User talk:Ponyo/Archive 55

Dancing on Ice Series 14
I think we should start creating the Series 14 Dancing on Ice page now as the 1st celeb will be revealed on Monday on This Morning. --Annamargarita0 (talk) 11:37, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
 * It's fine for you to create it, just not the globally-locked editor who keeps taking a crack at it.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 20:53, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

List of The Story Makers episodes
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_The_Story_Makers_episodes Please can you semi-protect that page indefinitely because some vandaliser keeps vandalising that page by adding fake episodes? And I am fed up with it. --Annamargarita0 (talk) 08:35, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The IP editor causing the disruption has been blocked by another admin (which provides me with a much needed opportunity to give a shout out to ). If the disruption picks up again, you can request protection at WP:RFPP.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 18:42, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

range block
Back in March, you blocked the Special:Contributions/106.78.52.0/24 range. They've been highly active on that range of late, would you mind taking a look to if another block is warranted? They were also using Special:Contributions/49.32.192.0/19 a week ago before moving to the 106 range. Thanks!  Ravensfire  (talk) 17:51, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't see anywhere where I've made an explicit checkuser connection between a sockfarm and that IP range; that would be a violation of the privacy policy and I've oversighted that portion of your message. Please take your concerns to the relevant SPI as I can't make outright CU connections between accounts and ranges.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 18:51, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * @Ponyo Apologies for that. Will do on the SPI.  It would (obviously) be behavior based, so probably later this evening to put enough good diffs together.  Not hard to do though, it's been a consistent range for them.  Ravensfire  (talk) 19:18, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * It happens. It's not always easy to find the line between preventing outright disruption and protecting the privacy of editors who are determined to undermine our socking policy. -- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 19:24, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

User:Tron444444 Block Evasion
You recently partially blocked this user for their vandalism/edit warring on the Midnight Mass article. Why they're so obsessed with changing the references of the Angel to a Vampire, I will never know. BUT they created a new account (same one in the title) and evaded the ban and are back to edit warring. What should be done? Trqalobaid (talk) 07:09, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * There were a couple of sock accounts; all blocked and tagged now.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 19:10, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Jean-Paul Belmondo
User:Gary McCabe looks to be another sock. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:57, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Got it. -- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 22:58, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * That was quick. I assume you were already in process? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:59, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Nope. Just quick on the draw I guess!-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 23:04, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't even understand this ConsumersDistributing thing. Why edit war over unrelated articles? Is it just general trolling, or is there some deeper meaning? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:13, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * It's either Sockpuppet investigations/ConsumersDistributingonline, or another LTA joe-jobbing them. Either way, it's trolling.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 23:17, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I did a fair amount of ip editing and looking into the sausage making behind Wikipedia before making an account, but until I started editing regularly I never had any idea how many LTAs and long term trolls and LTAs Joe jobbing each other were around. It's kinda astounding. Makes all of the doubts and accusations when I made an account more understandable. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:24, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * User:Reginald J. Robertson ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:04, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * They're sure making it easy. Not that I'm complaining.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 20:06, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * User:‎Maxwell Seymour, maybe page protection? But maybe not because then we won't immediately see them? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:20, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * They'll just move to another set of articles. Better the devil you know? -- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 20:29, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, makes sense. I do feel like it's more and more likely a joe job, on account of the user page links, but who knows? I guess everyone needs a hobby. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:33, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I assume the article is on your watchlist, so is there any point in me reporting the socks here after reverting? I don't want to unnecessarily clutter your talk page. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:41, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm catching them through a filter, but can easily miss them if I'm distracted elsewhere. Doubling up on efforts doesn't hurt.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 20:48, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Damn you're quick! ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:06, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

New sock?
Hello, Ponyo,

Filed a new report on Sockpuppet investigations/360nosc after gearing up to delete Draft:Evan Nied as a stale draft and finding a new editor had started working on it and appealing its rejection at the AFC Help Desk. Not sure if it's a sockpuppet or meat puppet but there seems to be quite an effort to get this local teenager a Wikipedia article. Hope you are well! Liz Read! Talk! 03:38, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the notice . Looks like it's all taken care of now.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 18:59, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

"2021 World Sambo Championships" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect 2021 World Sambo Championships. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 October 12 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Deancarmeli (talk) 07:19, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Well done for the block
Dear Ponyo,

Thank you for the block on User:Redrafting aka 23.28.64.124. I have been firm but friendly with this new user and pointed at various policies. I left a message there  not a formal warning just below the bows – to say I felt it was a personal attack on me. (I get this from the user's edit history that I seem to be the only target, no other editrix, so I dunno why I was picked on, but I am not personally upset, just annoyed that it has wasted my time, as I bet you are.)

I do try to encourage new users, and sent plenty of links. I even added the tag. Before you just blocked, I successfully added a message (not expecting it to be the last), I hope you saw it as you will see it was firm but friendly, pointing the user to various policies and so on. I have some text in my copy buffer, I will copy it to you here, but this was his "positively final appearance" message a few days ago:


 * I am leaving Wikipedia and this account will be abandoned. All further activity that’s related to this account will stop. I am creating a new account. Why? Because I have been receiving bad/inappropriate emails and I forgot my password. I am still logged on but I can’t do this forever. I am also changing emails in my new account. Please stop sending messages after 10Am Tue/October/2021, I won’t respond to them. I can tell you the name of my new account but I really don’t want to. I will be working anonymously with my IP address which is 23.28.64.124. I hope the best of my old account. Bye :) AndroidRedrafting (talk) 13:06, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps I should have reported it then. User:Redrafting's page said/says "Retired", now. This user is obviously intelligent: few spelling or grammar errors, and so on. Probably just misguided. I think a three-month ban is a little harsh, but certainly needed a rap across the knuckles. Oh, indefinite. I thought when I first saw it it was three months; I may have been mistaken. 85.67.32.244 (talk) 00:08, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

You did the right thing. I appreciate it. Well done. Sincerely. Wossname said, was it Little Richard no Poor Richard's Almanack (Ben Franklin), "the truth is a harsh mistress, but fools will learn at no other". 85.67.32.244 (talk) 23:09, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I didn't pick him up on MOS:STRAIGHT quotes and apostrophes, for example... I was really pretty gentle. 85.67.32.244 (talk) 23:11, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

You've got mail

 * Got it, and ✅.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 16:03, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Page creation
Hello, I would like to recreate the Stefano Cilio page since he won a gold record with his single Glance. Could you take the page back please? You removed it and prevented users from recreating it. Thanks in advance! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vecchioscrivano (talk • contribs) 19:23, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Would you consider creating the article via the Articles for Creation process in order to ensure a new article overcomes the concerns of the many deletions and AfD outcome? I see the article has faced the same issues on the Italian Wikipedia and is create-protected there as well, which is concerning. If the draft article is accepted via AfC I'll remove the protection. -- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 19:39, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

The article was created and deleted, but now things are different and I’m just asking to have it back in order to add the gold record feature. Thanks El Fusto (talk) 19:53, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

1234ismypassword
Wow, that's got to be the oldest sleeper account that I've ever seen. Amazing that they kept it for 10 years! Taking Out The Trash (talk) 19:50, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Nothing surprises me anymore. #jaded.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 19:50, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Another new user eagerly getting stuck into redwarn
Hey Ponyo. Got a new user suddenly using RedWarn, creating a sandbox and getting stuck into antivandalism pretty quickly - Zayul. Feels awefully similar to the user you block several days ago - Redrafting. Just wanting to bring it to your attention. Seddon talk 00:06, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * It looks like another checkuser looked in to this.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 21:56, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, I am the user in question. I've just started editing Wikipedia and was attracted to the recent changes page. I noticed a lot of vandalism so I fixed some of it. Found RedWarn on WP:CVU and tried to use it but I wasn't autoconfirmed. Anyway, Materialscientist issued a checkuser block to my account and a previous account I had made (ZayulRasco, abandoned for username/privacy purposes, had 1 edit). The reasoning they gave was I had an undisclosed 2nd account and you (I assume you, they just said "another user") suspected me of sockpuppetry. I have made zero abusive edits and plan to keep that number at zero. I can't help but feel that this ban was given in bad faith. My old account is now linked to this one and still banned. Just a bit of an unpleasant welcome to this site. Zayul (talk) 22:22, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Are you addressing Seddon or me? To be clear, I haven't run any checks on your account or even reviewed your edits.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 22:26, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * @Ponyo: Not sure I guess, just anyone who listened because Materialscientist seems to be unavailable most of the time. Zayul (talk) 22:29, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * For just starting at Wikpedia, you format a post very well. -  FlightTime  ( open channel ) 22:54, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * @FlightTime: I'll take that as a compliment I guess. I have some experience on other wikis and a programming background. Zayul (talk) 23:07, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Russell's teapot
The word empirically is misspelled, as "empircally," in the first sentence on this page. I apologize if this isn't how to report this or get this changed, I'm still 100% new here and getting used to the setup. I do appreciate the need for blocking editing on this article. Thank you for your time. Dubya29 (talk) 02:01, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Special:Diff/1050308329. If you need an edit on a page you can not edit, see Edit requests. Cheers,  -  FlightTime  ( open channel ) 02:14, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

One More Favor
Since you just page-protected Talk:Falcon from that sock, could you also protect Talk:Peregrine falcon, for a bit, too? That vandal also likes to haunt that page, too, trying to angrily revive a four year old thread there.--Mr Fink (talk) 22:01, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I try to only protected article talk pages in cases of excessive abuse. In this case there has only been 2 sock edits today. As a compromise, how about I watch the page and protect it if they return to it today?-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 22:13, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Understood.--Mr Fink (talk) 23:00, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Potential block evasion
You blocked this IP yesterday, but I think the same individual is using multiple IP addresses:  and  have been used for the same intent purpose: using the same tone of language and ranting about perceived bias - most recently with a post on another users page. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:56, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I did notice they had access to a number of ranges, which is why I ended up semi-protecting Talk:Genghis Khan. I think WP:RBI is the best bet here, plus short spurts at semi-protection as needed.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 17:09, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

about my edits on a wiki page
I'm sorry. You accused me of possibly having a conflict of interest.

While I'm not new at writing, I am new to the wiki format. I didn't mean to erase the entire section on Richard Stanley's wikipedia entry. But wiki's interface was fighting with me. And suddenly the whole page was a mess because of one badly entered tag. Sorry, my bad. But that doesn't mean I have a conflict of interest.

I think I've now succeeded in removing the part that wasn't referenced.

Also, if a person's name isn't to be mentioned in a section title, I understand that. But when I started editing that, there already was a name in there. The article I referenced made clear that name was an alias. I merely wanted to make the title factual and accurate.

Hope all is good now.

I hope this is the proper place to respond. Again, I'm new to the interface. Forgive me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CHARLESLESORCIER777 (talk • contribs) 18:35, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * While leaving a message on my talk page is fine, the correct venue to discuss article content and changes is at the associated article talk page (in this case Talk:Richard Stanley (director)). I also opened a discussion here here which you can join.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 18:41, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Apologies. But it wouldn't let me... that's why I went here. I'll try again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CHARLESLESORCIER777 (talk • contribs) 18:44, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

You reverted my AIV report
Hey, please look at they're running amuck with BLP vio's. Thanx,  -  FlightTime  ( open channel ) 22:05, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * There was IP vandalism that rendered the reports unreadable. I restored your report, but ended up blocking the account you were reporting, so it popped off the page again. All good now!-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 22:08, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I wasn't complaining. I saw that mess at the noticeboard, I was removing it and you got to it first. No problem. Cheers, -  FlightTime  ( open channel ) 22:11, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm a Celeb Series 21
Please can you protect that page as someone keeps adding the celebs when they haven't been revealed by the officials first? --Annamargarita0 (talk) 05:46, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Do you mean I'm a Celebrity...Get Me Out of Here! (British series 21)? Because there really hasn't been enough activity to justify protection.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 23:22, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, of course but look at the view history. --Annamargarita0 (talk) 05:12, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Inaccurate Warning
There is no edit war that I'm engaging in. A legitimate and constructive edit I made was inappropriately removed by another editor and I rightfully objected to it. The situation was ultimately resolved on his talk page and my edit was restored as a result. I value Wikipedia and spent a great deal of time here and make edits only to improve readability of articles and to ensure neutrality. To be frank, I find your warning as well as the inappropriate roll backs made by the other editor to be capricious and very offensive. I encourage you and other senior editors to work to improve yourselves in this regard, as your current level of performance is poor and is harming the experience of longtime users such as myself. Thank you. MrJ567 (talk) 23:43, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I see that has provided you with a clear explanation as to how your understanding of edit warring is incorrect with regard to both policy and common practice. The message I left on your talk page is a standard warning that you are approaching 3 reverts, and that continued edit warring will likely lead to a block. I made no comment regarding the legitimacy of the content that was being added or removed in said edit war.--  Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 16:17, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, Ponyo, apologies if I got in your way. Sometimes my restraint is not up to par.  I promise to do better.  Tide  rolls  16:54, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * No, it was an excellent summation of the issue and much appreciated. Please feel free to step on my toes anytime!-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 17:07, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Jaded-vs-kindness
I must be losing my touch, I thought I was the mean ogre abusive admin type. I've been assured this is the case by multiple people...

kidding aside, I actually see it basically the same way you do, but if there is a path to an unblock, it isn't the approach they are using now. I also would guess that being on arbcom has an affect on my perspective, this person has been dishonest and obsessive about something truly unimportant, but they are nowhere near some of the levels of outright crazy that arbcom deals with on a daily basis. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:57, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * So, you're saying I should run for ArbCom to get my kindness-mojo back? tongue, meet cheek -- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 21:03, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you
Just a note to thank you for the warning you gave SkylerLovefist. If he had reverted my removal again I would have reported him to ANI, but you saved me the trouble. His responses to you indicates (in my humble opinion) the potential of further trouble should I edit something that he doesn't like. He is worth keeping an eye on. Thanks again. Addicted4517 (talk) 07:22, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Just as an update - SkylerLovefist may have violated WP:CIVIL again in the edit summary here. The sarcasm here is very heavy. I don't expect action, but now that I have tagged the source as possibly unreliable and started a thread here I will not be surprised if he removes the tag attaching more incivility and may also go to the talk page I linked and attack me as he has before. I would appreciate some help purely on the civility issue (you have rightly said you aren't interested in the content issue and I am not seeking your involvement in that). Addicted4517 (talk) 09:06, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Another thank you for the 72 hour block. However his response to the block on his talk page suggests that nothing will change once he returns. I'm not convinced the block is long enough as a result but I'll leave that up to you. An administrator (maybe you, maybe someone else) should IMHO give him a breakdown of exactly why his conduct was wrong, and if he persists beyond that it will show that he is not here to create an encyclopedia. Just a thought bubble. Addicted4517 (talk) 07:15, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Outside of copyright violations, vandalism-only accounts and WP:NONAZI/blatant WP:NOTHERE incidences, a short-term first-time block is pretty standard, with blocks escalating if the disruptive behaviour continues. They appear to have an intractable problem with civility, but they need to be given the opportunity to improve once the block expires.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 18:29, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Totally understand. Hopefully no further action is needed, but I suspect there might be. We'll see I guess. Addicted4517 (talk) 07:46, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Question about privacy/BLP
Hi Ponyo! Regarding this edit you made a couple days ago, I'm wondering what the Wikipedia policy is on people who claim to be the person the article covers? In that case, the user claims to be Tim Atkins (in his edit summaries) and wanted his DOB and place of birth removed. To be honest, I thought it was just a troll/vandal so that's why I reverted the edits (probably a bad faith assumption on my part - oops!) If someone claims to be the subject of an article, do you give them the benefit of the doubt and remove any info they don't want? I know phone numbers, emails, home addresses, and the like are a huge no-no on Wikipedia, but I didn't think DOB and place of birth was too big of an issue.

Just trying to learn so I know how to tackle the issue next time it arises. Thanks! :) --My Pants Metal (talk) 15:29, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi The relevant policy is the WP:BLPPRIVACY. If personal information is contested and removed in a BLP, editors should really take a hard look at the stated reasons for the removal and the associated sourcing prior to restoring the disputed content. In this case, the birth date removed was unsourced, so it shouldn't have been restored regardless of whether the editor removing the content was the subject of the article as they claim. Even if the birth date met the "widely-published by reliable sources" criteria, WP:DOB suggests only using the birth year in such cases where privacy concerns have been raised. I don't see any reason to doubt the editor's identity, it's not uncommon for BLP subjects (or their friends/family members at the behest of the subject) to create accounts to remove such information for privacy reasons. It's often helpful to provide the subject with a link to FAQ/Article subjects. Note that this only covers the removal of basic personal info; attempts at scrubbing well-sourced negative material from a BLP by article subjects requires a whole other level of scrutiny and response. --  Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 16:42, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

A new possible sock of Giolocam which was a confirmed sockpuppet of Benniejets.
Hello Ponyo, I think I have found a new possible sock of that actually was a confirmed sock of  (Long-term abuse/Benniejets) as the editing/writing style is very similar to Giolocam. I reported Giolocam and you banned him as it was a confirmed sockpuppet. Giolocam started edit warring in exactly the same article as this new user is doing right now. Also same writing style (dubious English skills) and same edit pattern, which is boosting up the data Italy has in that page.

The affected page is: The suspected user is: I have also noticed that this user was constantly using and adding the word "great power" to the Italy page, like many Benniejets socks did many times.

I didn't even try to write anything in this user's talk page as in the past that was completely useless, since the pattern is exactly the same, doing 8 reverts in a row with sourced data to put fake, boosted up data for Italy as well as changing the map and chart parameters to make Italy fit within richer European countries in the same page, something that was constantly done by Giolocam and Benniejets and it's in fact written in the Benniejets long-term abuse case as the socks are always editing with a strong Italian POV. Could you please check this user as well? I'ts very suspicious. Thank you. --Pfarla (talk) 18:40, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I've blocked the account as a sock.--  Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 18:54, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Help
Please block the vandal who vandalizes my discussion page, leaving death wishes in Ukrainian. I also ask you to completely block the IP address of Kyivstar where this vandal is vandalizing. And also clean up the stories on my discussion page. Thanks. --Jphwra (talk) 20:31, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The account is blocked, but I can't block the underlying IP addresses, the range is too wide. If they do return, I can protect your talk page from editing by new new accounts. has taken care of the revision deletions. I'm sorry you've been the target of this type of harassment.--  Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 21:01, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

sock
Hi there, you blocked Felix4518 as a sock of Peluches extronidos earlier last month. I think they've returned as Zodof, with similar recreations of Missa Sinfonia/Draft:Missa Sinfonia. Would appreciate if you could take a look. Thanks! Aranya (talk) 00:06, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Nabbed by whilst I toiled away in the factory.--  Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 18:48, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

The inevitable return
Hello P. I hope that you are well and have had as pleasant an autumn as we've had. looks to be the latest incarnation of Long-term abuse/109.151.65.218. Regards. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 11:10, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Harry nabbed them.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 18:31, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Just clearing out AIV while I had a bit of time on my hands. Glad I could help. :) HJ Mitchell &#124; Penny for your thoughts? 18:38, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Always happy when our paths cross (as well as MarnetteD!).-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 18:41, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks to you both. Cheers. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 20:00, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Strictly Come Dancing Series 19
Some unregistered user keeps adding Sharon Needles & Artem Chigvintsev on that Strictly page, can you re-protect that page & whoever keeps adding them needs to be blocked immediately please? --Annamargarita0 (talk) 14:00, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅. Blocked a couple of socks too.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 21:20, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks
Appreciate your help over at Robert J. Parins. I was trying to stay uninvolved as the original issue was a content dispute, but the socking and user name was a bit much haha. Thanks for the quick clean up! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk)  @ 02:32, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * No problem. Happy to step in and take the heat.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 20:37, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

When you have a moment
Hello P. If you are still editing this afternoon would you please take a look at. They are adding info about who owns the studio today to articles in which the item is irrelevant. I've let them know why this is a problem but it has made no difference. If you've logged off no worries. Cheers. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 20:59, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * They just came off a 3-month block not too long ago for the same disruption. I've now reblocked the range.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 21:32, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Good deal P. Thanks for your time :-) MarnetteD&#124;Talk 21:44, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * "Time, time, time, see what's become of me"-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 21:57, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * That is a great link. Sent me time traveling down memory lane :-) MarnetteD&#124;Talk 22:31, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Ok I Understand
Hi Ponyo, I Understand and I am not trying to be rude or annoying, but The "Gubbi Gubbi" words is not correct. Wikipedia's Neutral point of view policy states that only reputable websites/sources can be used. The local history books, old or new, on my Area "Kabi Kabi/Gubbi Gubbi" area have no mention of Gubbi Gubbi. I only intend to change that one word. I live in the area and judging by your page, you do not. Thanks for your understanding SavageCabbages — Preceding unsigned comment added by SavageCabbages (talk • contribs) 00:18, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * You are attempting to make a major revision to the article and have been reverted multiple times. Please review the talk page discussion already in place regarding the Kabi Kabi/Gubbi Gubbi dispute and get consensus for your changes. Edit warring to force such a change through without consensus will very likely lead to a block; discussion with other editors is crucial. This page has a number of guidelines and suggestions for dispute resolution.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 00:25, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Another
Another highly likely sock of :. I've duckblocked; maybe you want to CU-block. That guy sure flamed out. Bishonen &#124; tålk 20:17, 25 November 2021 (UTC).
 * I did some poking around earlier. I think everything is as it should be right now, block and tag-wise. And "hi" to you, it's been a while!-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 20:32, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Aww! My little Ponyo! Bishonen &#124; tålk 20:37, 25 November 2021 (UTC).
 * -- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 20:41, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

PP
Ta. I was checking for updates on the specifics for page protection on drafts and you beat me to it. Amortias (T)(C) 23:32, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Not sure what triggered the recent spate of vandalism and disruption...-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 23:35, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Meena (actress)
Looks like protection might need to be restored to this article as the disputes over content and BLP content have again gotten out of hand.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 19:08, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * What I see there is two editors who should have been blocked for extensive 3RR violations, but that was yesterday and any blocks now would be punitive. What I'm very curious about is how a brand new editor can rack up 5000+ edits in just over two weeks...-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 20:16, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Lots and lots of coffee and a case of Depends :-) MarnetteD&#124;Talk 20:21, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * ... and warm socks.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 20:38, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

InternetScavenger89
Thank you for the block. Can you disclose anything about the CU part?--Bbb23 (talk) 19:22, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * just declined the unblock request, making it clear that it was abusive editing while logged out. That was my assumption, but... --Bbb23 (talk) 19:25, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I did indeed. I saw no other accounts, but didn't look all that hard. --Yamla (talk) 19:32, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * There could be an older account (my initial instinct was that IS89 was a failed CIR-block clean start). There wasn't any evidence of another account in the CU time frame available, but like Yamla I didn't cast a wide net. The additional evidence came to light later. I'm 90/10 that this is really just an immaturity issue as opposed to serial socking.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 19:46, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I think there's a larger systemic issue that should - but won't - be addressed, and that is immature editors who come here not to improve the project or learn how to improve the project, but to gain immediate attention and importance. That quickly get the former, but they almost never get the latter because their abilities are limited to non-existent and their motivations wrong. Unfortunately, experienced editors and administrators show such newbies an unjustifiably substantial amount of indulgence based on "assume good faith", "don't bite the newbies", and "we don't want to turn off new editors" rationales, which, in my minority (I think) view, are misplaced. The new editors are happy because they are getting lots of attention, and even when rebuked, they see it as a kind of plus. This becomes a time sink for everyone. I sometimes unilaterally cut it off early and block as NOTHERE, CIR, whatever, but the majority of times it just keeps going until 95%+ of the time the inevitable happens.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:00, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I was just thinking very similar thoughts. When a new and obviously young editor comes along there are a number of editors who, in absolute good faith and with the best intentions, enable the disruption caused by the new editor by directing them to non-content areas (e.g. CVU) and pushing powerful tools such as TWINKLE and RedWarn that they are not ready for at all and that only serve to amplify the disruption. I don't know what the solution is because extending good faith and trying to help others out is a pillar of the encyclopedia. There has to be a way to dissuade young editors who are clearly not ready to contribute to hold off for a few years for their own good. It's painful to watch and it sucks to be the person to tell them they can't edit anymore when the message comes across as "you're not wanted here". -- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 20:14, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Just to chime in, I'm thinking that InternetScavenger89 was trying to request for rollback rights, only to be declined. Either ways, I noticed he was blocked, and his talk page access was revoked. I think it was the emotional impacts on him. I'm not trying to unblock him, just giving some information on this. Any other information regarding this? Severestorm28 (talk) 20:45, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you're asking. I know rollback was declined, because I declined it. -- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 20:50, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes-just the rollback. Severestorm28 (talk) 21:09, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

False and unsourced misinformation/spamming on Joe Ranft's page
Hello Ponyo,

I noticed that a while back you had blocked a user (Jranft) who had been adding hoax material on Joe Ranft's page and also used multiple accounts. I wanted to reach out because recently another person (who does not have a registered account) has been intentionally putting false information on his page, saying that he worked certain animated movies that made an easter egg reference to him, even though he had passed away long before these films began production.

Joe Ranft's last films were Corpse Bride (2005) and Cars (2006), and he was featured in the documentaries "The Pixar Story" (2007) and "Waking Sleeping Beauty" (2009) through archived footage, posthumously. This user continues to add multiple films that hadn't begun pre-production until after Ranft's death, most notably the film Soul (2020), as well as others, all of which only featured references or tributes to Ranft, which did not include his participation in any way and are not film credits.

I've deleted the false information several times, both in the filmography and career sections. I've also included sources in the "Death and Legacy" section to include appropriate mention of the films that referenced Ranft without inaccurately labeling the references as film credits, which to my understanding is acceptable. Unfortunately, this user is persistent and continues to add the false (and unsourced) credits, and continues to show no signs of stopping. I understand it is against Wikipedia policy to include false or poorly sourced information about any living or deceased person. I wanted to avoid being accused of edit warring, so I wanted to reach out to someone who might be able to do something about it. Like I said, this person is not a registered Wikipedia user, so I don't know if this makes it more difficult to block them. I also understand you are very busy, but I'd appreciate any response if you have the chance.

Thanks for hearing me out.

DESERTSCHo0L20DESERTSCHo0L20 (talk) 06:17, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Another admin,, has tidied up the article a bit and removed the IP edits. I've added semi-protection to the article so that only registered users can edit it. As this disruption has been ongoing for several years I didn't set an expiry date for the protection. I hope this helps.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 17:53, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the help, Ponyo. I've now noticed the added protection.DESERTSCHo0L20 (talk) 19:35, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Not a Troll
I noticed on my talk page that you accused me for being a troll, when I literally just suggested a improvement to the article. If you read through the talk page, the article used to say atheism in it. SO I was suggesting to put it back up, because that’s what WIKIPEDIAN EDITORS DO! WE WANT ACCURATE INFO! I don’t know how that makes me a troll, but ok. Good DayTeertrevo (talk) 19:47, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not a crook troll. --Bbb23 (talk) 22:40, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, if they are a troll, they're being well-fed on their talk page, so I assume they'll stick around for a while.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 22:43, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * If it persists I'll cut it off. They can't use their Talk page for anything except making legitimate unblock requests. What I can't figure out is what they hell are they talking about with the religious discrimination. I had no idea what religion they claim to be before I blocked. Then I looked back a little and I guessed (wrongly apparently) that they are Jewish, but it's Christian? I swear, the things editors think are the motivations behind blocks. Never fails to amaze me.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:50, 7 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Blast from the past. (YouTube link) TonyBallioni (talk) 01:01, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * What do you do anyway? Troll YouTube looking for these things? I like witches.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:21, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

A beer for you!

 * No problem.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 20:55, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Help me pleaseeee
Check my previous edits...and see some one named User talk:Wikicircuitz, making all my good edits reverted .by making it disruptive and tries to make edit warring...please help to block that user and complaint about it..kindly reply Uma Narmada (talk) 09:01, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Query
Hello, Ponyo,

On their user talk page User:TestDontMind says they share an IP with blocked editor User:Yourstupidanddumb. But Yourstupidanddumb is blocked because of a problematic username. So, I'm not sure whether this counts as sockpuppetry especially when they admitted this situation before anyone had any suspicions. What do you think? Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 02:30, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Yourstupidanddumb is not just blocked for a username violation. The account is globally locked as an LTA. That means if TestDontMind = Yourstupidanddumb, they should of course be blocked. The whole thing seems suspicious, but I have no way to verify whether they are the same person. Nonetheless, they are clearly NOTHERE, and I've blocked them on that basis. Perhaps when Ponyo gets back, she can shed more light on the situation.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:24, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Ugh, I suppose I have to use words. I suppose they could theoretically be different people in some bizarre universe. Or they just have multiple devices and are using them on the same internet connection to screw with us. I'll let you guess which one I find more likely. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:06, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * But who's the LTA? --Bbb23 (talk) 04:59, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * No clues in the en.wiki logs. would be your best bet to ask. He might have just selected it in the dropdown automatically when he meant cross-wiki abuse. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:12, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, when I looked at their user page, User:Yourstupidanddumb, it says that The Blade of the Northern Lights blocked them for a username violation (probably because they spelled it 'Your" and not "You're"). I didn't see there was a global block. My bad. I wondered why User:TestDontMind acknowledged they were housemates. Liz Read! Talk! 06:26, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Songs of the season

 * Thank you, ! -- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 21:20, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Can I get a copy of what you deleted ?
Sorry, didn't know a small text page was against rules. Just want a copy of it, please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FlailingEnglish (talk • contribs) 22:58, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Sure, on its way to you now.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 23:03, 20 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FlailingEnglish (talk • contribs) 23:22, 20 December 2021 (UTC)


 * I don't think that's the final version, though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FlailingEnglish (talk • contribs) 23:27, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I've resent it in case there was a cut and paste error, but the version I'm sending is the most recent copy as of just over an hour ago.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 23:32, 20 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Seems like the final edits from an IP were lost. Thanks though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FlailingEnglish (talk • contribs) 00:00, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!
 Merry Christmas! ''Joyeux Noël! ~ Buon Natale! ~ Vrolijk Kerstfeest! ~ Frohe Weihnachten! ¡Feliz Navidad! ~ Feliz Natal! ~ Καλά Χριστούγεννα! ~ Hyvää Joulua! God Jul! ~ Glædelig Jul! ~ Linksmų Kalėdų! ~ Priecīgus Ziemassvētkus! Häid Jõule! ~ Wesołych Świąt! ~ Boldog Karácsonyt! ~ Veselé Vánoce! Veselé Vianoce! ~ Crăciun Fericit! ~ Sretan Božić! ~ С Рождеством! শুভ বড়দিন! ~ 圣诞节快乐！~ メリークリスマス！~ 메리 크리스마스! สุขสันต์วันคริสต์มาส!'' ~ Selamat Hari Natal! ~ Giáng sinh an lành! Весела Коледа! Hello, Ponyo! Thank you for your work to maintain and improve Wikipedia! Wishing you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year! CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 09:51, 21 December 2021 (UTC) Spread the WikiLove and leave other users this message by adding {{subst:Multi-language Season's Greetings}}

Regarding SPI Notifications
Thanks for your note on Sockpuppet investigations/PutThisUserNameInNotes Ponyo. I normally do not notify most sockpuppeteers and I think I may have rarely (if ever) notified any sockpuppeteers and their sockpuppet accounts when filing an SPI case. Initially I was thinking not to notify them but since this was not a chronic sockpuppeteer and not an egregious case, so I thought to notify them in the interest of transparency and to make the case fairer (in the eyes of the accused). So, could you kindly explain and let me know in which cases it is good to notify sockpuppeteers and in which cases it is not? Even though I have been filing SPI cases for the past many years now, its always good to learn from an experienced Checkuser. Thanks. TheGeneralUser (talk) 00:00, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * There's no hard and fast rule, just use your best judgment. Some editors mistakenly believe that you need to notify suspected socks (a carry-over from the required AN/I notifications I imagine). The notifications also used to be default checked in Twinkle, which was just recently updated. It's really No Big Deal™, I just wanted to make sure you didn't think it was required. In any case, if you feel you need to alert the sock account, there's no reason at all to notify the sockmaster if they're blocked. It's not like they can participate.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 00:08, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay, thank you. TheGeneralUser (talk) 00:12, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * You should always notify the alleged sock's extended family: siblings, parents, grandparents, cousins (all degrees), flatmates, flatmates' siblings, parents, grandparents, cousins (all degrees), friends, friends' siblings, parents, grandparents, and cousins (all degrees). Grandchildren are optional and only if they're between 2-3 years old, the average age of most socks.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:20, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * What about dogs? TonyBallioni (talk) 02:17, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * First, dogs must be reported at SPI. Second, dogs are not notified on their Talk pages but by using special devices. You sound biased to me; are you a cat person?--Bbb23 (talk) 03:15, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * On the internet, nobody knows you're a dog 31.13.202.83 (talk) 03:52, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Much prefer dogs, actually. The stewards like cats, for some reason. Guess this is one of the many reasons I will never be a steward. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:35, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I had dogs when I was a child. I loved them but it didn't work out (long story). I sort of had a cat when I was a young adult. She had been abandoned in the street when she was so young her eyes weren't open. I've never really been a cat person, but she was special, even if her username was a policy violation.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:01, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * You have the best "when I was a kid" stories. Seriously, you could write a book!-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 00:07, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I thought you were perpetually 23? TonyBallioni (talk) 00:34, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm in my prime.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:45, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you from another
Thank you for handling that Incident report swiftly. I couldn't believe I was being reported for doing such a basic and encouraged thing here (registering an account). That they couldn't believe I was experienced in wiki when Wikipedia isn't the only such site out there, it was ridiculous--CreecregofLife (talk) 01:36, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

White Xmas
Looks like you're sensibly taking some time off for the holidays. It's absolutely beautiful where we are, BUT we're also snowed in and the day after Xmas were without power for well over 12 hours. Plus it's COLD! Monday morning it was -15 celsius. Hope you're faring better.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:24, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * No power for 12 hours?! You must have been freezing your wiki-ass off! I know this because it's as bone-chilling here as there. But I agree, the snow is pretty. We're apparently in for another 10cm or so tonight. Stay warm my friend! -- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 22:30, 29 December 2021 (UTC)