User talk:Ponyo/Archive 61

Archive 55

←

Archive 59

Archive 60

Archive 61

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 ([1]), even though he is blocked. Through the sockpuppet TheDuke1975, he continues to edit the article ([2]), promoting a cross-wiki vandalism also on the Portuguese wikipedia 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^{bons mots} 16:26, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

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

Ha! Cute.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 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^{bons mots} 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^{bons mots} 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^{bons mots} 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^{bons mots} 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^{bons mots} 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia'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^{bons mots} 19:25, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Dear Ponyo,

I wanted to inform you that I have now enabled email communication on my Wikipedia account.

Thank you. Ainty Painty (talk) 14:58, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Ainty Painty I've sent a copy to your email.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 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^{bons mots} 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^{bons mots} 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^{bons mots} 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^{bons mots} 15:33, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Categories

No worries, these things happen. Done it myself once or twice, even. Wasn't being accusatory or anything, I just always use the same edit summary so that people know why I'm removing categories. Bearcat (talk) 19:51, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

@Bearcat: It was just a dumb error on my part. Didn't mean to make extra work for you :) -- Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:53, 28 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 ^(talk) 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 ^Talk 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^{bons mots} 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 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^{bons mots} 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)

Thanks Y'all. I can now take the not compromised route. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:38, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

FlorrieBeautyQueen

 20:51 	Block log  Ponyo talk contribs blocked FlorrieBeautyQueen talk contribs with an expiration time of indefinite (account creation blocked) Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DevilBlack69)

It makes sense to delete a bunch of promo drafts created by this account: FlorrieBeautyQueen (talk · contribs) Lokys dar Vienas (talk) 20:56, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Already done. If you see them pop up again, you can report them to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DevilBlack69.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:03, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

FYI

{{checkuserblock-account|sig=yes}} sets a signature with just the word "yes"; you want {{checkuserblock-account|sig=~~~~}}. ✨ Happy adminning! -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 07:19, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

I make this mistake regularly, it's sort of my "thing". Usually I preview and catch it, but usually definitely ≠ always. Thanks for the reminder!-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 15:50, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

"You are now checkuserblocked. Signed, yes." GeneralNotability (talk) 17:20, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

I either need to be more careful or request a global rename.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:25, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

I had just assumed you were stuck in an IG unit. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:37, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes. Yes. Yes.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:39, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

User talk:MihaiBlock

You may wish to revoke TPA for this user, their user talk page history seems convincing! And you fixed your mistake from the post above! Tails Wx 15:45, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

A curiosity that may be of interest

• Special:Contributions/冏酳變
• Special:Contributions/冏酳變物語
• Special:Contributions/冏酳變のわお!
• Special:Contributions/䵷軼北

From names and time it's clear they're related. Might be nothing beyond someone experimenting with scripts, then again it might not be. Still two days until they're eligible for auto-confirmation. Not ringing any bells for me but I thought perhaps you or one of your page watchers might recognize something I don't. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 00:43, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

• (talk page stalker) This is probably Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/あすぺるがあすぺしゃりすと. I've run into this one a lot but I still don't get what they're up to. Spicy (talk) 00:51, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

  Well if you can figure out the logic behind the actions of even half our resident sockmasters you're way ahead of me. So what's your assessment, is it worth the bother of an SPI? DUCKy enough for AIV? or just something to be ignored? 74.73.224.126 (talk) 01:05, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

I duck blocked them all linking to the SPI Spicy pointed out. There was also Суарпеага. I'm not sure if there's anything to be done other than to block when you spot them. Nothing can be done on the rangeblock front, unfortunately. -- Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:38, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

CU request

I opened an SPI there on 2 accounts involved in edit warring. However, since they are disrupting an article with RS removal and edit warring, a CU is needed to look at the case as soon as possible. If time permits, can you take a look? Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:08, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

You caught me with one foot out the door. I'm marked them as confirmed and updated the case status so a clerk/admin can handle the rest.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:14, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks a lot and have a nice day! Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:19, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

kitten

Homeostasis39 (talk) 08:20, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Bilal Ali (Vocalist)

Hi,

I see you protected Bilal Ali (Vocalist) for persistent sock puppetry. It popped back up at Bilal Ali (singer). I redirected it and advised the creator to use draft space. Right now AFC has declined the draft as not having enough references to show notability independent of the band. The creator denies being a sock puppet or paid editor. I thought I should bring this to your attention, especially on the off chance that they manage to create something that AFC would accept. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 15:53, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

@ONUnicorn: Thanks for letting me know. I've blocked the account per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Alizulfikarzahedi.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:53, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Sockmaster?

Hi Ponyo, I am currently tracing three obivously related vandal accounts (that alter content with deceptive edit summaries) which seem to be linked with two IP addresses. One of them (@199.119.232.216) you have identified as a sock here. Who's the sockmaster? I want to open an SPI for Swakan, ABot8000 and Harry Potter 1966 . Austronesier (talk) 23:20, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

@Austronesier: I'm not sure who the master is, but if I did know (assuming via Checkuser) I wouldn't be able to link them to an account per our privacy policy. If you want to open an SPI just use the oldest named account. A clerk can always move it to a different case name if a different master account is found.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:05, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Austronesier, I'm not a checkuser so I can tell you that these accounts look like WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Entuziazm to me. I'd encourage you to file a report there. Spicy (talk) 17:10, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Sock account

You blocked sockpuppet [3] but there is another account whose edits overlap one another. The new account is [4]. Their edits using similar unreliable sources and editing same pages makes it look like a duck quacking to me. Please look into it. 2601:547:B03:3313:F8F7:D432:66FD:6392 (talk) 16:59, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

He is vandalizing various pages currently. 2601:547:B03:3313:F8F7:D432:66FD:6392 (talk) 17:04, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Noted and blocked.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:25, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Can't lie...

...never saw that coming. I suppose I need a new pair of glasses. Tiderolls 21:09, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Do you have "Strike out usernames that have been blocked" checked in your gadget preferences? It can make socks stick out like a sore thumb in article histories.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:14, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) I LOVE that feature! It really does help in sockhunting. BilCat (talk) 22:18, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

I found it, Ponyo, thanks. When I applied it I was surprised to find that I had blocked the sockmaster... lol. Hi, Bill, if you're still around. Tiderolls 22:24, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

It's one of those gadget/scripts that's a game changer for me.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:26, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

IP Pointiness

I'm guessing you'll see it when you have a chance to catch up here, but in case you miss it, or this gets eyes on it faster, apparently the Corey Feldman IP is feeling pointy. Thanks for your help! DonIago (talk) 13:35, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Yeesh. It was apparent from their previous edits that they have a chip on their shoulder, but I thought they may be able to rein in the snark. Apparently not.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:07, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Here's hoping the block will be the cold shower they need and they'll come back to contribute more constructively! DonIago (talk) 17:11, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Sock?

Hello. I don't know well about sock, but IP 151.82.10.235 deleted your opinion that you said IPs are sock. I came here to let you know. I thought you should know this. Thank you. --LR0725 [ Talk | Contribs ] 11:17, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know. Bbb23 has taken care of it.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:38, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. LR0725 [ Talk | Contribs ] 08:50, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

HH Crown Prince Wayne of Markham

Hello, I see that you have blocked this user. You might want to revoke their talk page access as well, given that they are abusing the "unblock" template. JeffSpaceman (talk) 22:58, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

@JeffSpaceman: My guess is Ponyo has left, but I took care of it. Thanks for the heads-up.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:45, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Dickie Harrell

Why was this article deleted? AMCKen (talk) 19:16, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

@AMCKen: The reason for the deletion is in the deletion log (i.e. it was created by a community banned editor in violation of their ban).-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:20, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Does that make the data incorrect? AMCKen (talk) 19:39, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

The article was not deleted because the information was incorrect. -- Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:44, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

So resubmit it under your name. AMCKen (talk) 20:22, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. You are welcome to create an article on the topic if you'd like.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:27, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

You didn't like who submitted it, not what was in the article. So put the article back up under your name. Is there a copy somewhere in the archives? AMCKen (talk) 20:53, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with who I like or don't like; the editor is community banned and not allowed to contribute here. I have no intention of restoring content created by a banned editor who has a history of copyright violations and creating articles on non-notable individuals based on unreliable sources. Again, feel free to create the article yourself if you believe that the individual meets our notability criteria.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:03, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Deletion log

Hi, I saw that you removed an offensive message left on my talk page by (Redacted), and I would like to thank you for doing your part to keep Wikipedia safe and enjoyable! I will say that I am a tad interested in what the message was, so are you allowed to communicate that to me, or is that against Wikipedia policies? Cheers, Unlimitedlead (talk) 02:13, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

@Unlimitedlead: There was nothing in the post that bears repeating, which is why it has been revision deleted. Note that it wasn't targetting you specifically, if that is a concern. -- Ponyo^{bons mots} 15:31, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Thanks for the admin work that you do, I've noticed it recently, so take this cute kitten home with you from the long day of work at the admin office.

Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 19:23, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Status question

Hello Ponyo, please see ticket:2023061010005903 for a question. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:19, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

@Xaosflux: I'm not sure that it needs to be OS block because the outing issue was just a piece of Courcelles' WP:NOTHERE block. I think other admins could review the block without having access to some of the talk page diffs. If you disagree, I can change the block status so that only Oversighters can review it.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:04, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Who did I block this time?  ;) Courcelles (talk) 20:06, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

User talk:Bethsheba Ashe.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:08, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Okay. Can’t see that ticket. But, yeah, I think anyone could review the block understanding there was an attempt at outing and some other BLP violations there. Exactly how it was done is kind of irrelevant. Courcelles (talk) 20:11, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Not that I’d be in favor of anyone ever unblocking that account. They were just here to not care about the rules. Courcelles (talk) 20:12, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, they got a OS team reply that their block may be handled using the standard process. Best regards, — xaosflux ^Talk 22:20, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Winnie Odinga

Hi Ponyo, happy almost summer! After cleaning up promo, I just accepted this article which has experienced some disruption in the past which you handled and given the username of the the creator, User:Kazi2023! (Kazi being her nickname), I am concerned promo editing might resume. If you don't mind, please help keep an eye out (along with any stalkers happening by). S0091 (talk) 17:31, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Well they're an obvious sock of Kazimedia, who repeatedly tried to create the same draft/article, so I've blocked them.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:22, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look. I thought likely they were a sock but then thought probably too much time had passed to do anything. It's one of many negative consequences of AfC being chronically backlogged. Hopefully they take the 'hint' (to put it mildly) and stay away from the article. S0091 (talk) 18:49, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

We shall see!-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:50, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Talk page vandalism

Thanks for catching the vandalism on my talk page and blocking the user! Seems like the guy got annoyed I reverted their vandalism :P Suntooooth, he/him (talk/contribs) 23:25, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

UTRS appeal #75002

is open. What are your thoughts as blocking admin? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:57, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

@Deepfriedokra: I'm fine with restoring talk page access for an appeal.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:15, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:58, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Some recent edits in the Adriana Caselotti article

I was wondering how we should regard some recent edits by 148.255.228.186 in the Adriana Caselotti article? Thanks. Garagepunk66 (talk) 20:17, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're asking. It looks like a content dispute over some minor changes to the article.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:31, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Disruptive article creator

Hi! Editor Sahil193319, who you blocked in August last year, has made a vast quantity of spam government pages with wildly deficient sourcing. Additionally, they have recreated draftified articles in the mainspace rather than building them in the appropriate area (see Draft:Ministry of Information and Public Relation (Karnataka) and Ministry of Information and Public Relation (Karnataka)). As a very newly minted NPP, I was hoping you could perhaps add some insight and at least stop the onslaught of spam creations. ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:43, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Heard! Thank you! ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:57, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Woah, the articles are being pumped out by the minute and the sourcing is subpar. I've partial blocked Sahil193319 from article space until they demonstrate a better understanding of what even a stub article should include.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:58, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

I noticed BoyTheKingCanDance has been working on some of these creations for around a month now. I might enlist their help in draftifying those that need to be. Is that an appropriate step or do you think I ought to reach out to one of the 'boards to maybe do a mass-action? ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:02, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

I would just work through them; I don't think any mass action is appropriate in this case.

Pbritti, I posted a note on your talk page, if you are going to draftify an article (or a dozen), you need to alert the article creator of the fact that you draftified their work. They need to know where to find their page creations if they are going to improve them into acceptable stubs. I gave you a link to a script that will post these notices for you when you move an article from main space to Draft space. Please do this in the future. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:41, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Please remove my blocking I'd plz

Please remove my blocking I'd plz Sahil193319 (talk) 03:24, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

The instructions for appealing the block are included in the block message on your talk page. As I also noted in my block message, you need to demonstrate an understanding of Wikipedia's referencing criteria and produce viable drafts prior to being unblocked. -- Ponyo^{bons mots} 15:39, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

How does the link to Infinite Chess not comply with WP:EL?

title ChameleonGamer 17:12, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

It's a link to blog-type website by some random YouTuber that plays Infinite Chess. It also solicits donations/payments. Multiple editors have removed the link and you've edit warred for the past month to restore it. If you think three is a valid reason why the link meets the guidelines for external linking, you need to get consensus on the article talk page to include it. While you're here, I don't see how your various subpages have anything to do with improving Wikipedia articles.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:31, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

"Blog-type?" "random YouTuber that plays Infinite Chess?" Pal,

1. It only resembles a blog in the case of the homepage.
2. Naviary never said anything about them PLAYING Infinite Chess, but CREATING a website to play it.
3. Also, when was asking for donations a reason for a link to not comply with the External Link Policy?

ChameleonGamer 17:56, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

None of the above negates the need for you to get consensus for inclusion of the link. And lay off the "pal" and "buddy".-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:28, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

No. ChameleonGamer 21:04, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

(to the "lay off the pal and buddy" thing, pal) ChameleonGamer 21:05, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

If that's the route you want to take, you're unlikely to make any pals or buddies. No more posting to my talk page, please.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:15, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Saved me the trouble

I was just looking at Filmedit234 and was going to report at SPI, but you saved me all that work. Thanks! ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:26, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

I can be helpful sometimes if I try really hard.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:27, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Well, if you feel like chasing down a bunch of paid editing with both promotion and a rival pr firm, let me know. I've had an SPI open for a few days now.

Or you could have a glass of wine and not, which seems like a better idea. I'm enjoying a whiskey sour, myself. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:33, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

I have pre-made bourbon sour mix in the fridge, just need to pour it over some ice. I have to get home first though, then I'll tip a glass in your general direction.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:39, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

I normally make a quart at a time and keep it in a jar in the fridge, but I broke down and bought some. Not as good, but still good. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:51, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

User @Haskko is changing the wording of the Sudanese Arabs article and adding sources that don't mention what he is saying

This all sounds like a conversation that needs to be had at a relevant article talk page

Hello there is a user @Haskko who changed the wording and added "Some of them are of Nubian and Arab descent, with varying degrees of ancestry from Peninsular Arabs" when the original sentence was "Some of them are descended from Arabs from the Arabian peninsula with varying degrees of ancestry from Peninsular Arabs", and than cited his sources saying they said that when they don't. I told him countless times that the sources he used never said this and that one of the source is just a book from Amazon titled "Sudan" with a picture of a guy. The article he keeps changing is at Sudanese Arabs. Please block him or do something because this is dishonesty and vandalism. Cookiemonster1618 (talk) 12:31, 30 June 2023 (UTC) Again, it isn't my problem that you won't read/search for the sources. Stop begging for me to get blocked, it isn't gonna do anything for you. Thank you. Haskko (talk) 12:46, 30 June 2023 (UTC) You still don’t understand OR? Or were you a troll this whole time? I can’t believe you ever got unblocked. Courcelles (talk) 12:51, 30 June 2023 (UTC) What do you mean i didnt do anything. Im just explaining to you what this user is doing on an article. I havent done anything bad why is it that this community is against me. Cookiemonster1618 (talk) 12:52, 30 June 2023 (UTC) That's in my User Page. He's talking about the Sudanese Arabs page. Haskko (talk) 12:53, 30 June 2023 (UTC) The sources you cited dont mention what you wrote you changed the wording and than say that your sources mention that when they dont. Your sources cant be accessed online as like i said one of them is just a book titled " Sudan" with a picture of a guy and the other cant be found online and needs to be purchased and the third is a broken link. Cookiemonster1618 (talk) 12:54, 30 June 2023 (UTC) Again, it was simply rephrasing and I added what was in the sources. I didn't even add those sources, so I don't know what you're mad at me about that source. Either way, the sources were already provided and there are sources with the same information. Haskko (talk) 12:57, 30 June 2023 (UTC) Source 9 and 10 and 12 were originally source 7 8 and 9. I am not mad but none of the stuff you cited mention what you wrote thats the problem you insist to claim that it does when it doesn't. It's not fair for you to change the wording of the article and include sources that doesn't mention what you wrote. Your than saying that i am putting my own "pov" when im just reverting back to the original article. You seem to be ignorant and not willing to engage in a honest and truth discussion so that's why im having you reported unless you bring other sources that mention what you wrote or I revert it back to the original article.Cookiemonster1618 (talk) 13:02, 30 June 2023 (UTC) It's simply being more concise and adding more information. I'm completely open with finding a solution, but I don't appreciate the insults. Thank you. Haskko (talk) 13:05, 30 June 2023 (UTC) The solution is you bring other sources that cite what you mentioned or I revert back to the original article Cookiemonster1618 (talk) 13:07, 30 June 2023 (UTC) I simply added parts that were mentioned in the sources, and this looks more like a threat than a solution. I'm completely open to keep it the way I posted it, but removing the parts about Peninsular Arabs. Thank you. Haskko (talk) 13:09, 30 June 2023 (UTC)