User talk:Ponyo - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Abecedare (talk | contribs) at 17:31, 9 May 2023 (→Mail: pinging just in case). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 17:31, 9 May 2023 by Abecedare (talk | contribs) (→Mail: pinging just in case)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

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

Archives

Cross-wiki vandalism

I believe that the user WorldCitizen2 is using multiple accounts to continue making his edits to the article Jardim Botânico, Federal District (), even though he is blocked. Through the sockpuppet TheDuke1975, he continues to edit the article (), promoting a cross-wiki vandalism also on the Portuguese[REDACTED] on the same article. The main account and their sockpuppet should be blocked globally. 200.133.1.60 (talk) 23:52, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

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. TheDuke1975 (talk) 00:10, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Ponyo doesn't edit on weekends. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:47, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Au contraire! I have been dipping my toe into the weekend waters as of late. I was missing out on way too much fun.-- Ponyo 16:26, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

What is a weekend?--Bbb23 (talk) 16:38, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Ha! Cute.-- Ponyo 16:47, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Today I learned Ponyo is Maggie Smith. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:53, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

And she's still in her prime! --Bbb23 (talk) 17:33, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Saffron Barker

Hi, @Ponyo! I hope and trust you're well.

I understand you created the original redirect on the Saffron Barker article to The Celebrity Circle, 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.

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.

I was a bit keen to publish it - and I did in good faith - not realising I shouldn't have removed your redirect without conferring with you first, so apologies on that front. (Keeno, I know!) Apologies again.

Attached 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. Mechanical Elephant (talk) 22:03, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

@Mechanical Elephant: I protected the redirect due to socking, but the decision to redirect was made by community consensus following two AfDs (in 2019 and 2021). 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 dispute resolution to see if there is consensus for it to be restored. -- Ponyo 16:55, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

96.80.105.165

Back in February you nailed 96.80.105.165 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. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 03:32, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

This edit is a bit suspicious...a connection with User:Toes405 cannot be ruled out for this IP, their edits are similar and they're arguing about the primary referencing! Tails Wx 03:46, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

All cleaned up now.-- Ponyo 15:44, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Request for edit summary deletion

Hello, I was wondering if you could hide the edit summaries of this recently blocked IP's edits as they contain hateful and racist messages. Have a great weekend and thank you in advance. Yue🌙 00:56, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

All set. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:01, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you Easter Beagle! -- Ponyo 17:16, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Taborhistorian

I see you've just indef blocked User:Taborhistorian in connection to the Brenden Jones 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. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:10, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

I'll take a look.-- Ponyo 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.-- Ponyo 22:21, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Recent indef block

Hello, @Ponyo!

Thank you so much for putting an indefinite block on User:Itsmehiimyourbestieitsme. 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 Scream VI, but thank you again for re-blocking the user. I was really annoyed when they kept on putting personal attacks on my talk page. Edwordo13 (talk) 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 Sirbaz Khan 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! Ainty Painty (talk) 16:48, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi 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 MOS:BIO or WP:LAYOUT and would need to be pretty much written from scratch. I would email you a copy, but you don't have email enabled.-- Ponyo 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. Ainty Painty (talk) 14:58, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Ainty Painty I've sent a copy to your email.-- Ponyo 19:52, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Than You. Ainty Painty (talk) 07:26, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Anonymousandy20913

Given that they have abused talk page access as well (including before and after their block), I'd personally recommend revoking that, too. JeffSpaceman (talk) 20:23, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Already

Done.-- Ponyo 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". 108.6.237.202 (talk) 21:00, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

"You appear to want to become involved in this." No, actually I don't. What I am interested in is an editor who restores disputed content, obviously flipping between an IP and account to do so. Reverting your additions to the article is absolutely not vandalism. 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 disputed edits with an account and while logged out, and don't frame editing discretion as vandalism and bullying.-- Ponyo 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. 108.6.237.202 (talk) 23:27, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

The onus is on the person wanting to restore disputed content to get consensus for its inclusion.-- Ponyo 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.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:35, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

But they were clearly here to improve the encyclopedia!-- Ponyo 15:33, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

One two buckle my shoe

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, Sweetpool50 (talk) 18:59, 3 May 2023 (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 WP:RFPP exists for these kinds of times. -- zzuuzz 19:26, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Borderline WP:DUCK block evasion?

Shakatone2003 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)

WP:SYNTHy contributions and timing of account creation seems borderline WP:DUCK to this range; you may recall removing TPA from their last IP User_talk:64.189.215.2. Thoughts? OhNoitsJamie 15:58, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

@Ohnoitsjamie: Notice the busy template at the top of the page.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:30, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

@Bbb23: I managed to dig myself out of the mountain of work, at least for a short bit. @Ohnoitsjamie: That sure looks like the same person to me.-- Ponyo 16:25, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

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.

-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:40, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Hey @Deepfriedokra: The blocking admin was Kusma. I just revoked tpa because of continued disruption post block. I think the UTRS appeal lacks any substance at all when compared to the severity of the disruption FacetsOfNonStickPans caused prior to their block. So either the account was compromised and still is, or they went completely off the rails on January 19th. -- Ponyo 16:59, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

@Deepfriedokra: The "compromised account" was the AGF option, but this kind of convinced me it wasn't the case. See also the discussion on my talk page: User_talk:Kusma#Compromise. Perhaps @Abecedare can comment on this? —Kusma (talk) 17:11, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Based on my knowledge of the editor's editing history and email exchange in May 2022, I am pretty confident that the account was not compromised at least at the last two occasions (in April 2022 and Jan 2023) when they went on a vandalism spree with the apparent goal of getting blocked. No strong opinions on whether the account-holder should be given another chance but will note that the last unblock was based on these conditions/assurances, which they violated. Abecedare (talk) 17:24, 9 May 2023 (UTC) Pinging @Kusma and Deepfriedokra:. Abecedare (talk) 17:31, 9 May 2023 (UTC)