User talk:Ponyo/Archive 58

Archive 55

Archive 56

Archive 57

Archive 58

What to do when you know someone is a sock...

... but have no idea who? Mleczekofficial gamed autoconfirmed, and immediately began using twinkle to send welcomes, request page protection for no reason, and revert good faith edits. At first I was thinking CafeGurrier66, but there's not enough dumb template stuff for that. Is it worth going to ANI with something like this? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:26, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

What I found interesting was that almost all the new users they welcomed were students, and not from the same course.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:40, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Sock blocked.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:14, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

For you revert Iqbal Wikipedia

Muhammed Iqbal Most of the Asian region he known as Allama Iqbal So please add Other names Muhammad Iqbal|Allama Iqbal] SonAbraham (talk) 08:03, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Ponyo... Please add Allama Iqbal Name also it is easy to find him easily. SonAbraham (talk) 08:04, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

...and another sock blocked.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:14, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Vax "conspiracy theories"

Hey, wiki-admin. You blocked me a few months ago for "conspiracy theories" about the Covid-19 clot shots. Here's a recent, peer-reviewed study by MIT indicating a 25% increase in severe cardiac incidents directly associated with the vaccine roll-out: [1] . Would your block and the reasoning behind it be a violation of WP:OR, or is being anti-science acceptable for admins and moderators here? 96.255.69.229 (talk) 01:01, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

...and yet another sock blocked.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:25, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

User:Honest_Yusuf_Cricket

This seems borderline WP:DUCK for Honest_Yusuf_Cricket; thoughts? OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:14, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

@Ohnoitsjamie: It's them; blocked and tagged.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:31, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Deletion of Tom Roberts (pianist)

I moved an article out of my sandbox today only to find it had been deleted. Can you help me understand why? The note says this: [Create=Require administrator access] (indefinite) (Repeatedly recreated: article repeatedly created in incorrect wp space), but I'm confused by this cryptic explanation. I created the article back in January, then modified it based on feedback and moved it out of the sandbox today. If you can provide me with some guidance, I'd very much appreciate it. I haven't created a new Wikipedia article in quite a few years, and this is my first article about still living (my other articles were about historical figures). If I put it in the incorrect wp space, can you help me understand where I should have placed it? Bskaat (talk) 21:23, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

@Bskaat: You've twice moved the article from Draft space to Wikipedia project namespace, which holds administrative-type pages. What you're looking for is the mainspace, which hosts articles. I would be hesitant to move it there due to the lack of reliable sourcing and promotional tone of the draft which may lead it to be deleted, especially if you have a conflict of interest with the subject.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:33, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. I didn't realize I'd moved it to the wrong space. I think I accidentally "moved" it there a second time because I was editing it and it was saved back into that same space again. I'm a novelist, not an encyclopedia-ish writer, so my style doesn't suit this space. I'll work on correcting the tone and add some inline references so that sounds more like an encyclopedia entry. Bskaat (talk) 21:46, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Excellent. Good luck with your draft.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:54, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

70.189.24.158

Hi Ponyo, you gave User:70.189.24.158 a 3 month block back in March for disruptive editing. Well, they're back at it again, removing templates and posting total nonsense on talk pages. Could you give the IP a block again? It's pretty clearly the same person behind it as before. Thanks. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:34, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

@Trainsandotherthings: They're creating a ton of work for ACC reviewers and their (minimal) history of interactions with other editors displays some significant competence issues. I've reblocked the IP.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:31, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

50.241.14.29

Thanks for doing the CU block on the IP! However, I believe there's most likely a longer ban in place as it's block evasion. Yamla blocked an IP range for similar reasons and I provided this info as he went on vacation. – The Grid (talk) 12:55, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Are you asking about extending the block? It's been used for three months, so I blocked it for three months. I'm aware of the block evasion, hence the checkuser block.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 15:32, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

You're right, I don't know why I was focused on the IP range. – The Grid (talk) 19:31, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

article talk page addition that should probably become less visible

Howdy! This is on the talk page for Patricia: [2]. I think revdel wouldn't hurt. Thanks for taking a look. Hope all's well. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 15:40, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

I've oversighted it as there was too much private info in there to just rev-delete.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 15:45, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Even better. Thank you very much. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 15:48, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

UTRS appeal #61089

I had to dig up those socks with my bare hands and bleeding fingers. Do you see a hidden connection I do not/can not? I filed a SPI. Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:21, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

And then carry them on my back, though the snow to SPI. Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:22, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

He can talk to you. I've muted him. Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:25, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

No good deed, as they say.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:28, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

IP block evasion

Not sure if it would be better to post this at SPI rather than here, so apologies if I'm wrong. Anyways, 86.187.174.137 appears to be more block evasion of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ZestyLemonz: requesting things from other users (such as here), same targeted articles (edited on The Masked Dancer (British TV series) with a recent sock of theirs on there as well), as well as an almost-exact revert to what a previous sock of theirs posted (see [3] vs. [4]). Either way, seems like a block would be appropriate here... thanks in advance. Magitroopa (talk) 22:20, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Got it.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:24, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

AbortionIsMurder etc.

That editor may have been here a few years ago with a different AbortionIs handle and a couple of others. I've put a SPI on their user page.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 21:10, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Accounts like these are non-starters. You can start an SPI but it's hardly worth the effort as the accounts will be blocked on sight based on their username and/or WP:NOTHERE.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:13, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MadWiki1

Based on some of the post-block activity, I'm wondering: are we sure this not an LTA? I mean, that post you reverted by one of the socks...not just the major nastiness but naming so many users.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:09, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

There are days when I feel like all sock accounts are LTAs. Like Wikipedia hit mass saturation of sock accounts and now it's the same 30 or so LTA groups just cycling through accounts. When I poked around in the case I don't remember seeing any links to older cases, either directly or by running IPs through the CU log, but I may have missed something. I was heading into a 5-day holiday weekend, with one foot already out the door.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:45, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Unprotection request

The article for Vikram Gandhi exists, but the talk page (Talk:Vikram Gandhi) is still protected from creation. Thanks. -Kj cheetham (talk) 20:15, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

@Kj cheetham: Unprotected now...-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:52, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Ponyo Thank you! -Kj cheetham (talk) 17:53, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Question

Hi @Ponyo, I saw that the page Talk:Vickers Type C was deleted per Wikipedia:CSD G5. While I am not contesting this deletion, your mass deletion summary was that you were deleting pages edited by Patachonica. Could I please have some background on this?

Thanks, Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk / contribs)} 04:16, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @Urban Versis 32: See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Magnatyrannus. Oddly enough, another user I thought Extrapolaris. Weird! BilCat (talk) 21:52, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll check that out. Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk / contribs)} 14:24, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

UTRS appeal #61366

Hello, can you tell me who the master is? On the ticket? Can't figger it out. Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:10, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Deepfriedokra Do you mean this one? Looks like NRP tagged it after you asked, so I'm guessing you have it all buttoned up now. -- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:50, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Checkuser evidence required

Hi Ponyo. You blocked User:Newzap123 as a sockpuppet of User:Bestf123. I have made claims on User talk:Liz that the sockpuppeteer is using Dubai-related IP addresses to circumvent his block (based on this thread). Would it be possible to get some checkuser evidence for this? Context: I requested speedy deletion of Draft:Manish Shukla per WP:G5 but it was declined because of a lack of checkuser evidence. The involved IP's are 2001:8f8:1a65:6c7b:7020:fc69:f856:efa3 (draft creator) and 2.51.37.255 (second editor). Regards, Renewal6 (talk) 23:30, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

IPs cannot be connected to named accounts per the privacy policy.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:41, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Renewal6 I suggest that you create an SPI with Bestf123 named as the master where you outline the behavioural evidence that the IPs are evading a block and request that the articles be deleted per G5 if a clerk or admin finds that they are behaviourally related. Or ping me and I'll delete them after the SPI closes.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:02, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the advice, I have done so. Renewal6 (talk) 11:46, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

@Ponyo: The SPI is closed and three additional sockpuppet accounts have been confirmed. However, the draft is still there. Renewal6 (talk) 22:07, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

I've deleted the draft.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:45, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. Renewal6 (talk) 21:06, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Move protection

I see that you've indefinitely move-protected Capital North West & Wales. As far as I can tell, the most recently blocked editor to that page that was blocked for sockpuppetry moved it to this title. It was previously at Capital North West and North Wales, at least according to the NPP feed for redirects. Am I missing something? Clovermoss (talk) 02:21, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

@Clovermoss: It's all very confusing and this sock likes to make multiple moves of similar pages which I'm trying to end with the protections. A look at the corporate page for the company shows the use of the ampersand across their platforms, so even if the article didn't start as Capital North West & Wales, that may be the best place for it. I assume that's why Hughpugh2 ultimately moved it there? If that's the wrong title I can move it somewhere else, just let me know! -- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 15:52, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

@Ponyo That works then. I was wondering if you meant to keep it at that title since that was what the sock moved it to, but if it's the right title then it's the right title. I was just casually looking at things in the new pages feed and I agree that it was confusing. Clovermoss (talk) 18:07, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Lallint

seeks unblocking at UTRS appeal #61572 . You thoughts are always of value. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:08, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

@Deepfriedokra: Some people are just not suited for editing here. Rereading Lallint's talk page brings that back, and I don't find their UTRS appeal particularly persuasive. On their Simple talk page, they're still making the same tired jokes as they did here that led to me just running out of patience. I won't protest an unblock if that's what the community wants, but I'm not very supportive of one at this time.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:24, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I have a consensus to decline -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:42, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

FYI

Just letting you know you and I are named in the "sourcing dispute" of info being added to the Dominick Fernow article. https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Dominick_Fernow Zinnober9 (talk) 00:02, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

I've opened a thread at BLPN.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:05, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Protection

Hi, a few days ago, you semi-protected PT boat and several other articles from an IP farm that was making disruptive edits. I have no idea if this is one person or a group, but every once in a while, they try to be insulting, but they don't know how to insult an American! (See [https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=McDonnell_Douglas_F-4_Phantom_II&diff=1103006791&oldid=1102434830 here, and since blocked by Nick-D.) The main page they are still targeting are Gorch Fock (1933), but there were a few others after you protected some of their targets. Thanks. BilCat (talk) 00:47, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

@BilCat: I've now protected Gorch Fock (1933) and Fieseler Fi 167. Please let me know if there are any others currently being targeted.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:08, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. See Leonard Cheshire and Fieseler for two more. BilCat (talk) 23:44, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

One protected by me, another admin protected the other. Also blocked the latest IP.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 15:48, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks again! BilCat (talk) 22:51, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

One more: Hawker Siddeley. Thanks. BilCat (talk) 22:27, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

 Done-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:31, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

More: McDonnell Douglas and Avro. Thanks. BilCat (talk) 01:11, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

And more: BAE Systems and Supermarine. BilCat (talk) 06:21, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

They have been using Special:Contributions/49.186.45.212 over the weekend. All the articles edited probably need protection. I hope you're having a good weekend. BilCat (talk) 02:25, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

All done.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:38, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, as always. See AIR-2 Genie for another one. BilCat (talk) 06:44, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Done. Whack-a-mole it is.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 15:56, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

One more: Northrop A-17. Thanks. BilCat (talk) 08:52, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

They've only edited that one once. Let's see if they come back to it (I've watchlited it for a bit). The Aussie ranges they're using are large and dynamic, unfortunately. Even liberal rangeblocks wouldn't stop them.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 15:39, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Yup, they are sure roaming the ranges down there. BilCat (talk) 19:58, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

They hit Northrop A-17 again. They also edited Supermarine Spitfire, but reverted themself. BilCat (talk) 07:29, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

This is getting weird. See here. Note that they added and self-reverted the exact same edit over the weekend too. Thanks. BilCat (talk) 05:39, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Oddly enough, some socks do this. I have no idea why, maybe just to let us know they're around? -- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 15:53, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Another admin has protected the article. I guess we'll see what happens next. BilCat (talk) 19:55, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

I have a couple of predictions, none of which is "they find another hobby and we don't have to protect any other articles".-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:04, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Nope, same hobby. See Douglas Aircraft Company. BilCat (talk) 02:45, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Article protected by User:Acroterion. (Thanks!) BilCat (talk) 03:03, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

And another one: United Aircraft. BilCat (talk) 04:23, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

And back at Douglas Aircraft Company again. BilCat (talk) 21:41, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Now at Loughead Aircraft Manufacturing Company. BilCat (talk) 00:34, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

And Northrop Corporation. BilCat (talk) 01:11, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

• Fuuuuuuuuuuudge. This Australian ip ranges are a PITA. -- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 15:50, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

  Yup. See Embraer EMB 314 Super Tucano for another range. BilCat (talk) 05:05, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks again! BilCat (talk) 20:30, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

  And back at Heinkel He 111 since the protection expired. BilCat (talk) 00:37, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks again. BilCat (talk) 16:13, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

  NP. It's never going to end is it?-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:16, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

  Who knows. Many LTAs do finally move on. We'll see what happens. BilCat (talk) 16:25, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

The usual at José Carrillo

73.189.54.44 ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:05, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish you mean THE A LIST CELEBRITY blacklisted by Wikipedia?! PRAXIDICAE🌈 20:07, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

I'd create the article myself, but I have a coi as their number one fan. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:09, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Now blocked. I wonder whether being filled with such an overblown sense of importance is a blessing or a curse.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:11, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

I feel it's a bit of a Wesley Willis situation, only without the notability, and without the whipping on a llama's ass. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:14, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Tell you what, if Carrillo can get Jello Biafra to endorse him in any way, as Wesley Willis did, I'll cease and desist from blocking their socks.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:22, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

I actually met Jello Biafra at H2K2. He hung around after his talk and chatted for a while, then bummed money off everyone who stayed to chat with him. He said he got kicked out of the Dead Kennedys so they could sell out their music rights. I gave him $20. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:46, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

This is a great story. Sort of gives Kill the Poor a fresh spin.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 15:56, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Unrelated to this, but I sent you an email. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:03, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

I have a COI was their number 1 based "admin" according to his website. PRAXIDICAE🌈 20:13, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

208.82.97.117 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:31, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Restore deleted content

Can u please restore contant of a delete page..

1972 Killing of North Carolina Family

Thank you Desmesuradopared (talk) 19:40, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

For Ponyo's convenience Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1972 Killing of North Carolina Family ;) PRAXIDICAE🌈 19:45, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

for more conveniencePRAXIDICAE🌈 19:47, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

I mean, did they think we wouldn't notice? -- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:12, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Sometimes I wonder when socks come to your tp and Yamla's if they're trolling and actually looking for a block. I refuse to believe any human capable of going through the steps of registering and what not is actually stupid enough to think they're not that obvious. PRAXIDICAE🌈 21:29, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

They just asked a week ago with another sock. I'm pretty lazy, so I don't mind them making it easy. -- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:38, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

FYI

this should be of interest to you since you just warned them yesterday about inappropriate draftifications (most of which I undid) but they seem to just be creating more and more problems. I suggested the editor who requested admin input just take it to ANI and I'm tempted to myself (as a case of WP:CIR and WP:DE) but figured you might want to take a peek since they completely ignored your warning and just reverted it. PRAXIDICAE🌈 21:52, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

This feels like Galendalia, redux. Cases like this are excruciating as many editors have a hard time grasping the extent of the disruption from an editor that, from all appearances, wants to improve Wikipedia but doesn't understand nuance and essentially bull-in-china-shops their way through the encyclopedia. It's often only after mentors step up then throw their hands up in frustration that a block sticks.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:06, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

The problem with this one is that they're taking any reason their edits are undone and using it against everyone else. ie. if you revert them for adding trivia, they then go to every article and remove sourced content on the basis that it's "trivia" (among other things) but sometimes wanting to improve the project isn't enough. Le sigh... I also generally oppose the use of mentorship because I can't think of a single (at least recent) case where it's worked. PRAXIDICAE🌈 22:11, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

About William Duthie (disambiguation)

Hi Ponyo,

It would appear that there is at least a notable William Duthie (painter) - Art UK appears to think so, and I can't find a deletion discussion for that possible article. Haven't looked at William Duthie (writer) yet.

Pete AU aka Shirt58 (talk) 08:46, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, there is the potential that this could be a viable dab page one day, but not until the articles are written. Right now the page is disambiguating nothing at all as there is only a single extant article with that name.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:48, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Query

Hello, Ponyo,

I have run into an interesting new editor by the username of DownAndUp. They have been here for just 3 weeks, they are nearing 100 edits and they spend all of their time at AFD, nominating beauty pageants for deletion. Getting rid of these articles on pageants and beauty contestants is their primary focus. I don't need to say that this is unusual behavior for a new editor, to jump into deletion discussions right away (I don't think I even know AFD existed for months after I started editing) but it's such a specific editing focus, I assume that this would ring a bell for our regular checkusers and SPI clerks if it matched the profile of a sockmaster. Or maybe one of your TPS will recognize it. I know Bri also worked on AFDs & PRODs in this subject area, maybe they will have an idea.

Any way, I hope you are well and getting some rest this weekend. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:35, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

First edit is creating a blank userpage? Always a sign of a non-first account. It doesn’t look to me like a sockfarm that I have encountered before. In fact, right now I don’t see why it couldn’t be a legitimate alt account even for one of our regular editors. ☆ Bri (talk) 14:23, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

An editor using an undisclosed account solely to participate in AfDs doesn't fall under any of the WP:VALIDALT scenarios. There are a couple sockmasters who fit the bill. I'll have to check behaviour to see if they match.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:13, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Neelix.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:03, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Just seeing this now after closing some of the AFDs they started. I thought they were a sockpuppet but I never would have guessed Neelix! I thought they had moved on from Wikipedia years ago. How do you go from being an admin to a sockmaster? There is probably no answer to that one. But habits, like editing, are hard to break.

Well, I'm glad I brought it to your attention. Thanks for following up on this. Liz ^{Read! Talk!}

It was a surprise to me as well. I opened the drawer expecting to find a generic sport sock and pulled out this instead.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 15:33, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Regarding my view that this might have been a valid alt account. Obviously not so if it's Neelix. But if it were anyone else, it looks like the RfC this year concerning WP:PROJSOCK did not reach consensus, so I'm not sure where we stand currently. Maybe OK to participate in AfDs with alt account? Maybe not? ☆ Bri (talk) 22:08, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Outside of privacy issues, WP:VALIDALT accounts are expected to connect the accounts per WP:SOCK#NOTIFY. I very much doubt that creating multiple accounts to create and vote in AfDs without disclosing the connection between the accounts will ever get community consensus. -- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:36, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Kada13

Interesting that this user has picked up exactly where the two socks left off right after you blocked them. PRAXIDICAE🌈 17:35, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Also an added bonus and surprise, some Irish IP socking! PRAXIDICAE🌈 17:47, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

This is a cross-wiki issue, which I've now noted when I blocked Cironi. A dash of WP:IAR has been applied as well.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:15, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

I'd delete on sqwiki but there are too many active admins and it's been there for years unfortunately. PRAXIDICAE🌈 18:20, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

@Ponyo on another note, 3rr doesn't seem to be his only problem. Dude literally pinged me to his talk page and then reverted my explanation and included an attack. It's like the trifecta! I seem to be setting a record the last few weeks...PRAXIDICAE🌈 19:52, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Well that unraveled quickly. -- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:01, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Yah, I suspect they belong to a rather nasty master...Imagine being that passionate about CPU chips and not being a troll. PRAXIDICAE🌈 20:06, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

The only chips worth being passionate about are these ones. Salt and Vinegar please.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:20, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

I may or may not have just killed a giant bag of S&V chips while binge watching Netflix.... PRAXIDICAE🌈 20:25, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Jealous.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:32, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

User:Steadee

Just a minor procedural question, shouldn't this account (and its socks) be marked {{checkuserblock-account}} in the block log? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:16, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

I blocked both users, not Ponyo. She did revoke TPA for Steadee, although that doesn't matter anymore now that both accounts are globally locked. Sometimes CheckUsers will reblock an already blocked account as a CU block - depends on the CheckUser and the circumstances. It's a judgment call. Oh, sorry Ponyo, it's a judgement call. :p--Bbb23 (talk) 13:39, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

As Bbb23 notes, the account wasn't blocked based on checkuser evidence, they were blocked based on the behavioural evidence provided at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Chiscomalaga. I only checked and confirmed the account when they were contesting the block by claiming to be unrelated. I sometimes modify a regular block to a CU block if there is new evidence (e.g. modifying a block for edit warring where the blocked editor turns out to be a sock), but in this case the check only confirmed what we already pretty much knew-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:03, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

I find it very helpful with block logs are modified to show an editor has also been found engaging in sockpuppetry although they were originally blocked for other reasons like NOTHERE or disruptive editing. Sometimes patrollers will tag a page as a CSD G5 and it's necessary to check and make sure there is sockpuppetry and ban evasion going on. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:03, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Help with AfC situation

Hi Ponyo, my name is Allison and I'm here to ask a question about a declined draft at AfC, as it looks like you blocked the editor who declined it. I wanted to ask the editor for more feedback on what is needed for the draft but from their talk page I can see that they'd been blocked and that the reason was their reviews of drafts at AfC not being well-informed. Before I go further, I should disclose that I work for JLL (company) and have a financial conflict of interest with the company and any related pages, and I don't intend to edit live Wikipedia pages, only to discuss with editors. The draft is for the company's CEO, Draft:Christian Ulbrich. It was submitted by a colleague of mine who has moved to another role, which is why I'm the one following up. (Sorry this is so complicated!) Since the editor wasn't properly reviewing, what should I do about the declined draft? Is it ok to remove the decline? Or should I resubmit? The draft had been awaiting review for a while. I saw that there are a lot of drafts affected by this, so hopefully your guidance on this can help others too. AHatJLL (talk) 16:55, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I'm not Ponyo and while the decliner was blocked as a sockpuppet, their reasoning was not exactly flawed. The article is poorly written and lacks independent, in depth coverage in reliable sources. You can attempt to improve it if such sources exist and resubmit it. PRAXIDICAE🌈 16:58, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

@AHatJLL:, please follow Praxidicae's advice above.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:41, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the candid feedback, Ponyo and Praxidicae. I'll take a close look at the sourcing to see if anything can be improved. The Handelsblatt and Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung pieces focused on Mr. Ulbrich seemed to fit the requirements for reliable, independent and in-depth sources but perhaps I missed some nuance in the guidelines? As well, was there anything specific that you'd point to re: the draft being not well written? I believe the structure and content was based on similar biographies on Wikipedia. Any pointers you can give me would help me make sure I'm not resubmitting before it's appropriately updated. Thanks! AHatJLL (talk) 15:47, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Potential User:Xselant sock

Ponyo, you blocked User:Xselant on Aug. 16. A new editor named User:LagoonMoon has started editing just today. Based on both editors editing Maya Hawke, Adria Arjona, and Angourie Rice (three articles is a pretty big coincidence for a 1-day editor), and both editors' obsession with using rowspan in WP:FILMOGRAPHY tables (and both denying that it's a WP:STYLEVAR issue), I believe it is very likely that User:LagoonMoon is a sock of User:Xselant.

If you prefer, I can file an WP:SPI report on this instead. But as the blocking admin, I thought I'd give you the first look at this. Thanks. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:25, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Wrong! Because Ponyo rarely edits on the weekends, I get the "first look". :p I thought that the sandbox created by LM (now deleted) about chipsets was also a strong bit of behavioral evidence. Blocked and tagged.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:52, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

The crackerjack weekend crew stepped in to save the day again!-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:48, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

India film/television IP sock

You had blocked 184.144.102.2 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) about a week ago for adding unsourced content. They're now on 184.144.102.219 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), making similar changes to dates of birth. They've generally been on two different ranges - 184.144.101.0/24 (where 184.144.101.3 was blocked for six months in April) and 184.144.102.0/24. Nearly all edits from that range seem to be that user. Usual tells include changing the capitalization of templates, zero-padding numbers in date of birth templates and just unsourced edits. Would you mind taking a look? Thanks! Ravensfire (talk) 18:13, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

@Ravensfire: I've blocked 184.144.100.0/22, which should catch most of the edits.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:14, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

HYC

At Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Honest_Yusuf_Cricket/Archive#15_June_2022 you said to drop a note when they return; [5] [6] is the same edit as before (compare [7] which was the stale IP and [8] which was the IP you blocked). Thanks, JBL (talk) 19:35, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

IPs blocked and page protected. Thanks for letting me know.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:50, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! JBL (talk) 20:02, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Did you forget to make the block?

Special:Diff/1106031571 but Special:Log/block&page=User:Contribuine34 is empty. Slywriter (talk) 22:46, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

This is the sock. Anything else removed was directly related to their posts.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:51, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Ah. You removed sock and reg editors comments who had their time wasted. All good. Slywriter (talk) 22:54, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Normally I'd be more precise with the removals, but the edits made that talk page unreadable. They have a bunch of ranges available to them, so whether it's the same individual or WP:MEAT, you can expect they'll be back.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:56, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Ponyo

Thank you for reverting that edit that a rogue user made on my page, I appreciate it. Blanchey 07:02, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

My Talk page

		The Original Barnstar
		You outdid yourself (and me) in your last clever post to my Talk page. Please take at least five bows.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:44, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

• Please don't revoked my barnstar. I'll do better! -- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:07, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Wut

User:ColorfulSmoke/LOSS1990-1999--there's a whole bunch more of those and I don't know what to do with it. Well, I know--NOTWEBHOST, but there's been an admin, maybe two, who suggested that if someone has a few article edits then such stuff gets to stay. Drmies (talk) 03:10, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

The best problems are those that are solved by the time I get to them!-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 15:48, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Rama-Tut redirect-related

Hi. I heard that you were the one who locked the Rama-Tut redirect due to sockpuppet account edits. I was wondering if you can have it redirect to the Rama-Tut section of Kang the Conqueror like I had to do with the Scarlet Centurion redirect. I'm just asking a favor here. --Rtkat3 (talk) 14:35, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

 Done-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:14, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Gortuna

Apparently they had some more accounts. See your cu block here and now this one PICKLEDICAE🥒 14:40, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Blocked. Haven't tagged because I'm not sure who the original master is. --Blablubbs (talk) 14:49, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Sockpuppet of [9] is back being disruptive right now, making changes and removing content

Collapse messiness

This Gowri Nandana S panicker seems like It is a sockpuppet of [10]. This user is consistently being disruptive right now, making changes and removing content. This user focus on puffing down others by change the real fact of Indian film, actor articles and awards. Evidence for sockpuppetry is given below. Removing awards and content, reliable sources Divya Padmini [11], [12] Meena [13] Reba Monica John [14] Asha Sharath [15] Lakshmi Priya [16], [17] Rima Kallingal [18] Trying to push Jyothika over top billed actors. Still going on in various articles to push their agenda [19], [20] Aditi Rao Hydari [21], [22] Create an account after sock Simran Jyothika Bagga Suriya [23] Removing huge size content and sources without proper explanation Manju Warrier [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29] Sneha [30] It's certainly possible the same person (Sock)[31]. Please take action on that Nehansaxan (talk) 03:00, 1 September 2022 (UTC) This Nehansaxan is certainly possible the same person (Sock) who tried to comback as a New ID, who tried to impersonate on my same name. Nehansaxan is surely a sock of Fazmi Haris and GowriNandanaP please check and investigate about this. Please take action on user Nehansaxan (talk) 02:00, 1 September 2022 (UTC) Gowri Nandana S panicker (talk) 02:07, 1 September 2022 (UTC) Obviously not. I'm doing good faiths revert/edits here. For sure you are sockpuppet of [30] who keep disruptive right now, making changes and removing content Nehansaxan (talk) 02:11, 1 September 2022 (UTC) See how this fake Nehansaxan is puffing up actress Meena and Sneha. Check the previous history of Nehansaxan and see how Ridiculously trying to make an edit war over the pages Meena, Sneha and Tamil Nadu state Award for Best actress . so immatured behavior like a mixed versions of both a man and woman🙄. Gowri Nandana S panicker (talk) 02:12, 1 September 2022 (UTC) I have provided all your criminal info up there. Don't trying to justify your ugly work. Seriously no idea why you trying to remove the fact, content with reliable sources and info of some actresses and actors. Back to back come with new ID to puffing up your favorite. Degrading others by removing their contributions. Must be insane Nehansaxan (talk) 02:21, 1 September 2022 (UTC) Copy the exact same words and link from me and paste here. It's so obvious who is fake and immature now. God is great Nehansaxan (talk) 03:26, 1 September 2022 (UTC) Gowri Nandana S panicker (talk) 04:22, 1 September 2022 (UTC) This immature user just blindly copying my whole text that I have written as a report at RoySmith and paste here. This is enough to prove how fake and cheap is this user RoySmith Nehansaxan (talk) 07:41, 1 September 2022 (UTC) Check their profile first... That fake Nehansaxan making edit warring over their personal favourite things with an immatured behaviour... Coin is of two sides... Check well so you get what Nehansaxan are doing very cheap here with a mentality of mixed gender behaviour🙏🏻👍🏻🙄 Gowri Nandana S panicker (talk) 04:25, 1 September 2022 (UTC) This user keep disruptive editing and vandalize Wikipedia. Removing content, awards and the articles without proper explanation. Check it out her/he contribs Nehansaxan (talk) 07:49, 1 September 2022 (UTC) You are welcome to check my contribs. I have never done any disruptive editing or vandalize wikipedia. This is the same immature kid sockpuppet of [32] who consistently being disruptive right now. Copy pasting my own summary as well. What is happening here?? Nehansaxan (talk) 08:00, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Joseph Quinn (Actor) Protection

The extended protection on this page is too much. It's overprotecting. I'm actually one of the people reverting unsourced or random information and semi-protected pages are manageable enough. So my request is to go back to semiprotection, because I saw edit wars worst than this, but the one on this page is barely mild.

Also, why you administrators don't discuss to rise like at 30/40 edits for be an autoconfermed user? This would calm things also on other pages. Koala Wiki (talk) 05:55, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Regarding the level of protection specifically, I've replied to your message on the talk page. I'm not opening the article back up to persistent BLP violations by editors who are logging in to old accounts with a handful of edits to bypass semi-protection. It doesn't matter that you believe the edit warring is mild, we don't leave articles open to persistent violations of one of our most fundamental policies. If there is talk page consensus regarding the subject's WP:DOB prior to the protection expiring, I'll lift the protection. Regarding your question on autoconfirmed limits, administrators don't determine such policies, the community does. If you think a change would be beneficial, you can start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:User access levels.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 15:29, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

I, for one, support the extended confirmed protection on that article. Judging from the number and quality of edit requests I've handled there, it's a good idea. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:34, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

@Ponyo@ScottishFinnishRadish I explain better my concern: It's an actor that recently got into the spotlight, so it's an article that could need updates. And with updates I mean reliable ones, like awards or new movies, or similar, NOT change his birth date because someone hear it in a convention.

My point is, the article may become outdated pretty fast if extended confirmed users or administrators don't keep up, may harm the encyclopedia by excluding or driving away potential editors, serious editors.

I proposed to rise the number of edits exactly for discourage this "old accounts with a handful of edits to bypass semi-protection" behaviors and not sacrifice with the extended protection users like myself that want to genuinely help. Thanks, I didn't know where ask for it. Koala Wiki (talk) 16:48, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

@Koala Wiki: None of the points you raise above qualify as a reason to remove the protection. There is no deadline on Wikipedia; restricting the article to extended-confirmed editors for two weeks isn't going to affect the quality of the article and, at this point in time, serves to actually improve both its quality and stability. BLP policy specifically states we need to get the article right, not right away. -- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:59, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Also, well formed edit requests generally get answered pretty quickly. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:53, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Wepwawawhatever socks

I was going to go to spi, but you're already involved, and it's obvious. [33][34] ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:58, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, they've got a vast IP range to muck about on.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:04, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

The things people care about baffle me sometimes. This is the crude ancient carving, right? Maybe it's a vampire who knew the artist? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:11, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Oh, of you find yourself with a free moment can you peek at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/LexLen? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:14, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Trolls be trollin'.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:15, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Ponyo. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 16:10, 2 September 2022 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Blanchey (talk) 16:10, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

@Blanchey: I'm wrapped up in a project at the moment, if there are socking concerns please take it to WP:SPI.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:32, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Ponyo, hope all goes well for you! Blanchey (talk) 20:30, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

The other guy

While admins are effective in catching this guy, the other guy, his rival, is roaming scot-free, with logged out and sock edits. This looks new, asking protections at RPP is one of their trait, articles are also same. 2409:4073:2114:FDAB:186A:A549:8B4C:A925 (talk) 17:30, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

If you have concerns regarding socking, take it to WP:SPI. You should probably log in to your account to do so, assuming it's not blocked.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:35, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Does this behavior looks familiar to you? It's the first guy.--2409:4073:48D:205F:9C7B:4CA6:CC1:1E6D (talk) 15:31, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

[35].--2409:4073:30E:B5C5:F8CC:CF88:BDDA:7D3 (talk) 05:50, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

New one, blocked. Please apply a WP:REVERTBAN for both, otherwise the person would return.--2409:4073:4D11:72CD:C0B9:8F72:AA73:167A (talk) 11:49, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

About my pages

Hello Ponyo.

Will you please undelete the pages that were deleted? I haven't done any loutsocking ever since my tempblock, so could you undelete them? You did promise to vouch for me in the unblock appeal section. Furthermore, I would like User:Patachonica/sandbox1 to be undeleted and moved to my userspace? I fully admitted to socking as Patachonica as seen in my unblock request.

If you would like to know about which of the pages that you deleted (pretty much you deleted most of them), here is a complete list of them.

I had previously done so on my talk page but you didn't respond (only Anthony Bradbury responded), and so now I have decided to message you directly on your talk page.

Thanks, Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 21:06, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

At no time did I promise to vouch for you; I left a note for Tamzin stating "If at any point you would like the G5's to be reversed, just ping me and I'll help with the restoration.... That you is clearly Tamzin. Given the continued issues that have occurred since your unblock, I'm not overly-keen to go thorugh the effort of undeleting a bunch of stuff just to see your block reinstated.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:15, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

@Magnatyrannus: You cannot remove portions of your post after another editor has replied to them as you did here. See WP:TPO.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:21, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. As long as there's been no recurrence of socking issues, which I gather there hasn't been, I'm willing to do the button-pressing, if you don't object, Ponyo. I don't think a warning for projectspace disruption should preclude the restoration of unproblematic mainspace content—although definitely understand why it makes you disinclined to personally spend time on the matter. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 21:58, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

@Tamzin: Looking at this list, is there a "reverse nuke" for undeletion? Just want to make sure there isn't before I go through and undelete them one by one.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:47, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

I have not tried this, but I think you could create a dummy request at WP:REFUND and then use User:SD0001/RFUD-helper on it. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 18:28, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Also, am I permitted to remove the CSD G5 tag? Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 20:15, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Did I miss one?-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:18, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Nevermind, it was Macraucheniopsis and I've removed it now.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:20, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

You forgot some, such as Cochilius, Paranisolambda, Huilabradys, Albertatherium, Periptychus, and Vassalia, which were all deleted by another admin, such as Anthony Bradbury. Is it by any means possible for one admin to undelete a page another admin deleted? Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 20:22, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

I have only restored the pages that I deleted; I will not reverse another administrator's valid deletions. You'll need to request undeletion from the relevant admins.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:27, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

I have tried that, but that did not work. Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 20:29, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps Wikipedia:Deletion review is your next option under Point #3 ("if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page)."-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:34, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Note: I've recently recreated two of the articles that were deleted, with those two being Analcitherium and Neonematherium after a suggestion by Hemiauchenia. Also, I never said that I was Tamzin. The pages also include redirects. The reason why I recreated them is to make less time in button-pressing. Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 23:37, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Magnatyrannus,

I restored the other pages you listed except for Vassalia which is not a deleted article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:39, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Liz, Oops sorry, it's actually spelled with an extra "l" (Vassallia). Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 20:41, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Pesky IP from India / BLP violations

Insanely disruptive user from India is back on another IP (https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Special:Contributions/47.15.37.197 and https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Special:Contributions/47.15.144.48). Could you maybe rangeblock them? --FMSky (talk) 19:14, 11 September 2022 (UTC) Reappeared under another IP: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Special:Contributions/223.225.249.192 --FMSky (talk) 04:25, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

@FMSky: Ranges from this region are notoriously large and dynamic making rangeblocks ineffective due to the collateral. Revert and report is, unfortunately, the most efficient way to deal with them. Liberal protection of repeat targets can sometimes help as well. -- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:23, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

"Three revert warning" about two contributions banned by censors: one in the "Colliding beam fusion" topic and the other on the "Solar energy" topic

I received your warning. I understand Wikipedia. I will not insist and leave these contributions banned (as I have no real choice). However note that what happens is problematic for the future of Wikipedia, because a certain form of fundamentalism appears in science.

I posted two contributions, one on a new type of colliding beam fusion reactor and the other on a new type of solar plant (for desert areas). I worked in the Nuclear industry (now I'm retired).

Both contributions were banned because the EPE (Energy and Power Engineering) journal where I wrote the article is supposed to be a predatory journal ! This form of arbritary censorship is dangerous because it is a direct return to mediaval age method.

For example, this is what I wrote in https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:Solar_energy :

“My contribution has been banned today because the EPE journal is supposed to be a predatory journal!

I added this contribution because it could be of interest for readers to present an alternative way to generate electricity and, in the same time, desalinated water, mainly for desert areas. Now this contribution is banned and I will not reverted it. Censors have won.

Now, who decides to blacklist the EPE journal? After some investigation, I found that the EPE journal pertains to SCIRP and that a certain Jefferey Beall posted a predatory list in 2012 and 2014, where SCIRP appears. Now it's just the opinion of this person. Another person would have posted another list. But in any cases, this list is now considered by several persons (let's be optimistic, a very small minority I hope) as the "truth". This list appears to be equivalent to the "List of Prohibited Books" ("Index Librorum Prohibitorum") with several self-appointed censors in charge to remove all the contributions refering to an editor present on the list. No lawyer to defend the editors and no possibility given for the editors to improve their methods (supposing that they were reprehensible). The editors of this list are condemned for eternity. This is really sad. I'm just an engineer and I had an high consideration for science and its tolerance. Today, I lose my illusions and I'm afraid for the future, if this minority imposes its rules by a form a violence (as to directly ban contributions). Moreover, I don't understand how intelligent people can lose their time controlling if a journal pertains or not to a condemned editor, rather than reading what the contribution says.”

Patrick Lindecker —F6CTE (talk • contribs) 13:32, September 11, 2022‎ (UTC)

@F6CTE: Your contributions weren't "banned", they were reverted. When your edits are disputed and reverted, you are expected to follow dispute resolution to determine consensus. My warning regarding edit warring on your talk page was placed in my role as an administrator; administrators do not involved themselves in content disputes when also acting as an admin in the same article, so I have no opinion as to the legitimacy of the journal outside of specific policy concerns, of which I have several. You are attempting to add material/info regarding an article that you wrote, which is a conflict of interest. Don't do that. You are repeatedly crying "censorship" when what you are actually experiencing is consensus-building on a private website. If you believe that reverting an edit to an article on an online encyclopedia is equatable to violence, then this is very much not the place for you. If you can see through your conflict of interest and control the hyperbole, I will again direct you to this page which explains the dispute resolution processes available.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:41, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

I did know that presenting an article writing by yourself was a "conflict of interest". So supposing this, ban my contributions is normal.

Now the reason given was that the EPE journal was a predatory journal given that the editor SCIRP is supposed predatory. In this case, there is, of course, no possibility to find a consensus, as the contribution is not the problem and obviously has not been read.

You can ignore this reality, but this means that a minority of persons control scientific topics (by censorship), according to objectives which have nothing to see with Science. And it is really a pity, for the ones as me who love Wikipedia and use it a lot.

However, congratulations for being a Wikipedia Administrator which must not be easy, not speaking of the time that you must pass reading complaints... (☺)

All the best. F6CTE (talk) 19:30, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you

Hello, thanks for reverting the contentious contributions of the other contributor to the Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex article. Your reasoning in the summary was incredibly valid and constructive; also, the image they used of Fort Worth is ripped from a copyrighted website when searching with similar Google images and has been wrongly licensed on Wikimedia Commons; I do not know how to motion for that file's deletion there so may need your assistance with that. Additionally, the image they used of Dallas was from 2006, yet they are stating the current image from 2015 was out of date, and the grainy-image of 2006 was an "upgrade." If you would, I would love your assistance by also looking at the edit summaries on the Dallas and Fort Worth, Texas articles, as it appears they are now merely reverting out of personal preference without regard to discussion. If they lack discussion and establishing consensus, by being ever-bold, would it be justifiable for me to escalate this to the noticeboard as I intend to? - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 21:40, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

@TheLionHasSeen: They haven't edited since being warned for edit warring by C.Fred, so let's see where that goes. It's a content dispute, so discussion should take on the relevant talk pages, not a noticeboard (unless there is a breach of WP:3RR). Can you prove a link to the image you believe is a copyvio?-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:46, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

@Ponyo thank you for the clarification. That image is a mere cutout from cyberhomes.com who appears to be the sole producer and holder of the image in question uploaded partially at: Wikimedia Commons. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 21:49, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, I've nominated it for speedy deletion on Commons.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:57, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Global lock questions

I'm embarrassed to say that I don't know how a globally locked sockmaster appeals their block. They can't log in. See User talk:HotSauceFrenchFries for an extended discussion of the issue. Are my guesses right?--Bbb23 (talk) 23:28, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Wait, globally locked users can't even log in? Huh. I thought they still had access to Meta to appeal.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:30, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't know if Meta is an exception, but even if it were, I don't see how that would work. Generally, global locks involve cross-wiki abuse but not very often abuse at Meta, more likely the language projects, and usually at least one of the language projects has the largest interest in deciding whether to unblock.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:36, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

IIRC they are locked from the inside-out (i.e. they cannot log back in). Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 23:33, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Nangparbat

Hey, I just blocked RehanSadiques as a sock but without a tag. I believe they are Nangparbat; am I right?--Bbb23 (talk) 20:56, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Affirmative.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:04, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, kind lady.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:09, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

You're welcome.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:10, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

It's me again

What do you think of Special:contributions/79.73.26.181? I realize a lot of users hate my guts, and if it is one of them, as a CU you wouldn't be able to tell me who, but the thought occurred to me that it might be WP:BKFIP, in which case you could say so.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:16, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether they're being abjectly arrogant enough to be BKFIP. Do they have a specific beef with you in particular? This reads more "troll with an axe to grind". And yes, that's axe with an "e".-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:25, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

They are most obviously anti-Bbb23. Did you look at the unblock request they made before I reverted them and revoked TPA? And the edit (since reverted) they made at ANI? I have absolutely no idea who they are. As an IP, they don't have enough history for me to even attempt to figure it out. That's where you come in, Miss Battle Axe. :p --Bbb23 (talk) 20:29, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant does BKFIP have a history with you, not the blocked Talk Talk IP who very clearly does. -- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:35, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Ah, yes, a rather lengthy history. Starting in about 2018 I blocked many named users as BKFIP socks, some with a lengthy - and often constructive - contribution history. Before that I of course blocked many IPs. And I blocked no one at that time without checking first. That's when I started realizing how sly he was behaviorally and technically (Berean Hunter and I discussed this privately). I don't know if others realize this, but at least in the beginning years he did a lot of good hand/bad hand socking. BTW, I like the phrase "abjectly arrogant", although he's not when he's being a good hand sock.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:51, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

I've blocked them a lot too, but haven't dealt with much blow back. They could create an account and sneak under the radar if they could avoid being such an enormous dick to everyone (ZOMG personal attack!). -- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:13, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

You're right about that - I haven't seen BKFIP do anything like this before, either.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:31, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) FWIW, I'm pretty sure that's a WP:Sockpuppet investigations/BlackJack sock - the IP is obviously the same person who posted this (see the filter log), and the trolling, geolocation, and interest in cricket seems to fit with that case (although I suppose the latter two things aren't necessarily independent of each other). Spicy (talk) 21:11, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

ooooh, it does look like you blocked Blackjack socks many times B, winner winner chicken dinner?-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:15, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

It bears repeating what I've said many times before: Spicy is a gem. Thanks!--Bbb23 (talk) 21:28, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Edit summary removal

Hi, could you please remove the edit summaries of Tan Cheng Bock Secretary-General Progress Singapore Party for soapboxing? Thanks! Uhai (talk · contribs) 21:53, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

 Done, and I blocked them as well.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:58, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Help?

Hi there, I was wondering if I could call on you for some help and guidance? --FinLogger2017 (talk) 13:25, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

If it's regarding the content dispute you find yourself in, WP:DR is the link you're looking for. Otherwise, ask away, though I'll be AFK for the majority of the day.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:04, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

The sock Simran Jyothika Bagga Suriya back with new ID as Bhoothana

Socks pointing fingers at other socks while I point towards SPI

The sock Simran Jyothika Bagga Suriya back with new ID as Bhoothana. Puffing up his favorite, removing content, awards and fact. Previous ID Gowri Nandana S panicker Evidence for sockpuppetry is given below. Content and cast Removal,removing awards and reliable sources Navya Nair https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Navya_Nair&diff=prev&oldid=1110410719 The same Editing done in Previous ID Gowri Nandana S panicker https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Navya_Nair&diff=prev&oldid=1106722473 Meena - Puffing down actor by increases their age https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Meena_(actress)&diff=prev&oldid=1110393130 Friends - Sock removing the fact with sources and added personal agenda https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Friends_(2001_film)&diff=prev&oldid=1110392791 https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Friends_%282001_film%29&type=revision&diff=1110392958&oldid=1110392791 Trying to push jyothika over top. Logic fail when comes to jyothika and her movies. Showing partiality on Personal favorite. Yaaradi Nee Mohini https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Yaaradi_Nee_Mohini&diff=prev&oldid=1110392108 https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Yaaradi_Nee_Mohini&type=revision&diff=1110392136&oldid=1110392108 Udanpirappe - The same sock Simran Jyothika Bagga Suriya back with new ID as Bhoothana https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Udanpirappe&diff=prev&oldid=1110254495 Removing cast and crew - Ponniyan Selvan & Annaatthe https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Ponniyin_Selvan:_I&diff=1109737347&oldid=1109737232 https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Ponniyin_Selvan:_I&diff=1110116076&oldid=1110092634 Removing Starring roles as per on-screen credits https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Annaatthe&diff=prev&oldid=1109752795 https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Bhagyadevatha&diff=prev&oldid=1109688761 https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Bhagyadevatha&diff=prev&oldid=1109688724 https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Azhagan&type=revision&diff=1109689054&oldid=1102132735 Again Jyothika Agenda - top billing jyothika https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Baba_(2002_film)&diff=prev&oldid=1109503925 https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Mersal_(film)&diff=prev&oldid=1109583479 https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Mersal_(film)&diff=prev&oldid=1109687313 https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Kannathil_Muthamittal&type=revision&diff=1109355527&oldid=1108652236 Removing Starring roles as per on-screen credits https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Baba_%282002_film%29&type=revision&diff=1109688922&oldid=1109503925 Lesa lesa - unexplained content removal https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Lesa_Lesa&diff=prev&oldid=1109324962 Adding fake awards category to Jyothika. Again logic fails when comes to Jyothika https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Raakilipattu&diff=prev&oldid=1109318037 The user Bhoothana heavily biased towards Jyothika (blatant violation of WP:NPOV), and deleting so much content. Back to back with New ID. Consistently being disruptive right now. Please take action on that Nehansaxan (talk) 17:48, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Another edit summary removal

Hi Ponyo! Regarding this revdel, I guess the edit summary should go as well? –FlyingAce^✈hello 21:03, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

 Done-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:56, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Fortaleza Airport (again)

Dear Ponyo, once again I start having problems with the article Fortaleza Airport, which you have protected last time 23 June 23, 2022. A person living in Hamburg, Germany insists in adding information outside the scope of the airport article as per https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Airports. Furthermore, now the person insists in using a lay-out different than suggested by Wikipedia. This is not the first time that this person does it; actually this problem has been going on for years. Before he/she used accounts without any information and always erased the talk page. Now the person simply uses multiple IP's. It is very common that an editing war quickly escalates. For this reason, once again, I request your help in protecting the page, while I do the necessary adjustments. Thanks so much. (15:19, 12 August 2022 (UTC))

@Brunoptsem: I've blocked the range that is currently causing the issues (i.e. this one for a variety of issues. If they find a way around the block and return to the article please let me know and I'll re-protect it.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 15:52, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks so much, Ponyo. (Brunoptsem (talk) 16:15, 12 August 2022 (UTC))

Dear Ponyo, it did not work. The person found a way around the block by using a different IP and was able to revert everything what was done yesterday. This issue has been going on for a few years. I cannot know for sure but since 2012 this account has had problems originated in Hamburg, Germany, possibly by a Brazilian living there. At first, blank accounts were used such as Crucks (banned in 2012), Monart (blocked in 2014), SeasSoul (blocked in 2019), CBG17 (blocked in 2019), and Mateusportuga (dormant). Other administrators such as MilborneOne and Jetstreamer tried to intervene but were received with coarse language. I myself have received messages in Portuguese in the edit summary line. A good example of content that is always reverted is about the VASP accident on 8 June 1982, which happened during final approach. The person always deletes it on the grounds that it was 'too long ago'. Apparently, since 2019, the person acts only under IP's that change constantly. The situation is quiet for the duration of the protection but as soon as it ends the person goes back to his/her last edition regardeless of wikipedia guidelines set by the project airports. For this reason, once again I request a protection of the article. Thanks (Brunoptsem (talk) 11:34, 13 August 2022 (UTC))

Ok, I've extended the rangeblock to the /18 and semi-protected the article. Hopefully that helps.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:45, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Dear Ponyo, as expected, as soon as the protection of Fortaleza Airport expired, an IP originated in Hamburg, Germany without any suitable explanation reverted some notable changes made in the last month and kept others, placing the article according to his/her own will, particularly as related to the Airlines and destinations table and the 1982 VASP accident. The problem is old and apparently related to the same person holder of several blocked accounts and IPs. We already know that blocking IPs do not work and the person ceased to use accounts after several of them were blocked. So far, the only succesfull action was to leave Fortaleza Airport under long protection. Therefore, I once again, kindly ask you to protect the article. Thanks for your usual help. (Brunoptsem (talk) 11:43, 17 September 2022 (UTC))

I've re-protected the article.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 01:26, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Leave.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:41, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

But I heard all the cool kids hang out on the weekend! -- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:05, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Recover Deleted Items

Max Jay

I would like to restore a deleted topic, and I will review it in the future and amend and take the necessary action Osman Mustafa Osman (talk) 17:42, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

• I've replied on your talk page.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:53, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Block evasion - 37.99.43.183

Hi Ponyo. I'm not sure what you can do with the range block, but 37.99.43.183 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is almost certainly 37.99.45.191 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 37.99.45.254 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). --Hipal (talk) 22:09, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

I've placed a second block ([36]).-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:13, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

There's been more, with escalation: 37.99.43.183 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 37.99.37.242 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), (probably more that I'm overlooking). Posing as another editor: Dr.Swag Lord, Ph. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) --Hipal (talk) 19:17, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks @Hipal. I was just about to report that account for WP:MISLEADNAME. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 21:00, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

The first IP is part of the same range I blocked on the 20th and the second is stale. I blocked the impersonation account.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:36, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Fahmida Azim

Hi Ponyo! I noticed on my watchlist that Fahmida Azim was delinked from 2022 Pulitzer Prize after the article on her was deleted, which on further investigation looks like a G5 you actioned. As a Pulitzer winner, she meets WP:ANYBIO #1, and it also appears she passes GNG [37][38][39][40][41][42]. Would you be able to restore the article and its talk? Thanks, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 01:08, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

 Done-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 15:38, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! Looks like a trouting is in order for @DragonflySixtyseven, tho... {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 17:28, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

That was my mistake as I forgot to remove the G5 tag when I restored the article. @DragonflySixtyseven:, I'm sure you're fine with me restoring it again? Without the deletion tag this time... -- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:54, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Leaving aside Azim's notability, which is not in question, a) was the article created by a sockpuppet of a blocked user acting in violation of their block? b) if so, had other editors modified it so that it was substantively different from the version produced by the sockpuppet?

If the answer to (a) is 'yes', and the answer to (b) is 'no', then we have a problem. DS (talk) 19:18, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

@DragonflySixtyseven: I was the original deleting admin. I restored the article upon Sdkb's request but forgot to remove the old CSD tag when I restored it, which led to you to again delete it. Are you saying that you are unwilling to restore it? -- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:23, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

That's not what I'm saying, no. I'm asking if this is substantively similar to content created by a blocked user in violation of their block. DS (talk) 19:25, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it was "substantively similar", which is why I deleted it as G5. There's no policy requirement that such content must be deleted though, so when Sdkb requested that I restore it due to the notability of the subject, I had no problem doing so but forgot to remove the original CSD tag once it was restored. -- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:36, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Actually, it was identical. The only changes were the insertion of wikilinks.

We could argue about this, but it'll be simpler if I just take 20 minutes and rewrite the thing from scratch. DS (talk) 19:58, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't intend to argue. Nobody is arguing that either deletion (my intital one and your subsequent redeletion) was invalid at the time. My initial thought was that you had, understandably, deleted it without realizing I had just restored it. As it appears that you want to stick with your deletion, that's the end of the conversation. I have no intention of wheel warring to restore it.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:20, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

@DragonflySixtyseven: The page was on my watchlist and I noticed that It was deleted because the creator was sock, then undeleted and deleted again. I read your conversations. I was wondering that is that possible to copy the texts of the article to my sandbox so that I can rewrite it? I can't give certainty that I can rewrite it within days or months because I have tasks to translate and create articles. Just asking. Mehedi Abedin 20:03, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Done. Article rewritten from scratch. Even the sources are largely different. DS (talk) 20:30, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

That is to say, @Mehediabedin:, you don't need the old version in your sandbox, because I've written a fresh version. DS (talk) 20:33, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

42.190.191.119

They are actually ban evading, see User_talk:Drmies#Belligerent/edit_warring_IP. Block was for 1 week previously. Their favorite articles may need page protection. I will bring it up at Drmies's page. —DIYeditor (talk) 19:59, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

@DIYeditor: I was going to block the /18, but Widr beat me to it.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:09, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. —DIYeditor (talk) 20:12, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Lori Greiner

You beat me to the notice [43]. Suggestions on what to try next? I'm finding this too disruptive to try much beyond getting the editor to stop the edit warring and disruption. --Hipal (talk) 20:48, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

It looks like Timtempleton is amenable to reviewing the dispute with a neutral eye.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:00, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm unclear if there's a content dispute at this point, but just an excuse to harass and attack after stalking me to that article. --Hipal (talk) 21:10, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

I've gone ahead with a detailed description of the content in dispute, in preparation for a BLPN discussion to get more eyes. Thanks for your help. --Hipal (talk) 22:40, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Ponyo, this is yet another of many, many examples showing why so many good editors have fled from Hipal/Ronz, or Wikipedia altogether. See the nightmare he caused for four years on the Scott Baio talk page. I had planned not to say another word about Hipal when I reached out to Timtempleton and made my offer to stop editing Lori Greiner. I even told Tim to please feel free to revert any of my edits if he felt it was the right thing to do. But, since Hipal has chosen to continue antagonizing me with his insulting comments instead of simply letting Tim do his work, I will respond and provide a timeline (below). It's not surprising at all that Hipal chose to run to an administrator (you) even though this problem was well on its way to being resolved. But Hipal has a long history of doing this; running to the talk page of an administrator who recently warned or sanctioned one of his "enemies". He loves to try and create a "bond" with administrators in this way. Look at his history.

laundry list of complaints

04:59, September 22, 2022 - I ask Timtempleton to be a neutral reviewer of the disputed article.[44] 05:00, September 22, 2022 - I fix a typo in my prior comment.[45] 13:24, September 22, 2022 - Hipal/Ronz accuses me of improperly canvassing, and questions Timtempleton's suitability to assist.[46] 13:45, September 22, 2022 - I tell Hipal/Ronz that it's not canvassing.[47] 14:25, September 22, 2022 - Timtempleton replies to Stoarm about how he can help.[48] 14:36, September 22, 2022 - I explain to Hipal why I contacted Timtempleton.[49] 14:55, September 22, 2022 - I reply to Timtempleton and clarify my proposal to fully withdraw from editing Lori Greiner if he'll step in to collaborate with Hipal/Ronz.[50] 14:56, September 22, 2022 - I make a minor addition to my prior comment.[51] 16:48, September 22, 2022 - Two hours after I contacted Timtempleton and offered to stop editing the Greiner article, and three hours after my last edit to the article, Hipal runs to an administrator, Ponyo, to complain about my editing of the article.[52] 16:51, September 22, 2022 - Hipal complains to Timtempleton about my editing of the article, even though it had ended long before, and says that he wanted to go to BLPN but that an admin got involved. Hipal fails to mention that he had actually initiated the contact with the admin (Ponyo) by going to his talk page, and that the admin chosen happened to be the one who warned Stoarm about edit warring three hours earlier.[53] 17:00, September 22, 2022 - Ponyo posts one sentence in reply to Hipal, saying that it looks like Timtempleton will assist and be neutral.[54] 17:10, September 22, 2022 - Hipal pleads his case about the content dispute to Ponyo, insults me, and falsely accuses me of stalking him to the article.[55] For the record, Hipal has repeated that nonsense claim that I stalked him to the Greiner article several times to various editors. It's a complete lie. And he never even asked me about it first; he just started posting the paranoid lie. I watched an episode of Shark Tank, in which Greiner co-stars, which prompted me to go to the show's article on April 16, 2022, either during or shortly after the show. I made a few edits and had no idea at the time that Hipal had edited the article. Editors don't go to the edit history to see who's edited an article before they make their own edits. They simply go to an article and start editing if they see something that will be an improvement. And I assure you that the absolute last article I would ever want to edit is any one that Hipal has edited. And if I was stalking him to that article, why the hell would that be the only one where it's happened? I've edited dozens or hundreds of articles, so why would I choose that one, and no others, to stalk him? The guy needs to get over his own ego and stop repeating the lie. As many editors who've dealt with him will attest to, he is the kind of guy you run from, not to. In any case, my first edits were on April 16, 18 days after he last edited it. Once I discoverd his edits in the history, I wasn't concerned because my edits were pretty basic and not in conflict with any of his. In fact, he and I were essentially doing the same types of editing; removing crap and unsourced content. So, no, I did not stalk him to the article. 18:34, September 22, 2022 - Timtemplton provides his initial assessment of the current version of Lori Greiner, saying, I took a quick look at the article and everything looks fine to me casually. Sources look good, content seems neutral, no flags, nothing really stands out. So had I not gone to the history or the talk page I wouldn’t give it a second look.[56] 18:40, September 22, 2022 - Hipal inexplicably contacts Ponyo again to update him on the content dispute and inform him that he's planning to go to BLPN.[57] 18:47, September 22, 2022 - Hipal replies to Timtempleton's previously stated assessment by telling him that he's detailed all his concerns on the Lori Greiner talk page, and "thanks" me.[58]

Stoarm (talk) 03:21, 23 September 2022 (UTC) 07:11, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm not interested in reading through a long list of complaints related to a content dispute, which should be dealt with in the appropriate forums. I warned you for edit warring because you were at three reverts on an article where you'd already received a block for edit warring. The short history of your account shows a propensity for edit warring and a battleground attitude. I suggest you reassess how you deal with conflict on this website. Just my advice, you can take it or leave it. -- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 15:57, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Well, that took a turn.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:25, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

They will certainly learn after this. At least they removed the huge WP:POLEMIC list of diffs from their talk page. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:32, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

I did notice that. Oh, and a hearty congrats from me on your new mop! If there's anything admin-y that looks interesting in my .js scripts, pilfer away, my friend!-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:36, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. Sorry you got sucked into this mess. --Hipal (talk) 17:57, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

It's been a crazy busy week at work, so I plan on beginning pilfering this weekend. That is after I winterize my bees, of course. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:01, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

I get no respect

Your edit and in the edit summary there is this comment and a quick look at this friendly neighborhood discussion. And I will leave on this note. Atsme 💬 📧 20:55, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Neither criteria used really apply though. A7 is for articles, not redirects. G4 doesn't really work either as the page is not a substantial recreation of the previously deleted content, it's just a redirect. If Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Exorcise Tape results in deletion, then WP:CSD#G8 could be used. Or WP:RfD is an option. Sorry if I sounded terse in my edit summary, it was definitely not intended!-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:07, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

I was just joking with you BUT...read the AfD because you are going against consensus. Vanamonde93 chose not to redirect for obvious reasons and went with delete. Why would you overrule that decision not act to delete it? It has nothing to do with the current AfD. I feel like I am wasting my time at NPP. Atsme 💬 📧 21:26, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't think it's fair to frame it as overruling a decision. If I had personally restored the article, or created the redirect myself then that statement could be made. Not acting to delete a redirect where the two deletion criteria provided don't apply is not overruling anything, it's just boring everyday admin work. I suppose an admin could apply an WP:IAR deletion, but I don't think it's necessary when WP:RfD is just down the street and around the corner.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:44, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

My apologies for a crappy choice of words. Now fixed. The frustration of being an NPP reviewer will probably require a night out on the town. Atsme 💬 📧 00:09, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks

I really wasn't sure what to do with Mystic Band. I know BLP says it's OK to revert with that type of info but I don't feel I have enough experience as to what to do next. Knitsey (talk) 21:03, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm watching the article now and have semi-protected, which should provide some relief.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:05, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Much appreciated. Would you mind me asking, BLP aside, is there a recommended time scale to wait for concensus? Knitsey (talk) 21:09, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't think that there is a specific amount of time. Wikipedia:Silence and consensus provides some guidance if discussion has stalled. Asking for further input from relevant wikiprojects can also help push the discussion along.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:15, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

That's really helpful, thank you. Knitsey (talk) 21:18, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Can you take a peek?

Are these two users related? Seems odd they would have edited that user page after it was deleted several times. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:27, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

I see you've taken care of it. Thanks a ton. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:42, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

I pulled a loose string and an entire sock farm fell out.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:46, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

That's why they pay me three times as much as a normal admin makes. I find the big action. Didn't look like they were very successful at what they were trying, at least. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:55, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

I get paid exponentially for every checkuser block I make, starting at 0. I'm now somewhere around 0^12,642. I'm rich, biatch!-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:04, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

I've only got like 30 regular blocks, and my wage multiplier only goes up by the Fibonacci sequence, so I'm barely scratching at the bottom of zero, whereas you're easily in the very high zero. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:15, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm giving you something to aspire to. -- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:16, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Got another for you to look at if you have the time, Madamexxxx, Xxmadamex, Ocastan mishel, and Salarbil (which may be too old). Interested in if this is socking for promotion, or just regular meat puppeting for promotion. Thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:29, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

They're all the same, except Ocastan mishel, which was tagged confirmed and tagged by @RoySmith: as Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Arminzarei1234/Archive. An extremely basic check shows they could be related based on geolocation, but I don't have time to dig deeper.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:40, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks again, as usual. This is why you're my favorite. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:41, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm knee-deep in Stubes99 at the moment, I'll try to get back to this. If I don't, please ping me. Anyway, it's not the salary, it's the WMF stock options that make this all worthwhile. When they IPO, I'll be able to retire to Slobbovia. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:03, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Everything's blocked and tagged according to what's been confirmed so far, and at this point it's pretty much WP:DUCK territory, so there's no harm nor foul if the cases remain separate for now.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:08, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Thanks for your good work! Andre🚐 23:40, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Definitely +1. Beat me to it. That's why you make the big bucks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:42, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Well shucks, thanks.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:08, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Just letting you know

about this. Might be a good idea to revoke TPA. SPF121188 ^{(talk this way) (contribs)} 20:30, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Saw that. Already done.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:32, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Perfect! Just wanted to make sure! SPF121188 ^{(talk this way) (contribs)} 20:32, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Good shot

Thank you for acting on Youme219. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 07:26, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Archive 55

Archive 56

Archive 57

Archive 58