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 19:27, 3 May 2023 editZzuuzz (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Administrators136,930 edits →One two buckle my shoe: tps← 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 53:
*] *]
*] *]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
}} }}






== Cross-wiki vandalism ==


== Opinion on Zhoban predecessor ==
I believe that the user ] is using multiple accounts to continue making his edits to the article ] ({{Diff2|1142981803}}), even though he is blocked. Through the sockpuppet ], he continues to edit the article ({{Diff2|1147407011}}), promoting a cross-wiki vandalism also on the Portuguese[REDACTED] on the same article. The main account and their sockpuppet should be blocked globally. ] (]) 23:52, 1 April 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>&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 ==
:Who’s WorldCitizen2? Based on your allegation, should I suppose you’re Specdens? Because both of you are talking about that user. I don’t get it. I’m not doing any vandalism. An admin said we should try to reach a consensus. ] (]) 00:10, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
*Ponyo doesn't edit on weekends. ] (]) 01:47, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
::Au contraire! I have been dipping my toe into the weekend waters as of late. ].-- ]<sup>]</sup> 16:26, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
:::]--] (]) 16:38, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
::::Ha! Cute.-- ]<sup>]</sup> 16:47, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
:::::Today I learned Ponyo is Maggie Smith. ] (]) 16:53, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
::::::And she's still in her ]! --] (]) 17:33, 2 April 2023 (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)
== Saffron Barker ==


:@] {{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)
Hi, @]! I hope and trust you're well.
::{{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 ==
I understand you created the original redirect on the Saffron Barker article to ], which was locked last year due to a number of edits from sockpuppet accounts. I completely agree with your decision on doing that at the time.


{{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)
It has been almost a year since the page has been a ful semi-protected redirect, and I've recently created a new article for Saffron's entry after watching Celebrity Hunted myself. My page sports more detailed information including philanthropy work, controversy, a list of 100 archived references, and a Creative Commons photograph.
: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 ==
I was a bit keen to publish it - and I did ] - not realising I shouldn't have removed your redirect without conferring with you first, so apologies on that front. (Keeno, I know!) Apologies again.


]
is a link to my article that I published.


]
I want your opinion on whether you think it is good to go live again, as you made the original call to protect it.


]
Please let me know what you think. Thanks for taking the time to read. ] (]) 22:03, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
:{{ping|Mechanical Elephant}} I protected the redirect due to socking, but the decision to redirect was made by community consensus following two AfDs ( and ). The issue wasn't that there was no sourcing, as the article had plenty of sourcing when it was redirected in 2021, it was the quality and depth of the sourcing that was the issue. You've recreated the article with an overwhelming amount of references (seriously, I don't doubt your very good intentions, but you've ref-bombed the article. The reference section is longer than the entire article and you're including multiple sources verifying simple uncontroversial content). A brief perusal of the sources you've added show many of the links include brief mentions in articles about the shows she appears in as opposed to in-depth coverage of Barker herself. That being said, my protection was a specific admin action to protect against socking, but the choice to maintain the redirect is a content choice for the community. As the article you created in place of the redirect was reverted, you should follow ] to see if there is consensus for it to be restored. -- ]<sup>]</sup> 16:55, 5 April 2023 (UTC)


]
== 96.80.105.165 ==


Back in February you nailed ] for block-evasion. I'm not familiar enough with the case to immediatly determine if this is still the same repeat customer, and I don't have time to go through the archive myself just now, but I thought you might want to take a look. ] (]) 03:32, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

: is a bit suspicious...a connection with ] cannot be ruled out for this IP, their edits are similar and they're arguing about the primary referencing! ] ] 03:46, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
::All cleaned up now.-- ]<sup>]</sup> 15:44, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

== Request for edit summary deletion ==

Hello, I was wondering if you could hide the edit summaries of ] as they contain hateful and racist messages. Have a great weekend and thank you in advance. <big>]]</big> 00:56, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

:All set. ] (]) 01:01, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
::Thank you ]! -- ]<sup>]</sup> 17:16, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

== Taborhistorian ==

I see you've just indef blocked ] in connection to the ] article, and was wondering whether their recent edits, which involve negative comments about minors, need to be redacted? Having them visible in article history seems less than ideal. ] (]) 22:10, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
:I'll take a look.-- ]<sup>]</sup> 22:14, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
::Yikes! I'm going to have redact several pages of the edit history - they've been adding and restoring obvious hit-piece material, including the bit about a minor child, since Jan 2022.-- ]<sup>]</sup> 22:21, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

== Recent indef block ==

Hello, @]!

Thank you so much for putting an indefinite block on ]. I can't thank you enough for re-blocking the user.

I had no idea why they kept on attacking me for reverting their nonconstructive edits on '']'', but thank you again for re-blocking the user. I was really annoyed when they kept on putting personal attacks on my talk page. ] (]) 11:57, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

== Request to Restore Sirbaz Khan ==

Dear Ponyo,
I hope this message finds you well. I noticed that the Misplaced Pages page for ] has been deleted due to a violation of the ban or block policy. I understand that the page was created by a banned user. As someone who is interested in Sirbaz Khan and his achievements, I kindly request you to consider restoring the page or draftifying it so that it can be improved and brought in line with Misplaced Pages's guidelines. Thank You! ] (]) 16:48, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
:Hi {{U|Ainty Painty}} This wasn't so much an article as it was a set of six point form accomplishments. It was basically a very short time line with no ] or ] and would need to be pretty much written from scratch. I would email you a copy, but you don't have email enabled.-- ]<sup>]</sup> 19:25, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
::Dear Ponyo,
::I wanted to inform you that I have now enabled email communication on my Misplaced Pages account.
::Thank you. ] (]) 14:58, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
:::{{U|Ainty Painty}} I've sent a copy to your email.-- ]<sup>]</sup> 19:52, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
::::Than You. ] (]) 07:26, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

== {{noping|Anonymousandy20913}} ==

Given that they have abused talk page access as well (including before and after their block), I'd personally recommend revoking that, too. ] (]) 20:23, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
:Already {{done}}.-- ]<sup>]</sup> 20:24, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

== List of General Motors factories ==

Hello. You appear to want to become involved in this. However, I do not believe you have a complete picture or the full story. I am extending you the benefit of the doubt that you are simply not aware and so I will attempt to explain and hope you extend to me the same benefit of the doubt that I am extending to you. There is more nuance here than maybe readily apparent. Yes, there was some discussion on how much detail to include. No, I did not simply revert the page back to exactly how it had been prior to that discussion even though, truth be told, that would be my preference. However, I do not believe anyone is taking that into account. And when I say anyone, I specifically mean user Sable232. This user, for some reason, seems to really have it in for me. This user constantly looks to revert my edits for no good reason, perhaps just for the purpose of reverting them. Now, as I said, I did not simply revert the earlier edits I made. Portions of the most recent edit were there before but other portions were new content and were not what the discussion had been about. But what does sable232 do? Swoops in like a bulldozer and removes everything. Additionally, the portions that were retained, all had cause to be retained. So, as I said in the edit comments, the revisions were carefully considered and not done on a whim. But nobody seems to want to consider this. Due to this situation, I consider this user's last reverting to be unwarranted and vandalism which is why I reverted that in whole. Then, you came in and reverted my reverting. I am not sure exactly how you came into the picture here. I hope sable232 is not trying to take advantage of you in some way. That user is often trying to hold me to double standards that don't apply to anyone else here. I don't believe I should have to tolerate that or any other abuse that user sends my way. I realize that some of this may sound hard to believe but bullies are real and that user is one. In any event, I will now wait and see what, if anything, you have to say. I hope you will give me a "fair shake". ] (]) 21:00, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
:"You appear to want to become involved in this." No, actually ]. What I ''am'' interested in is an editor who restores disputed content, ]. Reverting your additions to the article is absolutely ]. Asking for you to get consensus for your disputed edits is not bullying. Expecting you to follow our policies regarding editing disputes is not bullying. So go to the talk page and see if there is consensus for the changes you want to make, don't make the same ] with an account and while logged out, and don't frame editing discretion as vandalism and bullying.-- ]<sup>]</sup> 21:10, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
::I still seek neutrality from you if you do not want to be involved. As far as flipping between accounts, a few times I had been logged in and then got automatically logged out without my realizing it until I was well into editing. Since I had already begun at that point not logged in, I just continued so all the edits at that particular point would all be together. Asking for someone else to get consensus on everything they do when they don't seek consensus on everything they themselves do is a double standard and when someone keeps doing that, it is bullying. That is what I'm accusing other users of doing here, not you. I told you there was more going on here than meets the eye. When someone turns every little thing into a dispute, that is bullying. That is what they are doing. Someone that is deadset on creating battles for no good reason and on creating disputes for no good reason cannot be talked to in a logical way. It isn't possible to calmly debate with such people because they won't listen to reason and their mind is made up before the debate even started. Their minds are closed to all arguments. This is the unfortunate situation I find myself in despite not looking for it. You may not be able to see what I'm telling you and you may think it sounds outlandish or something, but rest assured this is the situation. ] (]) 23:27, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
:::The ] is on the person wanting to restore disputed content to get consensus for its inclusion.-- ]<sup>]</sup> 15:28, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

== ‎80.3.217.118 ==

Sorry if I overstepped, but I converted your partial block to a sitewide block. I didn't notice the precise sequence of events, including your last warning until the IP's post after my block.--] (]) 23:35, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
:But they were to improve the encyclopedia!-- ]<sup>]</sup> 15:33, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

== Categories ==

No worries, these things happen. Done it myself once or twice, even. Wasn't being accusatory or anything, I just always use the same edit summary so that people know why I'm removing categories. ] (]) 19:51, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
::{{ping|Bearcat}} It was just a dumb error on my part. Didn't mean to make extra work for you :) -- ]<sup>]</sup> 19:53, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

== Administrators' newsletter – May 2023 ==

] from the past month (April 2023).

{{Col-begin}}
{{Col-2}}

] '''Administrator changes'''
:] ]
:] {{hlist|class=inline
|]
|]
|] (])
|]
}}


]
{{Col-2}}


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


:I've reverted their disruptive edits. ] (]) 21:28, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
] '''CheckUser changes'''
::{{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 ==
] '''Oversighter changes'''
:] ]


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)
{{Col-end}}
:They reinstated their edit to ].--] (]) 00:34, 14 January 2025 (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)


== Thank you for blocking the sockpuppet... ==
] '''Guideline and policy news'''
* A ] about removing administrative privileges in specified situations is open for feedback.


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)
] '''Technical news'''
: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)
* Progress has started on the ]. This is to address the concerns raised by the community in their ] that requested improvements be made to the tool.


== The Holiptholipt Saga ==
] '''Arbitration'''
* The proposed decision in the ] case is expected 11 May 2023.


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?
] '''Miscellaneous'''
* ] through May 19. The final plan will be published in July 2023.


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)
{{center|{{flatlist|
::You're welcome, and thank you! ] 23:38, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
* ]
* ]
* ]
}}}}
<!--
-->{{center|1=<small>Sent by ] (]) 09:23, 3 May 2023 (UTC)</small>}}
<!-- Message sent by User:Dreamy Jazz@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Administrators%27_newsletter/Subscribe&oldid=1152381652 -->


== One two buckle my shoe == == 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! On 26 April you protected the above article which was under sustained vandalistic attack from IPs, but almost as soon as that lapsed they returned worse than ever. Could you please either renew the protection for a bit longer or else advise what other course can be taken? Thanks, ] (]) 18:59, 3 May 2023 (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)
:(tps) I took a long hard look at the article and its history, and went straight for 6 months. Not a criticism, but I just wanted be sure you're aware the ] exists for these kinds of times. -- ] <sup>]</sup> 19:26, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
::I am aware of all that, and I am not editing with two accounts simultaneously. Why did it occur to you to conduct this check at this specific time? Isn’t this a breach of policies on your part by revealing my identity publicly? What is your purpose behind this action? Do you intend to discourage me from contributing to Misplaced Pages? ] (]) 22:26, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
:::I can see that you're not editing with two accounts simultaneously, which is why I didn't block you. But you ''are'' editing the same topics without declaring your previous accounts, which is an issue. There is no breach of policy, if was your edit history that made the connection to all of your previous accounts clear - I didn't even have to run a check! As there are many, many issues with the articles and drafts you create, you should declare your previous accounts. Editing not only the same topic area, but the same articles, without declaring the intersection of the accounts, can be seen as avoiding scrutiny, especially given your history of socking on another project. -- ]<sup>]</sup> 22:34, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Correction: I have not used sockpuppets in Arabic Misplaced Pages or any other project while having another active account. That old account has not been used there since November 2022. I had an issue with one of the administrators and decided to leave it behind. My matter with that Wiki is unrelated to the English project. I do not understand why you are taking this serious action and disclosing my identity publicly, especially when the original topic is entirely different. What you are doing could lead to significant consequences. ] (]) 22:39, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::I'm not disclosing your idenity publicly, I have no clue who you are outside of Misplaced Pages. What I have gathered through even just a brief look at your contributions is that you're editing with multiple accounts on this project without disclosing them. is extensive. And you are banned from editing for socking at ar.wiki per and . I had suggested that you declare the accounts on your talk page and restrict yourself to one account so that 1) your editing history is clear and 2) there is no concern that you are also evading scrutiny on this project. There to make the declaration.-- ]<sup>]</sup> 22:52, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::We have something called the email feature; you could have used it to communicate with me instead of creating an atmosphere of discomfort and intimidation here! ] (]) 22:42, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::There's no reason to use email in this case. Subterfuge is not required.-- ]<sup>]</sup> 22:52, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::I have only '''one '''active account, and I am not concerned with anything else. I do not edit using two accounts simultaneously because I am fully aware of this policy. My user page is my right, and I can put whatever I want on it.
:::::::Question for you: Why did you bring up this topic now when we were discussing something entirely different? ] (]) 22:57, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::{{ec}} Well, I'm concerned. Socking doesn't just mean using multiple accounts simultaneously. What you're doing is essentially stringing one ] after another, except they're invalid clean starts due to the fact that you are using multiple accounts to edit the same articles. The reason I brought it up in the first place is because it was clear from just a quick look at your editing history that you were operating multiple undeclared accounts contrary to ] given the myriad concerns raised regarding your article creations under your other accounts and especially your particiption in ] articles. -- ]<sup>]</sup> 23:11, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::{{tpw}} In addition to the other things you're doing wrong, you've been editing logged out since August 21, 2023, with ]. And your edits with those IPs are as prolific and rapid-fire as your various named accounts. And you '''cannot''' put whatever you want on your userpage.--] (]) 23:08, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::What does this have to do with me as well? Is there a problem with contributing to the encyclopedia in a calm manner? Do we need to ask for permission if we want to make quick edits? ] (]) 23:11, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::I created this account because my previous account was blocked on Arabic Misplaced Pages without making any edits. I did not create this account with bad intentions or to achieve anything specific. I did not ask for any privileges! ] (]) 23:13, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::I'm not sure why you're not understanding this. If you are editing the same articles here, including ] where your accounts are receiving ] notifications, you should be declaring all of your accounts in order to having issues on en.wiki as well.-- ]<sup>]</sup> 23:17, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::"''However, if an editor uses their new account to resume editing articles or topics in the same manner that resulted in a '''negative '''reputation in the first place (becoming involved in disputes, edit warring, or other forms of disruptive editing), the editor will probably be recognized (as a "sockpuppet") and connected to the old account, and will be sanctioned accordingly. Changing accounts to avoid the consequences of past '''bad '''behaviors is usually seen as evading scrutiny and may also lead to additional sanctions''".
::::::::::::None of this happened. You are falsely accusing me with incorrect allegations. I already told you the reason I created this account is to avoid having any account with issues (i.e. blocked on a wiki)! ] (]) 23:21, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::::You've been warned for edit warring. You've edited contentious topics and received CTOPs notifications. Myriad concerns have been raised about your article creations (many of which you just blank from your talk pages). You're creating new accounts without connecting them to your previous accounts despite these issues gives the appearance of avoiding scrutiny (the exact wording of the ] being ''"Using alternative accounts that are not fully and openly disclosed to split your editing history means that other editors may not be able to detect patterns in your contributions. While this is permitted in certain circumstances (see ]), it is a violation of this policy to create alternative accounts to confuse or deceive editors who may have a legitimate interest in reviewing your contributions."'' '''You are creating alternative account that confuse editors who may have a legitimate interest in reviewing your contributions'''. Stop. Stick to one account. Log in to edit. It's really simple. You don't need to post here any more, just don't use multiple accounts on multiple projects.-- ]<sup>]</sup> 23:35, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 23:36, 21 January 2025

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



Opinion on Zhoban predecessor

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

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

2030s

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

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

You've got mail

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

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

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

Brazilian Stalinist "year" Vandal blocked by you

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

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

User contributions for Wladimiroclarine - Misplaced Pages

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

Pilar Primo de Rivera: Revision history - Misplaced Pages

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

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

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

Æ's old account wasn't working

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

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

Thank you for blocking the sockpuppet...

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

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

The Holiptholipt Saga

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

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

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

January 2025

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

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