User talk:Ponyo/Archive 56

NguyenNgYouYen
Hello Ponyo, you tagged as a sock but I think you might have forgotten to block them. Pahunkat (talk) 19:57, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Got it now, thanks.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 22:19, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Many many thanks
Hello P. I can't thank you enough for all that you do here at the 'pedia. Even more I appreciate the kindness you have shown me. One of my favorite memories is a post you made here on you talk page some time in the mid to late 00s. I've forgotten what the thread was about but you mentioned that on you lunch break you had seen an older couple holding hands so affectionately that it made the rest of your day a delight. You are one of the best and I wish you well on WikiP and even more so off. Cheers. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 21:27, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much for the kind words! It's always nice when you drop by here.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 22:21, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh, you are so right. There are days that I just need a dose of Ponyo to make all feel well in the world. Drmies (talk) 01:47, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * -- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 16:41, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

"Google.com/calendar" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Google.com/calendar and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 5 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Signed, I Am Chaos (talk) 22:38, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

New message from TrangaBellam
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Esoteric10. TrangaBellam (talk) 22:20, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I deleted the report.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:23, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Mohammad Ali Moni
Hello, Ponyo,

I'm hoping you can help me out here. This article is tagged with a PROD but it is undated and the edits concerning its addition have been oversighted. I'm hoping you can look at the oversighted edits and determine whether it is a valid PROD tagging and either delete the page, if it is, or remove the tag, if it isn't. Thanks! Liz Read! Talk! 20:28, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * That was definitely not a good faith PROD; I've removed it.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 20:34, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you much on your prompt action! Liz Read! Talk! 03:10, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Response

 * Seen and replied.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 21:45, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Please delete
Please delete Draft:Desmond Cook for the same reason you deleted Draft:Desmond Cook 12 W&M. The creating editor has been indef blocked. David notMD (talk) 08:51, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I deleted a handful of duplicate drafts and random redirects that pointed nowhere; I'm also the admin that blocked the account. I think the draft should stay for now, it will be the only page remaining once Articles for deletion/Desmond cook is deleted and there is no CSD criteria for deleting the draft at this time (except maybe G11).-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 16:41, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Understood. Given the creating editor currently indef blocked, I expect in six months time the draft will be deleted for inaction. David notMD (talk) 16:44, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The inevitable outcome of the AfD in progress may trigger a corresponding G11 deletion as well. We'll see!-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 16:47, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Sock question
Re: this revert, is there a master LTA or SPI somewhere? Or is this restricted info per BEANS? Thanks. BilCat (talk) 01:07, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Also, is Special:Contributions/172.75.119.241 another one? Thanks. BilCat (talk) 01:09, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * My assumption is that it's, which you should be able to see from the history. Whether JC is a sock of someone else I don't know. In any event, as a checkuser, Ponyo can't comment and you shouldn't be asking.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:12, 12 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks. But how can I know he's she blocking as a checkuser, not an admin, if I can't ask? (Seriously.) Can't he she just say he she can't answer? BilCat (talk) 01:16, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Ponyo is a she. You can't know whether she checked, but you're unnecessarily putting her in an awkward position. At least that's my view. Ponyo tends to be more diplomatic than I am. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 01:20, 12 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Oops, I'm supposed to know she's a she, but I forgot. I appreciate you answering the question for her. If I have anymore for her that you can answer, I'll be sure to ask her. Thanks! BilCat (talk) 04:23, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I didn't run a check. This was a straight up WP:DUCK admin block. -- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 16:38, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * ...and I blocked the new IP as well, same geolocation.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 16:40, 12 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much! BilCat (talk) 22:12, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

A little suspicious
A new user, account created within the last ~14 hours, left a message on my talk page "checking in" on me and asking how I was doing, as if I knew them. They’ve only made User talkpage messages, but I’m really confused as to why a message like that would be left. I’m suspecting it’s TVSGuy, but their other messages came off like they had a better grasp of English than he did. I wasn’t sure whether I had enough to open an investigation about it--CreecregofLife (talk) 08:06, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Uh, what? I saw some of your contributions, checked out your user page, and it seemed like you were under a lot of pressure from other editors. I’ve educated myself on the situation of TVSGuy and I assure you that I am not his sock. I was simply expressing concern for your well-being. LittleFinn9 (talk) 16:10, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Blocked as a troll.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:19, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you, .-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 16:47, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Vyacheslav Kim
Hi, Jezebel's Ponyo ! Another editor removed the tags from the page of Vyacheslav Kim. I believe the issues still exist and the persistent removing of the tags without improving the article, look strange to say the least. If you think that the article is good now and the removal of the tags has been justified, please, disregard my message. 2601:1C0:CB01:2660:B433:771F:24C2:833C (talk) 00:33, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I protected the article due to sockpuppetry. The only edits since then are from an long time editor with over 70,000 edits to uk.wiki, unlikely to be a sock.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 23:08, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

WP:DENY
Hi. Could you block, a Sockpuppet investigations/Haiyenslna sock, per WP:DENY, please? Kind regards, Robby.is.on (talk) 12:55, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Looks like they were detected and blocked in pretty short order.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 23:09, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

WP:BLP
Hi Ponyo. Could you block constantly adding unsources and WP:BLP violates the rules. please? Kind regards, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.163.97.176 (talk • contribs)
 * The editor has only 3 edits in the last six months and one warning in the last 3 years.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 23:13, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

User talk:173.95.57.203
Hi Ponyo, I saw you rv on the above talk page and you might want to have a look at this edit. Cassiopeia  talk  07:11, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the notice; looks like was on clean-up duty there.--  Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 16:38, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Tiny note
Special:Diff/1066949687 - "diffuse" &rarr; "defuse"? Enterprisey (talk!) 06:07, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * See also WP:KABLAM. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:09, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I was trying to diffuse the situation as in "let the particles of residual aggression diffuse into the atmosphere". That's my story and I'm sticking to it.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 21:02, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Misspell Misspell Misspell (talk · contribs)
I'm fairly sure this is another sock of - yet another user requesting large numbers of misspelling redirects at WP:AFCRC. &#8213; Qwerfjkl  talk  08:22, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ --Bbb23 (talk) 14:45, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd forgotten about this odd sock. What a time consuming useless endeavour.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 21:04, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Enlightenment

 * Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Okay, I got it, the latest account is a sock, and this latest account kindly linked to the last two times in December this came up at ANI. Thus, I could see the other blocked socks. But no one tags anyone, so I'm in the semi-dark. Is there an even earlier account, you know like an LTA or some such acronym? Help O mighty checkuser.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:30, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Who's this? I can't see you through the pea soup fog here! The accounts have been checked up the wazoo (not by me though), so if they're not tagged I'm guessing they're either using proxies or have access to a number of dynamic ranges that makes it easier to just leave it as a DUCK block.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 18:43, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * As long as you're in the semi-dark, too, I feel better. I'll tag them all as User:Wazoo.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:48, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Ha! Category:Sockpuppets up the wazoo is going to contain a very large pool of socks.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 18:51, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Based on the new category I'm guessig an "exaltation of larks" new entry will be a "suppository of socks" - terrible pun I know but I just couldn't resist :-P MarnetteD&#124;Talk 19:07, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Hooray! You're here! -- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 19:46, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * When did CheckUsers become mighty? TonyBallioni (talk) 04:37, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * 2015.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:35, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

I need help to correct a repeated consensus violation in the article Antoni Gaudí
Hello Ponyo:

I am writing you this message to ask for your help to solve a problem: some time ago I noticed that the article of the Spanish architect called "Antoni Gaudí" refers to him in the lead as Catalan architect.

Currently, there is a great debate and conflict about how to describe the nationality of Spaniards born in Catalonia, mainly for ideological reasons. Because of this, and to avoid edit wars, there is currently '''a consensus solution. MOS states that the country of origin should be used in the intro. The "Spanish from Catalonia" or "Catalan from Spain" was proposed in an RfC on the matter as an intermediate solution'''. But despite the fact that this is an established consensus, in Antoni Gaudí's article this consensus is not respected and is being violated. That's why some time ago I edited the article and wrote "Spanish architect from Catalonia", but my edit was reverted and the user who reverted it claimed in his explanation that my edit was vandalism: But that's false... I was just enforcing the consensus! Later, another user added the other consensus formula: "Catalan architect from Spain", but that edit was also reverted by the same user who reverted mine.

That is why I request your help, please. Considering that you are an administrator, I have faith that you can help me correct this problem so that the consensus can be applied in that article. Because in my humble opinion that represents a partialization of Wikipedia content for ideological reasons. Besides that it is also a consensus violation.

If you could answer me, I will be very grateful. Many thanks in advance. Aziyade Gil (talk) 20:06, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * This is a content dispute and administrators do not make judgements or act on content disputes; please use the article talk page to discuss the changes you wish to make. It appears there is already a discussion started. The topic is also discussed repeatedly in the archives (here and here), so you should review them as well.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 20:14, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Serious request


An IP thinks they are socks, and I agree. First, the huge article intersection. Second, they both edit from the same mobile platform ("Mobile edit Mobile web edit"). Third, if you want diffs, I'll come back, but their edit summaries, including the occasional use of .. and the word "official" or some derivation of it. Finally, they are both obsessed with cast and filmography sections, mainly cast. If you prefer me to file a report at SPI rather than you running a check, I can do that. I can also block Libra cursa on my own without a report.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:47, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Extremely .-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 23:53, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, I like, thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:01, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Query
Hello, Ponyo,

I might be taking this issue to too many talk pages but since you deleted Noorpora and Rajasthan Urdu Academy, I'm going to ask you a question about them that I have also asked the editor who tagged them and the editor who created the Draftify script. Somehow, the editor who used the script to move these pages to Draft space, although they are not a page mover or admin, was able to suppress the redirect but the script recreated the page which was tagged for speedy deletion, CSD R2.

So, how were they able to not leave a redirect behind and yet the only edit to the page that exists is the tagging for it to be deleted? If there was no redirect, there should be no page to tag for deletion, right? I left those pages so that the editor could see that the only edits to the page were them requesting it to be deleted but they still can see the page log where it states that they didn't leave behind a redirect. And why would the script create a page that simply asks for it to then be deleted? It's puzzling, no?

I frequently see very new editors (hours and days, not months), create a User page where the only content is a deletion tag but I assume they are experimenting with tagging pages and CSD codes. But this is something different and I can't figure out whether it is the editor or the script that is wonky here. Of course, it's no extra work to delete a few extra pages but, like I said, it's puzzling. Hope you are doing well these days. Liz Read! Talk! 21:07, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh my,, this question is way too complicated for my Friday afternoon brain. I could probably tackle it on a Monday morning, all refreshed and rested, but at this time my brain power is completely depleted. I'm running on vapours! I did think it odd when reviewing the article histories, but the pages were empty so I deleted them as A3 instead of the R2 they were tagged with. I think Evad37 will have to solve this puzzle as I'm not sure the current outcome is desirable.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 21:22, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Disruptive user
The recent 72-hr block apparently didn't get this user's attention. They continue to disrupt article leads (particularly genres in film articles) and ignore warnings. --GoneIn60 (talk) 05:41, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * with the assist!-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 18:29, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Cristian Marino and a potential new sock


Hi Ponyo,

You SP'd Draft: Cristian Marino and blocked a couple of users who were interested in it the subject recently - another user has shown up and started moving the draft about, eventually reaching mainspace after a trip via Wikipedia: and Portal:. This seems rather suspect to me - would you mind having a look with your CheckUser goggles? Thanks, firefly  ( t · c ) 12:43, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * blocked the account and I EC-protected the article.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 18:31, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Sorry
Could you see my talk page? I left a message for you. Ciskee (talk) 18:41, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:02, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Sock
. Compare the "..." and ".." usage between lines and the "Mr/Mrs" usage same as .--2409:4073:4E01:231B:44E8:A284:24A4:FA72 (talk) 06:08, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Blocked by .-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 23:37, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

UTRS 54321
It's proposed at to lift the TPA restriction imposed by you. Your opinion would be appreciated. Cabayi (talk) 11:03, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I originally blocked the account, but talk page access was removed by .-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 18:54, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I restored TPA. 331dot (talk) 19:08, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * No. 54321? Cool. When I eventually get blocked, I'm hoping for #56789. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:53, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm partial to #8675309. -- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 20:59, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

COI and WP:OUTING
Hi Ponyo,

I saw you in the list of recently active oversighters and wanted to denounce a COI violation. Disclosing it on COIN would probably be in OUTING territory. Could I send the details to you via email? Thanks, Pilaz (talk) 18:43, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I would suggest providing an overview of the situation to paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org, which is monitored by Functionaries who will be able to provide you with advice as to how to proceed with the WP:UPE evidence you have.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 18:56, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I'll email the evidence there (it's not a confirmed UPE, but it's an almost-certain undisclosed COI). Cheers, Pilaz (talk) 19:00, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Query
Hey, Ponyo,

Not urgent, I was just cleaning up and was wondering what tool you used to mass delete pages created by ban evading editors, most recently, those by Honeybear1995. Is it Twinkle or some other script/tool? I'm asking because I've found that often when admins do this, it leaves behind the talk pages when it deletes the articles/draft articles/redirects. This is usually because the talk page has been created by a different editor than the sockpuppet.

So, I'd like to ask whoever is responsible for the tool if there is a way that the talk pages could be deleted along with the main page. If this is not possible, that's okay, they eventually get discovered and deleted but it would be cool if they could be taken care of at the same time. Thanks, hope all is well with you! Liz Read! Talk! 19:02, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi - I use the Nuke extension. It only displays the most recent creations however; the majority of the deletions I initiated for the Honeybear redirects were done one by one by me (hello carpal tunnel syndrome!). I think I caught and deleted all of the talk pages under G8 for the ones I deleted manually.--  Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 19:13, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, because of Nuke's limitations, I often end up deleting one by one, and it's a major drag. I don't understand why we can't override the limitation.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:23, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Suresh Canagarajah's page was protected
Hi Ponyo, I was trying to edit Suresh Canagarajah's page, and I noticed this page is being protected. Could you please let me know if there's a way to edit the page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.95.243.80 (talk • contribs)
 * The page is protected specifically to stop the edits you (and User:PSU-ASC) are attempting to make. You are adding massive walls of promotional text contrary to WP:COI and WP:NOTPROMO.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 22:48, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Your Friend suggested You
Please see last message here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Urbanoc#GMB_-_Please_Approve --188.109.177.148 (talk) 17:13, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Given that the article was protected by to prevent the same types of unsourced edits you're trying to make, I'm disinclined to do so. Uncvil edit summaries such as this aren't going to elicit much good will either.--  Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 17:22, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

I Didn't Add Kristin Bauer Van Straten's Birthdate While Editing
i didn't edit and add kristin bauer van straten's birthdate on wikipedia cause i know her birthdate is november 26, 1966 so please don't block me.Johnny758 (talk) 21:05, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia does not include information based on what knows to be true. My final warning stands; if you continue to add unsourced information to articles, you will be blocked from editing. You've been editing Wikipedia for over five years; you should understand our most basic requirements regarding verifiability and biographies of living persons by now.--  Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 21:15, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Dancing on Ice Series 14
Re-protect that page please as someone added scores when it hasn't been aired yet? --Annamargarita0 (talk) 10:51, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Done.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 19:48, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:46, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Charity Shop Sue
Looking over the history of the above, I see you're the admin that protected it from recreation last year; any objection to converting it to a redirect to Shane Meadows? I see no harm in doing so, but don't want to step into something about which I'm unaware. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 23:28, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Sure. The protection's just to keep a particular sockmaster at bay.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 23:30, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I've reduced the protection level so you can add the redirect if you'd like.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 23:31, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much. If the trouble continues I figure the redirect can always be protected. Thanks very much, and happy editing! -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 23:35, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * And it's continued. The article was recreated within about 36 hours of my creation of the redirect. I've restored the redirect and protected it for 3 months with admin-only access. I'm hoping that will be enough time to discourage the recreation, but we'll see. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 18:17, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Unsurprising, given the sockmaster in this case.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 21:06, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Howdy
Ponyo, I've kind of had it with User:Telefocus. CU showed me another user, one who doesn't get their kicks out of pestering others--they claim it's their brother. I'm considering a NOTHERE block; do you have an opinion? Drmies (talk) 19:04, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * (ditto) -- TNT (talk • she/her) 19:17, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I tried a kinder route, which was met with this indecipherable response, so I'm out of good will. I see they're up to the same disruption with today, so do as you see fit; I don't have the patience to deal with immature flailings today. --  Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 19:20, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Smithryanallen received a response
Regarding Smithryanallen's query on their talk page, I hope you will consider my response to have saved you some time, and that you don't have to spend any more time there. Cheers. signed, Willondon (talk) 01:54, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Much appreciated, . Coverage of the two articles where they are focusing their efforts is hyper-local. It may seem a "big deal" to them, but in the context of encyclopedic notability, the sources are sub-par (which you've explained).-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 16:36, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Apparatchiks rules
Hi Ponyo. Pardon me for probably not writing you correctly here. I deleted the "request for deletion of article" of protester Marina Ovsyannikova, as I thought a clear consensus had arised (32 editors agreed). You warned me that I could be blocked, and that the tag will be removed when the deletion discussion is closed. But who decides when the discussion is closed? I took upon me to close discussion as a clear consensus HAD emerged. BTW now someone else deleted the tag, so obviously I was right. Best. HansClumsy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HansClumsy (talk • contribs) 13:25, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The AfD tag was removed by the same administrator who closed the discussion. That's the correct process here. All of our policies and processes are determined by consensus, and editors who break the determination of consensus down into "right" or "wrong" often find it difficult to edit productively on this collaborative project.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 17:39, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Look you insensitively threatened a wiki-novice with being blocked with your "correct process" and your "policies and processes". I was right and in line with consensus: the article should not be deleted, and the red tag should be removed. And finally it all ended as I said it would. And now you threaten me that, yeah OK I was indeed right, but I will "find it difficult to edit productively on this collaborative project", as if I'm working against consensus or being uncollaborate. You can try to go after people that dont spend their hole life in here with your "correct proceses" and that may make you feel powerful and wise because you know the - in this case - counterproductive rules. But you can't rise above it when your rigid rules benefits the dictator. HansClumsy (talk) 18:53, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * There wasn't anything insensitive about my warning. It was clear, concise and factual. You had been warned multiple times by other editors and were continuing to argue that you were in the right while edit warring to remove the AfD tag and a block was imminent if you didn't desist. You were not "right" to remove the AfD tag. You were not "right" to edit war. And you were not "right" in your replies to others that your removal of the tag was justified. You don't have to like Wikipedia's rules and processes, but you need to abide by them. Now that the AfD has closed, there's no point in discussing this further. If you believe that I've somehow abused my administrative tools in this case, you can report me to the administrators noticeboard, otherwise, given your changing the header of this discussion to "Apparatchiks rules" and your comment that "your rigid rules benefits the dictator", we're done.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 19:09, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks
for this. I was actually in the process of gathering a ton of evidence, as they've been socking for quite a while xwiki and locally (including either meat socking or directly) with this user. I opened an ANI thread about a year or so ago about their non-notable/exaggerated creations and these three seem to be continuing on with it. CUPIDICAE💕 17:55, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Also this comment in their unblock: I created this account to make articles/edit for the companies and brands. is quite interesting as it sounds like they're admitting to UPE/COI editing but using two (undisclosed) accounts to do it after the ANI thread and previous socking... CUPIDICAE💕 18:03, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I noted at Sockpuppet investigations/D3FAULTX8 that this looks like standard UPE spam.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 18:04, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, the D3FAULTX8 socks and are distinct. Perhaps chasing the same bone, but definitely different people.--  Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 18:09, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Yep, and take a look at Hauntzer's edits to IT wiki and D3's deleted edits here. I doubt it matters but in case for whatever reason this goes to a lengthy appeal, this might be important to note. I suspected that Zamujene was just someone working in tandem with them. CUPIDICAE💕  18:11, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The CU evidence is about as clear cut as it gets, with interleaving edits between Hauntzer and D3FAULTX8 on multiple IPs, so I imagine appeals will be closed pretty quickly.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 18:16, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Metalfappaidoff
Any objection if I lift the (definitely appropriate) block on given their unblock request? --Yamla (talk) 18:16, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Their accounts were all used to edit war at Rick Caruso. The account names chosen show significant battleground issues, starting with the user names chosen (i.e. "Prfirmsruinthiswebsite" and "Metalfappaidoff" which is a dig at, who is reverting their inclusion of disputed material into the BLP). At the very least a name change would be necessary if the appeal is to be granted. -- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 18:55, 16 March 2022 (UTC) re-sign for ping.--  Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 22:07, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Your points are good and I declined their unblock request. --Yamla (talk) 09:34, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Now that wasn't nice, was it...
WTF is wrong with you??? 172.58.203.101 (talk) 05:12, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Depends who you ask. -- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 15:54, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * You do attract some of the weirdest people.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:10, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * My little coterie of weirdos.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 17:14, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1088
Hey,

I am fairly certain that, as the international football calendar has started again, User:GaelicOtta is one of LucyAyoubFan's socks. They're making the same edits on the Israel national football team page as the ones that I previously drew attention to (see the link in the header). I've reached out to see if they'll be more communicative this time but wanted to flag it.

Cheers,

Felixsv7 (talk) 10:53, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd call this based on the technical evidence alone, but they are using multiple accounts to edit the same articles using  and  and this is not a first edit of a new editor, which pushes it up into the  range for me. Both blocked and tagged.--  Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 16:34, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Failed attempts to log in to my account
Hey! I think the IP You just blocked might be trying to get into my account since I'm receiving a crap ton of notifications of multiple failed attempts to log in to my account from a new device. Is there anything I can do about this since it's making me extremely nervous even though I think my password should be fine. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 20:07, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * If you have a strong password, you're fine. I receive those message every day.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 20:09, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Alright sounds good. If they persist I might temporarily edit from my alt until those notifications cease since it's really freaking me out since I"m thinking "My password should be strong but what if they just happen to guess it?" I'd rather not disable those notifications since if there starts to be vandalism coming from my account and I saw those notifications, that will tell me that someone has managed to get into my account and I need to change my password ASAP. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 20:12, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * If your password is common enough or simple enough that you think it could be guessed, you should probably change it.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 20:14, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's common enough/simple enough that it could be guessed. It simply just worries me that someone might just get lucky and guess it on their first try even though it isn't a simple/common/obvious password. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 20:16, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

COI and COPYVIO from new editor
Please could you deal with edits from whom I identified through a Google search as an employee of the article concerned (WP Suspension). I reverted the changes as promotional, then some hours later after confirmation at user Talk found that the introduced prose was copy pasted from the About WP descriptive, which is footer-annotated as: © WP Suspension 2022 All rights reserved.

I'm not too concerned about the image and logo which have been uploaded firstly to Flickr, then Commons, just the main prose addition (1967 byte) needing revdel. Editor has been advised. Thanks.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 19:02, 24 March 2022 (UTC) .
 * Thanks for your report, . I have hidden the offending revisions. I'm not an expert on image copyright - you could ask at WP:MCQ for better advice on that. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 00:42, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * ThanQ,, I'll stay with it.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 01:02, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Invitation to join the Fifteen Year Society
Dear ,

I'd like to extend a cordial invitation to you to join the Fifteen Year Society, an informal group for editors who've been participating in the Wikipedia project for fifteen years or more. &#x200B;

Best regards, Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 13:59, 29 March 2022 (UTC)


 * 15 years? 15 YEARS?!? Holy Hell.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 19:59, 30 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Someone has far to much free time on their hands. Who in their right mind would spend 15 years on Wikipedia??? Well, I've been here 15 years since last August, but that doesn't count. I haven't been in my right mind for a long time! ;) BilCat (talk) 20:06, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I know why I created the account (baby boredom), but I have no excuse as to why I'm still here. Must be the fat pay cheques! -- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 20:13, 30 March 2022 (UTC)


 * LOL! BilCat (talk) 20:17, 30 March 2022 (UTC)