| Revision as of 00:00, 19 January 2023 editPonyo (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators171,968 editsm Reverted edits by 2601:580:4580:9F30:0:0:0:B595 (talk) to last version by PonyoTag: Rollback← 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}} | |||
| {{Archives|collapsed=yes|search=yes| | {{Archives|collapsed=yes|search=yes| | ||
| Line 51: | Line 52: | ||
| *] | *] | ||
| *] | *] | ||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| }} | }} | ||
| == UTRS 67644 == | |||
| Hey Ponyo, I hope all is well and you're enjoying your vacation. Could I bother you to have a look at ] when you're back? See my comment there{{snd}}I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts. Thanks, --] (]) 19:41, 3 January 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :{{ping|Blablubbs}} I don't think the IP should be unblocked or the block modified. I also strongly suspect that the account making the request ({{noping|Stuart at St Mungo's High}}) is related to the batch of socks and evading blocks (see the appeal at ]) for example.-- ]<sup>]</sup> 18:53, 6 January 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks{{snd}}I figured as much, but wanted to double check. {{noping|Stuart at St Mungo's High School}} and {{noping|Stuart at St Mungo's High}} blocked accordingly. --] (]) 19:14, 6 January 2023 (UTC) | |||
| == I'm back == | |||
| == Opinion on Zhoban predecessor == | |||
| But then I start my vacation after you end yours. Boo. At least {{u|Bbb23}} is around. ] (]) 06:46, 4 January 2023 (UTC) | |||
| 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> (]•])</sub> 19:57, 30 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Geez, it's almost like you planned it this way! You're like the ] (a reference for the Canadians in the room. Maybe {{U|Yamla}} gets it?).-- ]<sup>]</sup> 18:43, 6 January 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :Or, perhaps we could merge everything ''into'' the JohnRamirez investigation, given it preceded his Zhoban days? ''']'''<sub> (]•])</sub> 14:00, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Welcome back, Ponyo! I grew up in the UK so didn't watch Polka Dot Door myself, but it was certainly on t.v. here for my younger siblings to watch. :) --] (]) 21:30, 6 January 2023 (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 == | |||
| == The sock without a master == | |||
| 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) | |||
| :@] {{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) | |||
| == Perpetual spammer == | |||
| ::{{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) | |||
| :::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) | |||
| ::::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) | |||
| == You've got mail == | |||
| Hi, could you look at ]? All their contributions appear to be spam. Thanks. ] (]) 21:21, 7 January 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :{{U|BilCat}}, noted and blocked.-- ]<sup>]</sup> 21:50, 10 January 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks! ] (]) 22:24, 10 January 2023 (UTC) | |||
| {{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) | |||
| == Unblock the Shining Time Station episode list == | |||
| :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) | |||
| == Brazilian Stalinist "year" Vandal blocked by you == | |||
| Hello, Ponyo. If I need to delete some stuff on the Shining Time Station episode list (like Thomas stories that were never seen on some Season 3 episodes), should you unblock the page first? I still see some Thomas stories added in the Season 3 episodes that were never seen in any of the Season 3 episodes on YouTube. ] (]) 22:20, 8 January 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :You can make you argument for removal along with ] on the associated talk page.-- ]<sup>]</sup> 21:52, 10 January 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ] | |||
| == Film Notability Question == | |||
| ] | |||
| You missed the point to my question, unless you actually read ] to state that. Please read it again if necessary. It states that films that have not completed filming are not notable. It says that films that have completed filming may be notable if production itself has satisfied ], although it says it very badly. My question was addressed to the blocked editor, who was being very aggressive in stating that any unreleased film should have an article. | |||
| ] | |||
| If you actually read that guideline as stating that every unreleased film that has completed filming should be the subject of an article, then that is all the more reason why maybe I should try again to get ] revised to clarify what it does and does not say. | |||
| ] | |||
| Maybe I should have specifically addressed my question to the blocked editor, but I thought that followed because I was on their talk page. ] (]) 18:17, 17 January 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :You're correct that I did miss the point of your question. While reviewing their recent appeal and 331dot's decline, I noticed your question and responded with a link to the guideline, thinking it would be helpful. Obviously I was wrong.-- ]<sup>]</sup> 18:29, 17 January 2023 (UTC) | |||
| == As long as you're not doing anything... == | |||
| ] | |||
| Dammit, I was just writing the below when you blocked. | |||
| I think they should be linked together. ] (]) 21:24, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Is {{noping|Openshack}}, a rather suspicious new editor all by themself, the same person as {{noping|Carbomarx}} (interesting username, eh?)? See, e.g., ] and...stopped here. | |||
| :I've reverted their disruptive edits. ] (]) 21:28, 13 January 2025 (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) | ||
| :: |
:::], they are at it again. ] (]) 21:32, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | ||
| :::No problem-o.-- ]<sup>]</sup> 20:35, 17 January 2023 (UTC) | |||
| == Æ's old account wasn't working == | |||
| == Peace == | |||
| 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) | |||
| {| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 1px solid #fceb92;" | |||
| :They reinstated their edit to ].--] (]) 00:34, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| |style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | ] | |||
| ::{{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) | |||
| |style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | :) ] (]) 22:42, 18 January 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::Do you think the edits I reverted at ] makes me ]?--] (]) 16:45, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| |} | |||
| == |
== Thank you for blocking the sockpuppet... == | ||
| 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) | |||
| {| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 1px solid #fceb92;" | |||
| :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) | |||
| |rowspan="2" style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | ] | |||
| |style="font-size: x-large; padding: 3px 3px 0 3px; height: 1.5em;" | '''The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar''' | |||
| == The Holiptholipt Saga == | |||
| |- | |||
| |style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | Well... was quick. ] ] 23:03, 18 January 2023 (UTC) | |||
| 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? | |||
| |} | |||
| Thank you so much, and have a great week! ] 23:24, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Thanks for the note {{U|Brat Forelli}}; I've updated the SPI.-- ]<sup>]</sup> 23:30, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::You're welcome, and thank you! ] 23:38, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == 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) | |||
| :{{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. |
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)
- 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)
- @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)
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)
- @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)
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)
- @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)
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
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- There's no reason to use email in this case. Subterfuge is not required.-- Ponyo 22:52, 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 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)
- 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)