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 01:18, 24 November 2021 editSchazjmd (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users68,707 edits Reverted 3 edits by 24.80.28.160 (talk) to last revision by Clpo13Tags: Twinkle Undo← Previous edit Latest revision as of 23:36, 21 January 2025 edit undoPonyo (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators171,968 editsm →January 2025: typo 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{busy}} {{Busy}}

{{Archives|collapsed=yes|search=yes| {{Archives|collapsed=yes|search=yes|
*] *]
Line 46: Line 47:
*] *]
*] *]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
}} }}




== Dancing on Ice Series 14 ==


I think we should start creating the Series 14 Dancing on Ice page now as the 1st celeb will be revealed on Monday on This Morning. --] (]) 11:37, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
:{{ping|Annamargarita0}} It's fine for you to create it, just not the globally-locked editor who keeps taking a crack at it.-- ]<sup>]</sup> 20:53, 1 October 2021 (UTC)


== Opinion on Zhoban predecessor ==
== List of The Story Makers episodes ==
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 ==
https://en.wikipedia.org/List_of_The_Story_Makers_episodes Please can you semi-protect that page indefinitely because some vandaliser keeps vandalising that page by adding fake episodes? And I am fed up with it. --] (]) 08:35, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
:{{Ping|Annamargarita0}} The IP editor causing the disruption has been blocked by another admin (which provides me with a much needed opportunity to give a shout out to {{U|HJ Mitchell}}). If the disruption picks up again, you can request protection at ].-- ]<sup>]</sup> 18:42, 5 October 2021 (UTC)


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)
== {{Redacted}} range block ==


:@] {{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)
Back in March, you blocked the ] range {{redacted}} . They've been highly active on that range of late, would you mind taking a look to if another block is warranted? They were also using ] a week ago before moving to the 106 range. Thanks! ''']''' (]) 17:51, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
:{{U|Ravensfire}} I don't see anywhere where I've made an explicit checkuser connection between a sockfarm and that IP range; that would be a violation of the privacy policy and I've oversighted that portion of your message. Please take your concerns to the relevant SPI as I can't make outright CU connections between accounts and ranges.-- ]<sup>]</sup> 18:51, 5 October 2021 (UTC) ::{{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)
::@] Apologies for that. Will do on the SPI. It would (obviously) be behavior based, so probably later this evening to put enough good diffs together. Not hard to do though, it's been a consistent range for them. ''']''' (]) 19:18, 5 October 2021 (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 ] (]) 17:29, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:::It happens. It's not always easy to find the line between preventing outright disruption and protecting the privacy of editors who are determined to undermine our socking policy. -- ]<sup>]</sup> 19:24, 5 October 2021 (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. / ] <sup><nowiki>]<nowiki>]</nowiki></sup> 23:43, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

== User:Tron444444 Block Evasion ==

You recently partially blocked this user for their vandalism/edit warring on the Midnight Mass article. Why they're so obsessed with changing the references of the Angel to a Vampire, I will never know. BUT they created a new account (same one in the title) and evaded the ban and are back to edit warring. What should be done? ] (]) 07:09, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
:There were a couple of sock accounts; all blocked and tagged now.-- ]<sup>]</sup> 19:10, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

== ] ==

] looks to be another sock. ] (]) 22:57, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
:Got it. -- ]<sup>]</sup> 22:58, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
::That was quick. I assume you were already in process? ] (]) 22:59, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
:::Nope. Just quick on the draw I guess!-- ]<sup>]</sup> 23:04, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
::::I don't even understand this ConsumersDistributing thing. Why edit war over unrelated articles? Is it just general trolling, or is there some deeper meaning? ] (]) 23:13, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
:::::It's either ], or another LTA joe-jobbing them. Either way, it's trolling.-- ]<sup>]</sup> 23:17, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
::::::I did a fair amount of ip editing and looking into the sausage making behind Misplaced Pages before making an account, but until I started editing regularly I never had any idea how many LTAs and long term trolls and LTAs Joe jobbing each other were around. It's kinda astounding. Makes all of the doubts and accusations when I made an account more understandable. ] (]) 23:24, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
:::::::] ] (]) 20:04, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
::::::::They're sure making it easy. Not that I'm complaining.-- ]<sup>]</sup> 20:06, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
:::::::::], maybe page protection? But maybe not because then we won't immediately see them? ] (]) 20:20, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
::::::::::They'll just move to another set of articles. Better the devil you know? -- ]<sup>]</sup> 20:29, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
:::::::::::Yeah, makes sense. I do feel like it's more and more likely a joe job, on account of the user page links, but who knows? I guess everyone needs a hobby. ] (]) 20:33, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
:::::::::::I assume the article is on your watchlist, so is there any point in me reporting the socks here after reverting? I don't want to unnecessarily clutter your talk page. ] (]) 20:41, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
::::::::::::I'm catching them through a filter, but can easily miss them if I'm distracted elsewhere. Doubling up on efforts doesn't hurt.-- ]<sup>]</sup> 20:48, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
:::::::Damn you're quick! ] (]) 20:06, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

==New sock?==
Hello, Ponyo,

Filed a new report on ] after gearing up to delete ] as a stale draft and finding a new editor had started working on it and appealing its rejection at the AFC Help Desk. Not sure if it's a sockpuppet or meat puppet but there seems to be quite an effort to get this local teenager a Misplaced Pages article. Hope you are well! <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 03:38, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
:Thanks for the notice {{U|Liz}}. Looks like it's all taken care of now.-- ]<sup>]</sup> 18:59, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

== "2021 World Sambo Championships" listed at ] ==
]
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect ]. The discussion will occur at ] until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. <!-- from Template:RFDNote --> ] (]) 07:19, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

== Well done for the block ==

Dear Ponyo,

Thank you for the block on ] aka 23.28.64.124. I have been firm but friendly with this new user and pointed at various policies. I left a message there &nbsp; not a formal warning just below the bows &ndash; to say I felt it was a personal attack on me. (I get this from the user's edit history that I seem to be the only target, no other editrix, so I dunno why I was picked on, but I am not personally upset, just annoyed that it has wasted my time, as I bet you are.)

I do try to encourage new users, and sent plenty of links. I even added the {{tlx|welcome}} tag. Before you just blocked, I successfully added a message (not expecting it to be the last), I hope you saw it as you will see it was firm but friendly, pointing the user to various policies and so on. I have some text in my copy buffer, I will copy it to you here, but this was his "positively final appearance" message a few days ago:

:I am leaving Misplaced Pages and this account will be abandoned. All further activity that’s related to this account will stop. I am creating a new account. Why? Because I have been receiving bad/inappropriate emails and I forgot my password. I am still logged on but I can’t do this forever. I am also changing emails in my new account. Please stop sending messages after 10Am Tue/October/2021, I won’t respond to them. I can tell you the name of my new account but I really don’t want to. I will be working anonymously with my IP address which is 23.28.64.124. I hope the best of my old account. Bye :) AndroidRedrafting (talk) 13:06, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps I should have reported it then. ]'s page said/says "Retired", now.<!--

:I am leaving Misplaced Pages and this account will be abandoned. All further activity that’s related to this account will stop. I am creating a new account. Why? Because I have been receiving bad/inappropriate emails and I forgot my password. I am still logged on but I can’t do this forever. I am also changing emails in my new account. Please stop sending messages after 10Am Tue/October/2021, I won’t respond to them. I can tell you the name of my new account but I really don’t want to. I will be working anonymously with my IP address which is 23.28.64.124. I hope the best of my old account. Bye :) AndroidRedrafting (talk) 13:06, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

This from an editor who on his user page stated (I have a good memory but cannot quote the exact words without going through its history) "I treat any IP editor as suspicious". I did point ] at ] (I think, again I haven't checked all history) and the various essays on anonymous editing, without (I hope) overdoing it.
-->
This user is obviously intelligent: few spelling or grammar errors, and so on. Probably just misguided. I think a three-month ban is a little harsh, but certainly needed a rap across the knuckles.<small>Oh, indefinite. I ''thought'' when I first saw it it was three months; I may have been mistaken. ] (]) 00:08, 14 October 2021 (UTC)</small>

You did the right thing. I appreciate it. Well done. Sincerely. Wossname said, was it ] no ] (Ben Franklin), "the truth is a harsh mistress, but fools will learn at no other".{{dubious|date=October 2021}} ] (]) 23:09, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
:I didn't pick him up on ] quotes and apostrophes, for example... I was really pretty gentle. ] (]) 23:11, 13 October 2021 (UTC)


== You've got mail == == 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)
{{You've got mail|dashlesssig=] (]) 01:09, 15 October 2021 (UTC)}}
*Got it, and {{done}}.-- ]<sup>]</sup> 16:03, 15 October 2021 (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.-- ]<sup>]</sup> 00:20, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

== Page creation ==
Hello, I would like to recreate the ] page since he won a gold record with his single Glance. Could you take the page back please? You removed it and prevented users from recreating it. Thanks in advance! <!-- Template:Unsigned --><span class="autosigned" style="font-size:85%;">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 19:23, 15 October 2021 (UTC)</span> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:{{ping|Vecchioscrivano}} Would you consider creating the article via ] in order to ensure a new article overcomes the concerns of the many deletions and AfD outcome? I see the article has faced the same issues on the Italian Misplaced Pages and is create-protected there as well, which is concerning. If the draft article is accepted via AfC I'll remove the protection. -- ]<sup>]</sup> 19:39, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

The article was created and deleted, but now things are different and I’m just asking to have it back in order to add the gold record feature. Thanks ] (]) 19:53, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

== 1234ismypassword ==

Wow, that's got to be the oldest sleeper account that I've ever seen. Amazing that they kept it for 10 years! ] (]) 19:50, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
:Nothing surprises me anymore. #jaded.-- ]<sup>]</sup> 19:50, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

== Another new user eagerly getting stuck into redwarn ==

Hey Ponyo. Got a new user suddenly using RedWarn, creating a sandbox and getting stuck into antivandalism pretty quickly - . Feels awefully similar to the user you block several days ago - . Just wanting to bring it to your attention. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 00:06, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
:It looks like another checkuser looked in to this.-- ]<sup>]</sup> 21:56, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
:Hi, I am the user in question. I've just started editing Misplaced Pages and was attracted to the recent changes page. I noticed a lot of vandalism so I fixed some of it. Found RedWarn on ] and tried to use it but I wasn't autoconfirmed. Anyway, ] issued a checkuser block to my account and a previous account I had made (], abandoned for username/privacy purposes, had 1 edit). The reasoning they gave was I had an undisclosed 2nd account and you (I assume you, they just said "another user") suspected me of sockpuppetry. I have made zero abusive edits and plan to keep that number at zero. I can't help but feel that this ban was given in bad faith. My old account is now linked to this one and still banned. Just a bit of an unpleasant welcome to this site. ] (]) 22:22, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
::{{ping|Zayul}} Are you addressing Seddon or me? To be clear, I haven't run any checks on your account or even reviewed your edits.-- ]<sup>]</sup> 22:26, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
::::@]: Not sure I guess, just anyone who listened because Materialscientist seems to be unavailable most of the time. ] (]) 22:29, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
:::::{{tpw}} For just starting at Wikpedia, you format a post very well. - <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">] <small>(])</small></span> 22:54, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
::::::@]: I'll take that as a compliment I guess. I have some experience on other wikis and a programming background. ] (]) 23:07, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

== Russell's teapot ==

The word empirically is misspelled, as "empircally," in the first sentence on this page. I apologize if this isn't how to report this or get this changed, I'm still 100% new here and getting used to the setup. I do appreciate the need for blocking editing on this article. Thank you for your time. ] (]) 02:01, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
:{{tpw}} {{fixed}} ]. {{re|Dubya29}} If you need an edit on a page you can not edit, see ]. Cheers, - <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">] <small>(])</small></span> 02:14, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

==One More Favor==
Since you just page-protected ] from that sock, could you also protect ], for a bit, too? That vandal also likes to haunt that page, too, trying to angrily revive a four year old thread there.--] (]) 22:01, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
:{{U|Apokryltaros}} I try to only protected article talk pages in cases of excessive abuse. In this case there has only been 2 sock edits today. As a compromise, how about I watch the page and protect it if they return to it today?-- ]<sup>]</sup> 22:13, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
::Understood.--] (]) 23:00, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

==Potential block evasion==

You blocked this IP yesterday, but I think the same individual is using multiple IP addresses: and have been used for the same intent purpose: using the same tone of language and ranting about perceived bias - most recently with a post on another users page . ] (]) 05:56, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
:{{ping|Iskandar323}} I did notice they had access to a number of ranges, which is why I ended up semi-protecting ]. I think ] is the best bet here, plus short spurts at semi-protection as needed.-- ]<sup>]</sup> 17:09, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

== about my edits on a wiki page ==

I'm sorry. You accused me of possibly having a conflict of interest.

While I'm not new at writing, I am new to the wiki format.
I didn't mean to erase the entire section on Richard Stanley's[REDACTED] entry. But wiki's interface was fighting with me. And suddenly the whole page was a mess because of one badly entered tag. Sorry, my bad. But that doesn't mean I have a conflict of interest.

I think I've now succeeded in removing the part that wasn't referenced.

Also, if a person's name isn't to be mentioned in a section title, I understand that. But when I started editing that, there already was a name in there. The article I referenced made clear that name was an alias. I merely wanted to make the title factual and accurate.

Hope all is good now.

I hope this is the proper place to respond. Again, I'm new to the interface. Forgive me. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><span class="autosigned" style="font-size:85%;">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 18:35, 29 October 2021 (UTC)</span> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:{{ping|CHARLESLESORCIER777}} While leaving a message on my talk page is fine, the correct venue to discuss article content and changes is at the associated article talk page (in this case ]). I also opened a discussion here which you can join.-- ]<sup>]</sup> 18:41, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Apologies. But it wouldn't let me... that's why I went here. I'll try again. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><span class="autosigned" style="font-size:85%;">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 18:44, 29 October 2021 (UTC)</span> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== You reverted my AIV report ==

{{smiley|tongue}} Hey, please look at {{user2|Elizabethlake}} they're running amuck with BLP vio's. Thanx, - <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">] <small>(])</small></span> 22:05, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
:There was IP vandalism that rendered the reports unreadable. I , but ended up blocking the account you were reporting, so it popped off the page again. All good now!-- ]<sup>]</sup> 22:08, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
::Sorry, I wasn't complaining. I saw that mess at the noticeboard, I was removing it and you got to it first. No problem. Cheers, - <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">] <small>(])</small></span> 22:11, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

== I'm a Celeb Series 21 ==

Please can you protect that page as someone keeps adding the celebs when they haven't been revealed by the officials first? --] (]) 05:46, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
:{{ping|Annamargarita0}} Do you mean ]? Because there really hasn't been enough activity to justify protection.-- ]<sup>]</sup> 23:22, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, of course but look at the view history. --] (]) 05:12, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

== Inaccurate Warning ==

There is no edit war that I'm engaging in. A legitimate and constructive edit I made was inappropriately removed by another editor and I rightfully objected to it. The situation was ultimately resolved on his talk page and my edit was restored as a result. I value Misplaced Pages and spent a great deal of time here and make edits only to improve readability of articles and to ensure neutrality. To be frank, I find your warning as well as the inappropriate roll backs made by the other editor to be capricious and very offensive. I encourage you and other senior editors to work to improve yourselves in this regard, as your current level of performance is poor and is harming the experience of longtime users such as myself. Thank you. ] (]) 23:43, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
:I see that {{U|Tide rolls}} has provided you with a clear explanation as to how your understanding of edit warring is incorrect with regard to both policy and ]. The message I left on your talk page is a standard warning that you are approaching 3 reverts, and that continued edit warring will likely lead to a block. I made no comment regarding the legitimacy of the content that was being added or removed in said edit war.-- ]<sup>]</sup> 16:17, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
::Yeah, Ponyo, apologies if I got in your way. Sometimes my restraint is not up to par. I promise to do better. ]] 16:54, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
:::No, it was an excellent summation of the issue and much appreciated. Please feel free to step on my toes anytime!-- ]<sup>]</sup> 17:07, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

== Jaded-vs-kindness ==

I must be losing my touch, I thought I was the mean ogre abusive admin type. I've been assured this is the case by multiple people...

kidding aside, I actually see it basically the same way you do, but if there is a path to an unblock, it isn't the approach they are using now. I also would guess that being on arbcom has an affect on my perspective, this person has been dishonest and obsessive about something truly unimportant, but they are nowhere near some of the levels of outright crazy that arbcom deals with on a daily basis. ] (]) 20:57, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
:So, you're saying I should run for ArbCom to get my kindness-mojo back? <small>tongue, meet cheek</small>-- ]<sup>]</sup> 21:03, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

== Thank you ==

Just a note to thank you for the warning you gave SkylerLovefist. If he had reverted my removal again I would have reported him to ANI, but you saved me the trouble. His responses to you indicates (in my humble opinion) the potential of further trouble should I edit something that he doesn't like. He is worth keeping an eye on. Thanks again. ] (]) 07:22, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
: Just as an update - SkylerLovefist may have violated ] again in the edit summary . The sarcasm here is very heavy. I don't expect action, but now that I have tagged the source as possibly unreliable and started a thread I will not be surprised if he removes the tag attaching more incivility and may also go to the talk page I linked and ] as he has before. I would appreciate some help purely on the civility issue (you have rightly said you aren't interested in the content issue and I am not seeking your involvement in that). ] (]) 09:06, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
:: Another thank you for the 72 hour block. However his response to the block on his talk page suggests that nothing will change once he returns. I'm not convinced the block is long enough as a result but I'll leave that up to you. An administrator (maybe you, maybe someone else) should IMHO give him a breakdown of exactly why his conduct was wrong, and if he persists beyond that it will show that he is ]. Just a thought bubble. ] (]) 07:15, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
:::Outside of copyright violations, vandalism-only accounts and ]/blatant ] incidences, a short-term first-time block is pretty standard, with blocks escalating if the disruptive behaviour continues. They appear to have an intractable problem with civility, but they need to be given the opportunity to improve once the block expires.-- ]<sup>]</sup> 18:29, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
:::: Totally understand. Hopefully no further action is needed, but I suspect there might be. We'll see I guess. ] (]) 07:46, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

== Question about privacy/BLP ==


== Brazilian Stalinist "year" Vandal blocked by you ==
Hi Ponyo! Regarding you made a couple days ago, I'm wondering what the Misplaced Pages policy is on people who claim to be the person the article covers? In that case, the user claims to be Tim Atkins (in his edit summaries) and wanted his DOB and place of birth removed. To be honest, I thought it was just a troll/vandal so that's why I reverted the edits (probably a ] assumption on my part - oops!) If someone claims to be the subject of an article, do you give them the benefit of the doubt and remove any info they don't want? I know phone numbers, emails, home addresses, and the like are a '''huge''' no-no on Misplaced Pages, but I didn't think DOB and place of birth was too big of an issue.


]
Just trying to learn so I know how to tackle the issue next time it arises. Thanks! :) --] (]) 15:29, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
:Hi {{ping|My Pants Metal}} The relevant policy is the ]. If personal information is contested and removed in a BLP, editors should really take a hard look at the stated reasons for the removal and the associated sourcing prior to restoring the disputed content. In this case, the birth date removed was unsourced, so it shouldn't have been restored regardless of whether the editor removing the content was the subject of the article as they claim. Even if the birth date met the "widely-published by reliable sources" criteria, ] suggests only using the birth year in such cases where privacy concerns have been raised. I don't see any reason to doubt the editor's identity, it's not uncommon for BLP subjects (or their friends/family members at the behest of the subject) to create accounts to remove such information for privacy reasons. It's often helpful to provide the subject with a link to ]. Note that this only covers the removal of basic personal info; attempts at scrubbing well-sourced negative material from a BLP by article subjects requires a whole other level of scrutiny and response. -- ]<sup>]</sup> 16:42, 5 November 2021 (UTC)


]
== A new possible sock of Giolocam which was a confirmed sockpuppet of Benniejets. ==


]
Hello Ponyo, I think I have found a new possible sock of {{userlinks|Giolocam}} that actually was a confirmed sock of {{userlinks|Benniejets}} (]) as the editing/writing style is very similar to Giolocam. I reported Giolocam and you banned him as it was a confirmed sockpuppet. Giolocam started edit warring in exactly the same article as this new user is doing right now. Also same writing style (dubious English skills) and same edit pattern, which is boosting up the data Italy has in that page.


]
The affected page is:
*{{pagelinks|List of European countries by average wage}}
The suspected user is:
*{{userlinks|Msimoncinifideuram.it}}
I have also noticed that this user was constantly using and adding the word "great power" to the ] page, like many Benniejets socks did many times.
*{{pagelinks|Italy}}


I didn't even try to write anything in this user's talk page as in the past that was completely useless, since the pattern is exactly the same, doing 8 reverts in a row with sourced data to put fake, boosted up data for Italy as well as changing the map and chart parameters to make Italy fit within richer European countries in the same page, something that was constantly done by Giolocam and Benniejets and it's in fact written in the Benniejets long-term abuse case as the socks are always editing with a strong Italian POV. Could you please check this user as well? I'ts very suspicious. Thank you. --] (]) 18:40, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
:I've blocked the account as a {{likely}} sock.-- ]<sup>]</sup> 18:54, 5 November 2021 (UTC)


]
== Help ==


I think they should be linked together. ] (]) 21:24, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
Please block the vandal who vandalizes my discussion page, leaving death wishes in Ukrainian. I also ask you to completely block the IP address of Kyivstar where this vandal is vandalizing. And also clean up the stories on my discussion page. Thanks. --] (]) 20:31, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
:{{ping|Jphwra}} The account is blocked, but I can't block the underlying IP addresses, the range is too wide. If they do return, I can protect your talk page from editing by new new accounts. {{U|Ymblanter}} has taken care of the revision deletions. I'm sorry you've been the target of this type of harassment.-- ]<sup>]</sup> 21:01, 5 November 2021 (UTC)


:I've reverted their disruptive edits. ] (]) 21:28, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
== sock ==
::{{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)
:::], they are at it again. ] (]) 21:32, 13 January 2025 (UTC)


== Æ's old account wasn't working ==
Hi there, you blocked ] as a sock of ] earlier last month. I think they've returned as ], with similar recreations of ]/]. Would appreciate if you could take a look. Thanks! ]&nbsp;] 00:06, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
:Nabbed by {{U|Bbb23}} whilst I toiled away in the factory.-- ]<sup>]</sup> 18:48, 9 November 2021 (UTC)


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)
==The inevitable return==
:They reinstated their edit to ].--] (]) 00:34, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
Hello P. I hope that you are well and have had as pleasant an autumn as we've had. {{userlinks|Aarzoo19921999}} looks to be the latest incarnation of ]. Regards. ]&#124;] 11:10, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
:] nabbed them.-- ]<sup>]</sup> 18:31, 10 November 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)
:::Do you think the edits I reverted at ] makes me ]?--] (]) 16:45, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
::Just clearing out AIV while I had a bit of time on my hands. Glad I could help. :) ] &#124; ] 18:38, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
:::Always happy when our paths cross (as well as MarnetteD!).-- ]<sup>]</sup> 18:41, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
::::Thanks to you both. Cheers. ]&#124;] 20:00, 10 November 2021 (UTC)


== Thank you for blocking the sockpuppet... ==
== Strictly Come Dancing Series 19 ==


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)
Some unregistered user keeps adding Sharon Needles & Artem Chigvintsev on that Strictly page, can you re-protect that page & whoever keeps adding them needs to be blocked immediately please? --] (]) 14:00, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
:{{done}}. Blocked a couple of socks too.-- ]<sup>]</sup> 21:20, 16 November 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)


== Thanks == == 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 ] on ]. If you have time, would you be willing to extend the block to that range as well?
Appreciate your help over at ]. I was trying to stay uninvolved as the original issue was a content dispute, but the socking and user name was a bit much haha. Thanks for the quick clean up!<span style="white-space:nowrap; font-family:Harlow Solid Italic;">] ] @ </span> 02:32, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
:No problem. Happy to step in and take the heat.-- ]<sup>]</sup> 20:37, 18 November 2021 (UTC)


Thank you so much, and have a great week! ] 23:24, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
==When you have a moment==
:Thanks for the note {{U|Brat Forelli}}; I've updated the SPI.-- ]<sup>]</sup> 23:30, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
Hello P. If you are still editing this afternoon would you please take a look at {{userlinks|2601:81:C401:11F0:EC8E:6336:BB40:1D84}}. They are adding info about who owns the studio today to articles in which the item is irrelevant. I've let them know why this is a problem but it has made no difference. If you've logged off no worries. Cheers. ]&#124;] 20:59, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
::You're welcome, and thank you! ] 23:38, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
:They just came off a 3-month block not too long ago for the same disruption. I've now reblocked the range.-- ]<sup>]</sup> 21:32, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
::Good deal P. Thanks for your time :-) ]&#124;] 21:44, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
:::"'']''"-- ]<sup>]</sup> 21:57, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
::::That is a great link. Sent me time traveling down memory lane :-) ]&#124;] 22:31, 18 November 2021 (UTC)


== Ok I Understand == == January 2025 ==


] 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)
Hi Ponyo,
:{{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 Understand and I am not trying to be rude or annoying, but The "Gubbi Gubbi" words is not correct. Misplaced Pages's Neutral point of view policy states that only reputable websites/sources can be used. The local history books, old or new, on my Area "Kabi Kabi/Gubbi Gubbi" area have no mention of Gubbi Gubbi. I only intend to change that one word. I live in the area and judging by your page, you do not.
::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)
Thanks for your understanding
:::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)
SavageCabbages <!-- Template:Unsigned --><span class="autosigned" style="font-size:85%;">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 00:18, 24 November 2021 (UTC)</span> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
::::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)
:{{ping|SavageCabbages}} You are attempting to make a major revision to the article and have been reverted multiple times. Please review the talk page discussion already in place regarding the Kabi Kabi/Gubbi Gubbi dispute and get ] for your changes. Edit warring to force such a change through without consensus will very likely lead to a block; discussion with other editors is crucial. ] has a number of guidelines and suggestions for dispute resolution.-- ]<sup>]</sup> 00:25, 24 November 2021 (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