Archives

May 2007 – December 2010 2011 January 2012 - February 2012 March 2012 - May 2012 June 2012 - July 2012 August 2012 - September 2012 October 2012 - November 2012 December 2012 - January 2013 February 2013 - May 2013 June 2013 - July 2013 August 2013 - December 2013 January 2014 - March 2014 April 2014 - June 2014 July 2014 - August 2014 September 2014 - October 2014 November 2014 - December 2014 January 2015 - February 2015 March 2015 - May 2015 June 2015 - July 2015 August 2015 - September 2015 October 2015 - December 2015 January 2016 - March 2016 April 2016 - May 2016 June 2016 - July 2016 August 2016 - September 2016 October 2016 - December 2016 January 2017 - March 2017 April 2017 - June 2017 July 2017 - September 2017 October 2017 - December 2017 January 2018 - March 2018 April 2018 - June 2018 July 2018 - September 2018 October 2018 - December 2019 January 2019 - March 2019 April 2019 - June 2019 July 2019 - September 2019 October 2019 - December 2019 January 2020 - March 2020 April 2020 - June 2020 July 2020 - September 2020 October 2020 - December 2020 January 2021 - March 2021 April 2021 - June 2021 July 2021 - September 2021 October 2021 - December 2021 January 2022 - March 2022 April 2022 - June 2022 July 2022 - September 2022 October 2022 - December 2022 Janaury 2023 - March 2023 March 2023 - June 2023 July 2023 - September 2023 October 2023 - December 2023 January 2024 - March 2024

Dear Ponyo, can you deleted Draft:The Smurfs Movie and Draft:The Pagemaster, when I check it this is fake. There this the link: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:The_Smurfs_Movie https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:The_Pagemaster_(film) 142.122.25.19 (talk) 14:11, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

and the user is User:The Media Expert. @The Media Expert 142.122.25.19 (talk) 14:14, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

and @2000:999:485:377:9872:C8C6:6099:7244 who created the draft article. 142.122.25.19 (talk) 14:20, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Ponyo, the IP who is creating these hoaxes is Special:contributions/2001:999:485:377:9872:C8C6:6099:7274. There are a whole bunch of IPs from Finland who have been creating this crap for quite some time. I deleted both drafts. Sometimes I block the IPs, and sometimes I don't, depending on how many edits they've made and when.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:19, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The IP making the request here is also evading a 3X ban by posting here. Socks abound.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:31, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to see you back. In the hope that you will come in later today, could you check Dekhoaayadon against PH? I see a couple of non-stale socks, Kraistag and Scheditia, the former of which was confirmed. There is article intersection between the new account and other socks - the one I've seen most often is IAmAnEditor008. Regardless of anything else, Dekhoaayadon is a suspicious new user, created on March 16, and launching a meritorious SPI, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dunki2024, on March 27; the fact that it was well-presented and had merit makes it more suspicious.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:18, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23: They're editing from ranges known to be used by Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HaughtonBrit/Archive.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:48, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible to compare them against recently blocked socks Dazzem and Finmas? As I read the tortured archive, DatGuy checked those two on February 16, 2024, and found Dazzem possible and Finmas inconclusive. Both were blocked behaviorally. Dekhoaayadon was created after the check. I feel somewhat uncomfortable blocking Dekhoaayadon based on behavior for two reasons: (1) I'm unfamiliar with the case and (2) there's no obvious behavioral similarity with those two, i.e., article intersection (interestingly enough, there's no article intersection between Dazzem and Finmas either). One thing I did notice is, like Dekhoaayadon, Finmas started an SPI, albeit not about a new master. Forgive the musing, but I'm sorting this out in my head as I type and ask for more help.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:05, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It looks to me that Finmas was editing solely via VPNs (all of which are currently blocked). Dekhoaayadon and Dazzem have overlap on two separate ranges. -- Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:15, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone ahead and blocked and tagged.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:19, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've been watching (smile). Thanks! --Bbb23 (talk) 20:21, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Ponyo, could you take a look at the two recent SPI reports on suspected HaughtonBrit socks?
  1. Report about Historian2325: a recently re-activated account with almost a complete topic-of-interest and POV overlap with HB
  2. Report about RangerRus: I realize that other admins have already taken a look at this and The Wordsmith believes that the behavioral evidence indicates that RangerRus is not HB but I am still suspicious based on some overlap in topic-of-interests RR's POV is in sync with HB's (RR does edit a wider range of articles though) and some stylistic overlaps in project-space comments that I am not spelling out here.

Would it be possible to check is either of these editors are editing from the known HB ranges near Pittsburgh or one of HB's usual VPNs/proxies? Abecedare (talk) 17:57, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Abecedare: I understand the frustration involved when waiting for action on our very backlogged SPI process, but your first request involves an extensive report with around 50(!) diffs to review on an editor that was found to be unrelated to HaughtonBrit in April 2023. I've left a note at the SPI but a Clerk needs to review the evidence presented and make a call on endorsement. For your second request, a Checkuser declined a check and a Clerk closed the report with no further action. If there is new evidence, the report can be reopened but I don't intend to check when the evidence has been reviewed and declined previously. Sorry, the process sucks, I know.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:46, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I happened to look over it, just now--and it goes totally over my head, and I don't have much knowledge of or experience with the sockmaster. Drmies (talk) 22:48, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a Clerk so I can't endorse a CU request, but I spent some time looking through the behavioral evidence for Historian2325. There are a few differences, but more similarities with several of the more recent HB socks. I believe Historian2325's activity conforms more closely to the sockmaster's patterns than RangersRus. I do think that running a CU on Historian2325 has a rational basis and would be within policy. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 15:10, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@The Wordsmith:, you're so active at SPI lately and do such a great job you should be a Clerk!-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:10, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I'm going to apply eventually, but first I'm trying to get a little more experience at SPI especially on the process-heavy parts. Having my actions/closures reviewed by a Clerk or CU before archiving gives me a little extra assurance that any procedural errors I make can be caught. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 22:04, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"And this area is infested with socking POV-warriors, which makes it even more difficult to identify who's-who."

There are some sock-masters in this area, but HB definitely makes up the lion's share of sock accounts and disruption in this specific area, he's the most dedicated sock-master I've seen by far, to the point where it seems to be an affliction. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 15:33, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, all. I gather from previous CU comments that this LTA is pretty tricky. And this area is infested with socking POV-warriors, which makes it even more difficult to identify who's-who. <sigh> Abecedare (talk) 15:12, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

My watchlist is littered with your archivals of SPIs. Trying to beat the record of x many archivals in y minutes? Bored? Decided to clerk because the actual clerks aren't? I had no idea I had that many SPIs on my watchlist. Now if you could just clear the CU and open backlogs ... --Bbb23 (talk) 23:09, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Even with the script it was tedious, slow, and painful. I was going to try to tackle some open cases but the page is just so bogged down right now, I thought I'd try to clear a path. The problem is, once I had archived all the old cases, I had burnt myself out. Maybe tomorrow I'll have the fortitude to try again.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:14, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PS We need to encase Spicy in bubble wrap and guard them like the royal jewels. The Wordsmith as well.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:19, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely right! --Bbb23 (talk) 23:29, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I could have sworn I had the backlog under 75 cases just a few weeks ago... The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 00:21, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You did, but the backlog builds quickly. Per Mad-Eye Moody: Constant Vigilance! --Bbb23 (talk) 00:38, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed the archives of the investigations on my watchlist this evening when I was going for a jog. Yeah, even I got a little confused why Ponyo suddenly decided to archive them so quickly. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 00:57, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the work you did, Ponyo. I imagine SPILand often feels overwhelming...you archive 3 cases and then 5 new cases are created the same day! I appreciate all of the work you, checkusers, SPI clerks and admins who patrol SPIs do to keep the socks off the platform. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:16, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Liz. It's very much a "dig a ditch...fill it in" scenario, much like most Admin backlogs. It's just so much more time consuming than anti-vandal or CSD work. A single check can lead to 50 open browser tabs and an hour of brain damage only to conclude  Possible or  Inconclusive connections. Good clerks and admins willing to pitch in are worth their weight in gold!-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 15:44, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cough cough... let's hope that we can stop a lot of socks. It just makes me disappointed that they don't want to take the standard offer and learn their lesson. Oh well, it's basically sort of like WWIII out there. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 16:23, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you undo the revisions by Hawalul212:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Barney_and_Friends_episodes&diff=prev&oldid=1193416148

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Barney_and_Friends_episodes&diff=prev&oldid=1190907996

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Barney_and_Friends_episodes&diff=prev&oldid=1189591573

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Barney_and_Friends_episodes&diff=prev&oldid=1189591420 148.135.176.37 (talk) 12:24, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The edits were from months ago and there have been subsequent edits. If any of the information is incorrect, please make an edit request on the article talk page.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:29, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I always appreciate your actions.

However.. sorry but, Is it impossible to take action against IPs?

Once DENOSIO's accounts are blocked, they continue to attack via IP.

I reported it to SPI, but no one resolves it.

Is there no way to take action against IPs that damage WIKI..?

Thanks. Lades2222 (talk) 11:56, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because Denosio has a wide array of IPs that change quickly, blocking or rangeblocking isn't very effective. Semi-protection of the target articles is the easiest way to prevent further disruption in this case. Which is the latest IP or article where you've seen them pop up?-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:46, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question or Request:

Is it possible to process all countries and regions (about 200) that start with 'Visa Policy' so that only 'auto-verified' editors can edit them?

To defend against accounts like DENOSIO, I think we need to block the starting point. (Indefinitely, if possible) Lades2222 (talk) 19:51, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The protection policy doesn't allow for such sweeping actions. There needs to be evidence of disruption to protect an article, and it should only be protected for the level and duration estimated to be needed to prevent the disruption.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:46, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you mean. However, it is unfortunate that the inability to catch malicious IPs shows the limitations of Wikipedia. FYI.. I've seen several pages that have been restricted indefinitely. That's why I asked you a question. Lades2222 (talk) 21:20, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are we currenlty experiencing an example of this in action? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:03, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the irony was not lost on me.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:03, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked MyUserPage as another sock of What is this username?, per WP:DUCK. I didn't do all the bellls and whistles, but you may want to CU to confirm. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 19:26, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They admitted it here, but yes, it's also them. Also, hi. Haven't seen you in a while; always nice when you drop by! -- Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:29, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Now that's a band I'd love to join. Drmies (talk) 20:13, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Better than insane clowns, for sure.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:15, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate you working your admin magic on my talk page. That being said, I would be interested in connecting with that banned user off-Wiki so I can communicate with him without being in violation of the policies myself. I don't like obviously that he is committing so much vandalism, but I know it is out of boredom from what he has said and he honestly seems like a nice person, maybe just a little misguided.

I guess my perspective is that I'm not going to commit any vandalism (in fact my record shows quite the opposite), so I don't see the harm in it and maybe in fact it would be a welcome distraction--I have been in contact with other banned users before like User:Meepsheep and it never affected my conduct. Is there anyway I could maybe point him to one of my emails (maybe one not directly associated with my real name) so he can chat with me without it being disruptive? If that would be a violation too of Wikipedia policies, I will not, but I am just curious what leeway I have here. Thebirdlover (talk) 20:19, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As you have email enabled, the blocked editor could email you at any time just by clicking the "email this user" link. I haven't revoked email access from any of the blocked accounts.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:26, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

True, hopefully he does. --Thebirdlover (talk) 20:44, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ponyo. Regarding my reverted edit 1218545167 on April 12 for the birth date of Ainsley Earhardt, I was wondering why Hollywood Life is not considered a RS. Its wikiarticle reads, “The site covers celebrity, fashion, beauty, women issues, and entertainment news.” While it doesn’t appear on the RSP list, I can’t find where it has been depreciated or noted as having inaccuracies or a failure of editorial oversight. Is there a RfC for it? Although it may not publish what some would consider “hard” news, it does cover news in its bailiwick. I realize we must comply with DOB but I don’t know of Ainsley Earhardt complaining about inclusion of her date of birth, I don’t know that the edit is contentious material, Hollywood Life is popular enough that it may reasonably be inferred that Earhardt does not object, and a simple Google search brings up her DOB top, front, and center. Your thoughts on this matter will be appreciated. Regards, Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 03:15, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Quaerens-veritatem: There is no evidence of editorial oversight for the webpage as presented. Unlike the articles on Hollywood Life, which include the author's name in the bylines, the /celeb subpages do not provide any information as to how the material is obtained or verified. This is a huge red flag when it comes to using such pages as a reliable source for BLPs. In addition, the website's Terms Of Use are clear that they take no responsibility for the accuracy of the information they publish (see Section 22 here for example). Finally, the BLP policy states that "Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources". As Earhardt's birth date has been disputed and multiple years have been provided, it is critical that the "widely published in reliable sources" criteria is met. In order to uphold BLP as a policy, we don't guess that the subjects of our articles are ok with the content of gossip sites if there is no overt evidence to the contrary. The point of the policy is to remove conjecture altogether and insist on the highest possible sourcing. The unattributed IMDb-type back pages of Hollywood Life does not meet that criteria. -- Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:29, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ponyo,

We have an editor with a little quirk that I wanted to check in with you about and they have had this habit for years now. Every few weeks, about once a month, DinosaursLoveExistence uses their registered account to create a large number of empty categories in really random subject areas but often specific to the UK. And then, after the categories are created, a few days later, they log out and use IP accounts, like User:92.27.37.191 to fill these empty categories. Over the years, I've left probably a dozen messages, on their registered account's talk page and on the IP accounts' talk pages, simply asking them to log in to do all of their editing with their registered account but this habit has persisted for going on years now. I don't want to be a stickler for bureaucracy but as a checkuser, is there anything wrong with this behavior? Their only interest is in creating these large groups of categories and then filling them up a week later so there is no vandalism going on but they have never communicated except occasionally through edit summaries, no talk page responses at all that I have seen over the past few years.

I'm coming to you because I don't know if there is any policy about boomeranging between logged in editing and then logging out to edit, seemingly to do different kinds of tasks. They are unresponsive so I can't get any answer to my queries over the years. The only problem that exists is me tagging dozens of empty categories and then, four or five days later, untagging these categories because they are no longer empty so it's kind of a PITA. But given their lack of explanation, I can see this continuing, indefinitely and thought I'd check in with someone who regularly looks into account data. It's really just bad for them as it reveals their location but they have been alerted to this fact multiple times and they don't seem to care. Any way, I don't want to be looking for problems that aren't there but I thought I'd inquire with you. Thank you in advance for any insight you can provide with this editor's unusual behavior. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:00, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: From my point of view, while there is no hard policy violation of WP:SOCK with your description of the activities, though the edits are disruptive if they are causing a drain on volunteer resoures while failing to communicate, which is required by policy. One possibility is to block the account from category creation, with a note that access can be restored when they explain why they're editing in such a way. Or a final request for communication noting that a block could be forthcoming if they don't respond. It would be a matter of weighing the amount of disruption caused against the benefit of allowing them to continue unabated. -- Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:39, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Noticed your WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Bmusique99 filing and took at look the sockpuppet's log out of curiosity. What in the world is "reviewed an image suggestion"? I have never seen that before. S0091 (talk) 20:24, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Huh. I've never sent that specific log entry before. -- Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:29, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Posted the question at WP:VPT. Will see. S0091 (talk) 20:37, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You'll probably get a more complete explanation there, but it has to do with suggested edits for Android apps.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:47, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wondered about them a while ago. Thanks for figuring it out.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:32, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They'll be back, so you'll get another shot at it.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:33, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno, I'm not familiar with that case and haven't studied the behavior. Probably too lazy to do so. It seems like I spend most of my time identifying socks...just like before but without the assistance of, um, certain tools. I can spend a ton of time on one user and then give up because, although still suspicious, I can't make a connection. Tiring..and sometimes I'm tired of being tired. End of grump.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:42, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to help if you can throw evidence at me. I also spend a lot of time digging only to decide I can't quite make the case. -- ferret (talk) 20:48, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kind of you.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:57, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I request that you update the infobox image of Nelly Furtado, to a more recent one as Furtado's appearance has since changed, and because it is more consistent with articles on other celebrities. 70.50.199.125 (talk) 03:46, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Images used in articles of living subjects must be free; you can't just pick an image that you like and upload it to the article. There is no consistency between images of celebrities, with the quality differing greatly (and many lacking images altogether).-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:26, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see. But if you do happen to find a more recent image of her that is free, then maybe consider updating the infobox image by then (when I say "by then" I mean at that time). 70.50.199.125 (talk) 03:54, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your work on this. Being that Fostera12 is part of that group, I believe they will all be part of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cricket Butterfly this sock farm which is significant as Fostera12 has created 65 pages, many of which were previously G5'd under that farm. Is there a way to run a quick CU with that farm and Fostera12? CNMall41 (talk) 22:08, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@CNMall41: trying to tie UPE sock farms to a single master is a make-work project with insanity as the only possible outcome. These accounts are generally editing from the same rough geolocation(s), cycling through the same enormous dynamic ranges. There's a reason why most CUs avoid these types of SPIs and they sit for ages. Is there a reason why you want to try to tie Fostera12 to the Cricket Butterfly group? Is it to make Fostera's articles eligible for G5? I ask because I've spent several hours working through the CU-request backlog at SPI over the last couple of days and this additional check will take away from the very limited time I have left to run checks.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:18, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand about the sanity part. I don't think many of them would qualify for G5 at this point as there have been quite a few edits to them. I have gone through some of the newer ones that do not look notable and sent to draft. The others I just use as a roadmap for future SPIs. "Breadcrumbs" if you will to tie other future accounts to the farm. No need to check if you think it isn't worth it but I do appreciate the work you did and the reply. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:35, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A few years ago I burned out completely focussing on these groups, especially the studio spam. I deleted my watchlist and disappeared for several months. It made Bbb23 sad, so I don't want to do that again.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:40, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But it did teach me to keep my watchlist somewhere under one zillion.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:42, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Currently 10,321. I guess I need to seek help. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:44, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Haha. I get it. I am almost at that same bridge. But still have fuel in the tank for the time being. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:43, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's good news, because you do good work here!-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:44, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I did this too. I purged down from 10k to 1k, and am back to 1.4k now. -- ferret (talk) 23:05, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Saffron Barker

Hi Ponyo, I see that you applied extended protection to that page for sockpuppetry. To me, it would be alright at the time it was applied but today, I feel like it should be no higher than autoconfirmed protection because she is just enough to have a Wikipedia page and there are not really any problems anymore to keep this page protected at extended level today. JuniperChill (talk) 14:37, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JuniperChill: I've dropped it down to semi-protection. The sock targetting the article is still active, so we'll see how that goes.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:19, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Take me out to the sock game! Come get your clones! Get 'em while they're hot! --Bbb23 (talk) 20:36, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, you're dating yourself a little there.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:41, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's only because no one else will date me.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:45, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, I'm vegetarian, so I don't even eat meat (although I did accidentally eat an olive and chicken pizza by accident at a party once, so yuck). I would very much prefer a veggie burger with dill pickle relish, olives, cucumbers, tomatoes, lettuce, you name it. Just... not meat. Or I'd just stick to the classic pretzels and popcorn. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 20:51, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you take a peek at the history with your goggles and see if it needs ECP sock protection, and if anyone needs to be taken behind the toolshed? I'm a bit involved, so I don't want to do anything on my own. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:09, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of socking there, including:

• Carlsam (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• StraightWiki (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• VarahaAvtr (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• CyberIAwareness (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

All apparently trying to control the narrative regarding Over-the-top media services in India and related articles. Still checking for more...-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:37, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Color me surprised! Or not really surprised. I appreciate the time you're spending taking a peek. In other news I have two dozen duck eggs in the incubator! ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:38, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All blocked and tagged. They have a large range available to them, so they may be back (or have older accounts laying in wait). I bumped a couple articles up to ECP and will look to see if more are warranted. I would like to think that "I have two dozen duck eggs in the incubator" is code for something exciting and exotic, but that's unlikely I suppose.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:49, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't do anything exciting or exotic. I just move animal shit from one pile to another and grow peppers, onions, garlic, and tomatoes. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:53, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Exciting is overrated anyhow. You have the home grown ingredients for an amazing Peperonata at your fingertips. Who needs more?-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:59, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's how I look at it too. A lack of excitement just means nothing is going wrong. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:17, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

	Thank you
	Thank you. Shearonink (talk) 19:58, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I'm sorry you had to wait so long for a result in such a straightforward case.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:02, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Sure I thought that SPI made sense but when I looked at the other ones I realized there were so many who had waited longer - and then when I counted by hand the clerking...I was gobsmacked. I know that folks had been decrying the declining numbers of admins/RfAs a while back (though I tend to stay out of that area) but SPIs & revdels & GA noms etc (oh dear I'm afraid to look into those other two now that I've mentioned it...) are more firmly among the workaday underpinnings of WP and when they grind to a halt...the whole enterprise slows down and the gears start rusting. SPI was telling us all something - not sure what - I just hope the institutional fortitude to figure out what & how to make things better exists. And I would think about volunteering as a clerk but it isn't possible right now - I can only do what I can do. Shearonink (talk) 20:27, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SPI has always been an outlier. Unlike many admin tasks where you can get in a groove, each SPI needs to be viewed with fresh eyes and a single case can take up a significant amount of precious volunteer time. When it's running smoothly, Clerks do the initial review of evidence of either endorse a check or decline one. With so few active Clerks at the moment, the checkusers need to do all of the initial digging and evidence review in addition to the actually checking, which in and of itself can be an extensive process. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Alsho093, for example, looks like an easy case. In order to process it I had to 1) review the evidence presented 2) review both editors' contributions 3) check their contributions on other language Wikipedias 4) run a check on one of the accounts 5) run a check on the second account 6) sort through the ranges used, looking for overlaps 7) compare user agents 8) run proxy checks on suspicious IPs 9) note results 10) block and tag. For that one check I had about 20+ tabs open running comparisons. Having active Clerks and admins to help with the process, especially the preliminary review, is such a huge time saver even for the simplest of cases. The burn out factor is huge, especially when it comes to UPE sock farms that are extremely complicated, tedious and time consuming. -- Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:00, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear I think I just found another one - see Unoduetrevia at this run of the Editor Interaction Utility. Should I add them to the SPI? Shearonink (talk) 20:57, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's the same editor.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:12, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just requested protection of Johann van Beethoven, an IP has popped up with an identical edit to this article as the Beale ciphers & socks... - Shearonink (talk) 03:24, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, you may want to take a look at this as it is directed at you. ภץאคгöร 21:17, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Redacted and blocked by Spicy. JeffSpaceman (talk) 21:29, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I guess I missed it. Was it a loving missive? Socks are generally so receptive to my attention.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:34, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, There is a user who keeps bothering me. I don't want to discussion to that person anymore. Is there a way to block that user(account)? Lades2222 (talk) 23:29, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If someone is trying to communicate with you in good faith, they shouldn't be blocked. Note, however, that you can request that an editor no longer post to your talk page and it is generally expected that they should comply with the request. See WP:USERTALKSTOP.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:34, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I want to resolve this conflict once and for all, I want you to help me. I have a long-standing conflict with Lades2222 because he believes that I am a person who destroys Wikipedia. I don't think so, you can look at my latest edits. I always confirm my changes with links. And I have good faith. Lades2222 is even confused with another user who is from Singapore. Here he is truly violating Wikipedia by not confirming the changes with links. Because of him, you constantly block me. I'm tired of this madness. I want to forget about it and use Wikipedia freely. Please help me figure it out. I will be grateful for your help. RussianFederation02 (talk) 09:58, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's literally block evasion that you're doing, as stated in Because of him, you constantly block me. By the time Ponyo sees this, they're going to consider the account you're using is a sock. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 10:09, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your editing style and tone are almost identical to User:Denosio, which was already blocked. In other words, your accounts are showing the same behavior that Denosio behaved. One cannot help but suspect that he is a puppet. We must end situations where people who have already been blocked continue their activities without reflection.

If you want to fully resolve the conflict you should avoid creating new accounts. Lades2222 (talk) 13:11, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

However, I wrote above "Is there a way to block a user?" The target of this is a user other than you. Lades2222 (talk) 13:21, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I'm destroying Wikipedia. I CONFIRM MY CHANGES WITH LINKS! I put a lot of effort into improving the article. I also make the sections much simpler and more convenient, removing unnecessary and outdated information. And you and administrator Ponyo erase all my efforts and efforts. This really irritates me. I'm not a villain. Look at my editorials, they are not criminal. I want to edit articles freely, just like you. I want to agree that I don’t interfere with your editing, and you don’t bother me. That is all. It is very simply and easy. But you are fighting with me. RussianFederation02 (talk) 13:29, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Latest Denosio sock blocked. Noting, as I assume they're still reading this thread, that they are not merely blocked but banned from en.wikipedia and all of their edits will likely be reverted regardless of whether they personally believe them to be productive. -- Ponyo^{bons mots} 15:34, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just letting you know that the IP you've partially blocked hopped to a different one.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 14:19, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ScottishFinnishRadish has been particularly helpful while I was AFK. Thank you.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 15:36, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Always glad to lend a hand, especially as you pick up so much of my slack. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:45, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ponyo sir, I don't understand what is Wikipedia's policy? This @Rajanyas user removed reliable/sources/content from various pages like Graharipu, Chudachandra etc. and he added his own opinion. I warned him many times but he ignored and continued his vandalism. Please block him. 2409:4085:8E99:F559:0:0:81C9:8A0B (talk) 21:25, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My educated guess is that you are both socks who've been having this same battle for ages. If I'm wrong, dispute resolution is where you'll find your answers.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:33, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]