having issues on en.wiki as well.-- Ponyo 23:17, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
"However, if an editor uses their new account to resume editing articles or topics in the same manner that resulted in a negative reputation in the first place (becoming involved in disputes, edit warring, or other forms of disruptive editing), the editor will probably be recognized (as a "sockpuppet") and connected to the old account, and will be sanctioned accordingly. Changing accounts to avoid the consequences of past bad behaviors is usually seen as evading scrutiny and may also lead to additional sanctions".
None of this happened. You are falsely accusing me with incorrect allegations. I already told you the reason I created this account is to avoid having any account with issues (i.e. blocked on a wiki)! Valorthal77 (talk) 23:21, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
You've been warned for edit warring. You've edited contentious topics and received CTOPs notifications. Myriad concerns have been raised about your article creations (many of which you just blank from your talk pages). You're creating new accounts without connecting them to your previous accounts despite these issues gives the appearance of avoiding scrutiny (the exact wording of the policy being "Using alternative accounts that are not fully and openly disclosed to split your editing history means that other editors may not be able to detect patterns in your contributions. While this is permitted in certain circumstances (see legitimate uses), it is a violation of this policy to create alternative accounts to confuse or deceive editors who may have a legitimate interest in reviewing your contributions." You are creating alternative account that confuse editors who may have a legitimate interest in reviewing your contributions. Stop. Stick to one account. Log in to edit. It's really simple. You don't need to post here any more, just don't use multiple accounts on multiple projects.-- Ponyo 23:35, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
User talk:Ponyo: Difference between revisions Add topic