User talk:Ponyo

Archives

two named account AFC/R users

I see a large overlap. I am 90% of the way to making a formal SPI filing decision because of wikilawyering style quacking. My user talk page shows conversations. Should I go forwards, in your opinion? I see nothing urgent, just odd attitude duplicated. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 10:40, 5 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

They're both have odd behaviour and have come to my attention previously, but I don't have a suspected master for either to compare to.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:53, 7 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

they appear to be likely to be each other, but such reports are almost valueless 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 22:39, 7 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Are they same person?

[1] [2] ? Shah Of Nowhere ^talk! 01:17, 7 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if they're related to the temp account, but MorgonYZ is

Confirmed to Phenomenal78.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:17, 7 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Shah Of Nowhere ^talk! 20:53, 7 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back

Hope you had a good break. I'm sure you are busy, but could I just point out Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JoinFluffy250, which is pertinent to a deletion review approaching closure time: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2026 April 1 so it would be helpful if we could get that looked at. Thanks very much. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:16, 7 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

My only involvement in this case was as a checkuser and everything is beyond stale, so there's nothing special I can contribute. This needs review by an SPI Clerk and actioning (or not) by them.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:19, 7 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

OK thanks. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:38, 8 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

...and it looks like Toadspike took care of it (thank you!). If I ran Wikipedia, our SPI Clerks would be our highest paid group of editors. It's a tough role and the burn-out rate is high.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 15:44, 8 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes indeed and much appreciated. All the same, a brand new account just turned up at the deletion review to argue for not deleting the article [3]. Not sure I can be bothered with adding to the SPI backlog over it, by opening a new case, as I can't imagine a closer giving it any credence. I'll just leave it here as a heads up. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:51, 8 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely suspicious, but I can't tie them to a specific account (technically speaking).-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:23, 8 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, thanks. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:41, 8 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

the win arguments is an LTA frequent flyer, I just can't remember which.

They'll either get bored or out themselves soon enough Star Mississippi 13:47, 9 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please, explicitly, outline what the issue is with me contributing to Wikipedia? Are you indicating you would actively like me to "get bored"? Thanks. StephenPortmore (talk) 14:43, 9 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You are not a new editor. There is no tutor who would recommend this niche area of project space. I blocked you to stop the disruption. Please go edit an article, which is why we're here. Star Mississippi 14:54, 9 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Supabase

Hi, you say that there is no credible indication of its importance, but does the fact that is repeatedly being created not suggest that you may be mistaken? They have 4 million developers, which I wrote on the article. They have a several billion $ valuation. I am very confused by your suggestion that they're not important. They are the only database supported by Lovable, the fastest growing tech company currently IIRC. I'll create the draft like you said, but I'm looking for suggestions as to what you deem to be "credible" exactly please. Control-alt-delete ★ user◾talk◾favs 23:02, 8 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Repeatedly created and repeatedly deleted (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Supabase and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Supabase (2nd nomination)) per community consensus. Your most recent sub-stub recreation consisted of a couple of lines gave no credible claim of significance and had two sources, a primary GitHub doc and a TechCrunch piece. The most recently deleted article contained serval paragraphs of content and 22 sources of varying reliability and the community still chose to delete it. Feel free to work on a draft that addresses the arguments made in the deletion discussion(s) and set it for review via WP:AFC.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:13, 8 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, you deleted the page whilst I was in the midst of writing more content. You can see on the edit log that I was actively editing it when you deleted it. How I was supposed to add more content when you deleted it as I was doing so, I will never know! Control-alt-delete ★ user◾talk◾favs 20:31, 9 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Please can you also provide a copy of the deleted content? I'll add some credible sources to the draft. Thanks Control-alt-delete ★ user◾talk◾favs 23:07, 8 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The content is still available at Draft:Supabase. Just undo your speedy deletion request.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:15, 8 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the same page that you deleted. I first started a draft by accident at [[Draft:Supabase]], then I requested its speedy deletion and made a new page at [[Supabase]]. The notification on my Talk page says that you need to provide it to me, as the original deleter, since I can no longer access the content. Control-alt-delete ★ user◾talk◾favs 20:26, 9 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Quote:

> If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator Control-alt-delete ★ user◾talk◾favs 20:28, 9 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I know it's not the same page, but it had pretty much the same content (less the TechCrunch link). If you had just gone back and removed your speedy deletion request as I suggested, the content you were requesting to be sent to you would have been avalable in the draft. Note that adminstrators don't need to provide any deleted content; the template notes that you can request it from them. I can undelete Draft:Supabase if you want to continue working on it.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:34, 9 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You know, I appreciate the offer, but I feel as though it may be very difficult to satisfy you as to the credible importance of Supabase; since there is clearly a lot of history with this page already. I won't bother fixing my draft, but I just want you to know that, respectfully, I think that you are mistaken. I am a database developer. Lovable have got $400m of annual recurring billing customers. IIRC they're the fastest growing tech company in the last 12 months. The only database that Lovable natively supports is Supabase. Everyone that uses Lovable is using Supabase. Please just bear this in mind for the next person that you come across who tries to write a new Wiki article about a piece of software they like that is massive, in good faith; before you go insta-deleting it. All the best! Control-alt-delete ★ user◾talk◾favs 20:43, 9 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That's not how it works as an Administrator. I didn't make any determination as to whether the company is notable or not, I was only enforcing community consensus from the last deletion discussion. I wouldn't be the one reviewing the draft either, that would be done by AfC reviewers. -- Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:49, 9 April 2026 (UTC) -- Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:49, 9 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Warned here for casting aspersions. -- Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:33, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Endemic COVID-19 protection dispute. Worstbull (talk) 07:19, 11 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Alice or the Last Escapade

Thank you for rev-deleting that diff. Out of curiosity, do you think the other edits that user made to the page warrant deletion? Since they're identical, I would say yes, but I thought I'd ask you as an admin. I appreciate the action taken regardless. JeffSpaceman (talk) 22:57, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think they're all done? Or did I miss one?-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:59, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

They all got redacted as I was typing! Thanks to you and the always alert Zzuuzz. JeffSpaceman (talk) 23:00, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

little request

Hello, ponyo. you may know me, (REAL Mr. CRT), and I would like you to please refrain from editing my talk page. thank you, and have a wonderful day. best wishes, Mr. CRT — Preceding unsigned comment added by REAL Mr. CRT (talk • contribs)

And what I would like would be for you to refrain from disruption and contribute productively. I wonder which one of us will get what we want? My money is on neither of us.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:25, 17 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see how editing my own talk page is disruptive, as I was making a joke to myself

Have a great day! REAL Mr. CRT (talk) 20:45, 17 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I now understand you are a moderator, but I am still curious as to why my own talk page being edited would be considered disruptive. REAL Mr. CRT (talk) 20:56, 17 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Outside of a small handful of exceptions that don't apply here, can't modify another editor's post to say something they didn't actually write. Also, you don't own your talk page.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:00, 17 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Ponyo, thanks for jumping into this earlier, just wanted to give you a heads up they are at it again - they deleted the original warning and edited the second one. I can revert but figured best course of action may be to raise it with you since you've already touched on this before. Sorry, I haven't been in this situation before, let me know if there's a better course of action or if it's just best left ignored, thanks! ArchCardinal (talk) 21:39, 17 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

They can remove pretty much what they want (per WP:BLANKING), but the repeated modification of your messages is not allowed. I've reverted and added a signature for you as it looks like you forgot to sign.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:44, 17 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thank you for the context, much appreciated! ArchCardinal (talk) 22:31, 17 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Lumberrr

Hi, I recall you blocked Lumberrr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) from some articles back in March - I noticed they appear to be continuing their renaming spree at Karabakh University... I don't know enough about the topic to make a determination, perhaps you could take a look? Danners430 _{tweaks made} 11:16, 20 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Dear @Ponyo

My concern is that Danners430’s wording appears to assume bad faiththe article ". Calling my edits "a “renaming spree” frames my edits as disruptive before the actual content is assessed. I believe this is unfair, especially where the edit was a limited explanatory phrase using both names. Lumberrr (talk) 12:00, 20 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I am writing in response to Danners430’s message about my edits at Karabakh University.

I respectfully disagree with the description of my edits as a “renaming spree”. In the Karabakh University article, my edit was limited and factual. I added wording to identify the location as “Khankendi, formerly known as Stepanakert”.

My intention was to make the article more accurate and clear for readers.

Khankendi is the current official name of the city under Azerbaijani administration. “Stepanakert” is the former Soviet-era/Armenian name and is still historically relevant. That is why I used both names, rather than removing one side completely. Lumberrr (talk) 12:01, 20 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I believe my edit is consistent with Wikipedia’s rules for the following reasons:

1) The edit is verifiable. Karabakh University’s own official English-language website says the university was established in the city of Khankendi. Its campus page also states that the main academic building is located in the centre of Khankendi. This directly supports the wording I added.

2) Independent English-language sources also recognise both names. Reuters describes the city as Khankendi, while noting that it is known in Armenia as Stepanakert. AP also refers to the city as Khankendi, “also known as Stepanakert to Armenians”. This shows that using both names is not original research. It is supported by reliable sources.

3) Third, the edit is neutral. Wikipedia’s neutral point of view policy requires articles not to take sides, but to explain relevant views fairly and without editorial bias. My wording does exactly that. It gives the current Azerbaijani name while also acknowledging the historically and Armenian-used name.

4) Wikipedia’s article-title policy recognises that an article can only have one title, but significant alternative names should usually be mentioned in the article, especially where they help readers identify the subject. Therefore, even if there is disagreement about the title of the city article, that does not mean the university article should avoid mentioning Khankendi. Lumberrr (talk) 12:15, 20 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Your preferred version is disputed, therefore you must get consensus before making the changes. Also, please stop using LLMs to communicate - see WP:EPAI.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:53, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Ponyo,

Thanks for the response. However, your accusation of me allegedly using LLMs (e.g ChatGPT, or other AI models) is not correct, and lacks any evidence.

Simply because someone uses advanced language does not mean they are using LLMs.

I am an expert in history, politics, and geography with speciality in Caucasus, Middle East, Balkans and North Africa. I do not think I have done anything wrong by sharing my knowledge - which is the exact reason why Wikipedia has been built upon.

I would have expected you to reframe your last sentence as "I believe you are using LLMS based on x,y,z reasons. Could you please confirm? Please refer to WP:EPAI for Wikipedia's communication policy."

I hope this makes sense.

Regards, Lumberrr (talk) 02:40, 22 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Ponyo

Could you please respond to my previous message? You wrongfully accused me with using AI models. You did not provide any evidence on writing your commment.

Please explain yourself.

Regards, Lumberrr (talk) 10:17, 26 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Your 12:15, 20 April 2026 (UTC) post reads LLM-created, and my GPTZero scan of the post shows 58% AI. BusterD (talk) 15:34, 26 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Your first two posts in this thread are blatantly AI-generated. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:42, 26 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

block evasion

It appears that Brendan Peace (talk · contribs), whom you blocked indefinitely last month, has continued editing with one or more temporary accounts, based on signed edits by ~2026-17740-40 (talk · contribs) at this exchange: User talk:Abraham, B.S.#Red Cloud Jr. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 00:11, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. I've blocked the new TAs that have popped up.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:18, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any way to preempt the creation and use of temporary accounts, maybe by IP address? I ask because this banned user seems recalcitrant in the face of being found out. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 10:27, 22 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever can be done so far I've done (being purposefully vague here). They're determined, but also messy, so I imagine they'll continue to get caught out until all avenues are closed to them, whether it be IP rangeblocks or more significant measuers.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:47, 22 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

		The Admin's Barnstar
		For putting an end to the queerphobic disruption at Carisa Hendrix -- at least, for the time being. Still though, thank you. JeffSpaceman (talk) 22:52, 22 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Help at WP:SPI

Hey, I'm just looking for a little assistance here. It seems you made a range block a while block to help control some of the temp accounts that this sock master was creating to block evade, but this has continued at an even greater pace now. There are at least like three temp accounts being created daily by this user to continue block evasion. I have added maybe half of the temp accounts to the SPI page but more new ones keep popping up and the SPI report is still in progress. Is there a wider or longer range block that needs to be done to prevent this from continuing? Thanks again for your help. Adamtt9 (talk) 19:41, 23 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know; I've updated the SPI.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:13, 23 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, hope all is good. I've had to make another report as one of those temp accounts is back active again. Also left a little note there as I'm curious if there are other accounts that are related to the master that I might have missed. Just curious about your thoughts. Thanks. Adamtt9 (talk) 18:48, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

SPI updated again. I've watchlisted it this time.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:24, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Balamory

Is the semi–protection necessary? Sock edits rarely ever appear on the article. I think pending changes might work. Love my dreams (talk) 21:40, 24 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Socks were editing the article incessantly until I protected it. Pending changes does not work in cases of socking.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:45, 24 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Khojaly, Nagorno-Karabakh article

This article has a sentence as follows:

"Stepanakert Airport is located to the immediate south of the town."

Could you please edit this sentence as:

"Stepanakert Airport (also known as Khojaly Airport) is located to the immediate south of the town."

Regards, Lumberrr (talk) 10:20, 26 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

You've been mentioned without notification at ANI. Acroterion (talk) 13:59, 26 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Editwar redux

I was hoping the blocks would stop them but no. Adrian R'Mante. Thanks, Polygnotus (talk) 18:35, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

User_talk:Sturgispretzels#Hello Tried to explain, LLMTALK from both sides. Talk:Adrian_R'Mante#Good_lord,_what_is_happening_in_here Polygnotus (talk) 18:42, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've partial-blocked Sturgispretzels from the article for BLP violations.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:50, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Debating an LLM is rather boring. Polygnotus (talk) 18:51, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

I appreciate you redacting that garbage at ANI. I just regret the fact that I saw it before it was redacted... JeffSpaceman (talk) 23:01, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hear hear. --Yamla (talk) 23:01, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't actually read it all the way through. I usually only get far enough to decide whether to revedelete or not, and in this case I dind't get past the first couple of words. -- Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:05, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the username and just clicked the big fat restore button. Not worth reading it anyways. – LuniZunie_(talk) 23:07, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Another Son of Zorn sock

Once again with a new account at Morbucks, targeting regularly targeted articles of theirs including Happily Ever After: Fairy Tales for Every Child, Luna Petunia, and Motown Magic. Given their history of socking at those articles, would it be wise to get a protection on them at all? (noting that I have already requested protection for another usual target of theirs, SpongeBob SquarePants Presents The Tidal Zone). Magitroopa (talk) 21:30, 1 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've done some protections, but it doesn't hurt to leave a honey pot or two available to them.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:00, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for sock blocks; some info

Yeah, I'm aware of the overlap with Exploreaniii group, but couldn't make a solid technical connection between them. There are a lot of squirrels chasing the same nut in these articles.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:13, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for explaining and i wanted to know

I’m interested in becoming an AFC reviewer. I know I still need to improve in areas like sourcing, notability, and policy-based editing so I’m currently focusing on creation and improving my contributions. ɴᴅᴀʜɪʀᴏ ᴅᴇʀʀɪᴄᴋ 🐎 (talk) 21:30, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Great. I'm sure that you're already aware of Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Reviewing instructions, and I find just watching how others proceed for a spell of time in areas I intend to edit is helpful. I did that a lot when I became an admin.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:33, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the advice. I’ll spend more time observing how experienced reviewers handle drafts and discussions before applying in the future. I appreciate the guidance. ɴᴅᴀʜɪʀᴏ ᴅᴇʀʀɪᴄᴋ 🐎 (talk) 21:36, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Account blocked as compromised and used abusively by LTA Alakmarsaify. --Prothe1st (leave me a message)-- 10:44, 8 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Now may be a convenient time to point out Shehin1234 (talk · contribs · block log). -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 12:00, 8 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I was starting to look more closely at Ndahiro derrick's behaviour yesterday but ran out of time; had planned to circle back this morning to do a deeper dive. What a mess.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:00, 8 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

More socks

I noticed you just blocked a sock of TTT24. Could you also respond to the SPI case that has been open for days where that account and another was reported? See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TotalTruthTeller24. Thanks. Link20XX (talk) 17:36, 8 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Forgot to follow-up here...-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:53, 8 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

List of The Boys (franchise) characters Sockpuppetry?

Hi, my name is Matt, I'm the user who made those changes last night to the G-Wiz section of the List of The Boys (franchise) characters page. I can assure you I'm not a sockpuppet; I've been reading Wikipedia for many years, but have only just recently created an account. I rarely ever edited articles before, and when I did, I'd get a suggestion to make an account so as to track said edits, but now that I have, my edits have been tagged of sockpuppetry and reverted. :/ I spent a lot of time fact-checking my changes and making sure they were properly sourced to the correct comic issues...I don't know if there have been problems on that page with other users making sockpuppet changes, but I'm really not one of them, this is my only account (though I don't have a user page yet). Is there any way for me to prove I'm not a sockpuppet and have my changes reinstated? The information in that section of the article is flat-out wrong, and I've never been able to find any sources whatsoever that can corroborate them. Please let me know if there's anything I can do to get my edits restored and/or confirm my user identity and/or the veracity of my edits! Mrmadon (talk) 19:48, 8 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It was the many temp account edits prior to your relatively minor edit that were made by a globally locked editor. Please feel free to redo your edit.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:56, 8 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for getting back to me! I'd like to, but unfortunately, the page is locked and I don't seem to have enough edits to my credit to be able to edit semi-protected pages. I can't imagine that making a bunch of pointless dummy edits is a fair way to get myself that credit, so...do you have any suggestions that don't involve me scouring Wikipedia for minor, petty edits in order to get my account the credibility it needs to edit semi-protected pages? :/ Mrmadon (talk) 19:58, 8 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You're almost over the auto-confirmed bar that will allow you to edit semi-protected articles. Just two more edits and about a day and a half and you'll be good to go.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:01, 8 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Do user talk pages count toward this...? If so, I'll only actually need one more (after this) to make it! Mrmadon (talk) 20:01, 8 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they do count. -- Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:02, 8 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Then here's to number 10! :D Thank you very much for your help! Have a great one! Mrmadon (talk) 20:03, 8 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to keep bugging you, but do you know if this takes a little while for the system to recognize? The parameters I found were 10 edits and 4 days after your first edit, both of which I've met, but I still don't have the ability to edit the page. I thought it would recognize my account right away...I'll give it a little while then check back in. Would it be alright if I came back here for advice if I have any trouble? Or is there a better place to go so I don't clutter up your user talk page any more than I already have? Mrmadon (talk) 20:09, 8 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You need 10 edits and 4 days from your first edit. You're welcome to ask me questions, but I do tend to drop off the map from time to time. I'll leave some helpful info on your talk page.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:19, 8 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, of course, my first edit on this account was NOT actually four days ago! Duh, my bad. I'll have to check back in with the page in a couple of days. Thank you so much for all your help! Highly appreciated. Have a good'n! :) Mrmadon (talk) 20:21, 8 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

TPA

Hi Ponyo. I think talk page access needs to be revoked for a user you blocked, Wi3sm4nnn0r0chi. They are flooding their talk page with illegitimate unblock requests. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 20:23, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Looks familiar, some LTA or another; TPA yanked. PS, I was very happy to see your name pop up at WP:AELECT4. Best of luck to you, you have my vote :) -- Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:27, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

SPI

Thanks for the blocks. Can you update the SPI? - UtherSRG (talk) 21:41, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

All done. I wasn't aware of the SPI. Honestly, the only reason I ran a check was that I thought some LTA account was joe-jobbing Kingfisher-Sapphire, but the evidence was clear.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:44, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Reduce protection

Hi Ponyo, I am requesting that Goyslop be reduced from full protection to extended confirmed protection.

This is a request for ECP, not full unprotection. The page concerns a sensitive antisemitism-related topic, so some protection is reasonable. However, the recent disruption before full protection appears to have come largely from temporary accounts and very low-activity accounts, rather than established editors.

A likely concern is WP:NOTDICT, but WP:WORDISSUBJECT is directly relevant. The issue is whether reliable sources discuss "goyslop" as a subject with social, historical, or political significance. Existing coverage discusses the term in relation to antisemitic internet slang, far-right online culture, processed-food discourse, and political controversy

I am not asking that any specific version be restored, I'm only asking that the page be protected at the lowest level sufficient to prevent disruption; If ECP does not work, full protection can be restored. 2x2x2x2x2 (talk) 04:29, 13 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This is essentially a create protection; if a viable article is created via WP:AfC, then the protection can be reduced and the draft moved to mainspace.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:37, 13 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

10**25 residential addresses provided to customers of the largest ISP in Colombia are blocked

Hi,

You have blocked the IP address range 2800:484:7380:0:0:0:0:0/44 from editing Wikipedia or creating user accounts. This address range is managed by Telmex Colombia (branded Claro), which is the largest ISP in the country. These addresses are allocated to residencial users. They do not come close to identifying an individual customer.

As a result, an unacceptably large number of people in Colombia cannot edit Wikipedia or create user accounts. Immediately revert this change or replace it with a more suitable block. Special:Contributions/2800:484:7380:0:0:0:0:0/44 shows the extent to which this IP address range is used by unrelated contributors.

Thanks. ~2026-29955-54 (talk) 01:24, 19 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm well aware of the extent of the block and the collateral is minimal. My block was only resinstating and extending the previous three-month block once it expired as the range continues to be abused by sock accounts; I won't be lifting or modifying it. -- Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:16, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A cookie for you!

A cookie for re-protecting my talk page! AZenit3 [Chat?-stuff I've done] 00:24, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry that people can be so awful that I had to protect it.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 15:41, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. As far as I know, it's all just timelash and Vzno0000 sock puppets. AZenit3 (he/him) [Chat?-stuff I've done] 01:59, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

List of characters in the Zootopia franchise

I see you G5 deleted this page. The blocked user in question moved the article from here (which had been its title since 2023) to a new title that has seemingly been accepted by the community; can the redirect be restored? (Note that I reverted one of their other, less constructive moves at Areopagitica.) Obsidian the Fox 03:47, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Obsidian the Fox:, the page is not create protected, you can just create the redirect yourself if you think it is useful.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:56, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't want to get in trouble for overriding a G5, but I'll do that now. Thanks. Obsidian the Fox 17:57, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No worries from my end, but I appreciate you checking.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:58, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Reporting abusive language and edit waring

Hi Ponyo,

I found you on a list of recently active admin.

There is a user (Hemiauchenia) that I think is engaging abusive language and edit warring. Perhaps their overall contributions to Wikipedia (especially in paleontology) are mostly good, but I have had several unpleasant interactions with this person over the years, with the most egregious one being this week.

I'm very hesitant to post any of this for fear of reprisal, but I figure that I'm doing the right thing. If possible, I would prefer not to have my username associated with any disciplinary process, but I'll tolerate it if necessary.

Here are recent actions (this week) from the other user that I didn't appreciate:

Creating a new stub article as part of a broader edit war: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_mammals_from_the_British_Isles_extinct_since_the_Late_Pleistocene&oldid=1356161092. The original page was List of British Isles species extinct in the Holocene, and based on what I believe to be the consensus of multiple users some material was outside of the scope of the original article, and the user moved the material to a new stub article to circumvent that material's deletion.

Abusive language in a talk page comment directed towards me (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_British_Isles_species_extinct_in_the_Holocene&oldid=1356158786): "I put a lot of effort into sourcing dates for the original version of the article. I hope you are happy with the result of your sad, obsessive little campaign" Later self-reverted

My friendly response to that rude comment was rebuffed, deleting it from their personal talk page with the edit memo "Do not post on my talkpage again": https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hemiauchenia&oldid=1356441671

Immediately reverted my proposed title for the a newly-created page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_mammals_from_the_British_Isles_extinct_since_the_Late_Pleistocene&oldid=1356172058

Immediately reverted my proposed formatting changes to a different page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lists_of_extinct_species&oldid=1356440788

Here is an older action (2025) from the other user that I didn't appreciate:

Abusive language in a talk page comment directed towards me (Talk:List of European species extinct in the Holocene#Merge proposal for British Isles): "This obsessive consolidation project you insist on represents entirely your own views and not the opinion of anybody else, and does not serve the encyclopedia's readership." (This is not only rude but false, as I explain in my reply and in the more recent talk page noted above.)

Conclusion

I have no interest in fighting a stranger on the internet, nor am I interested in getting involved in the bureaucratic side of Wikipedia. I'm a busy person in the real-world, and I occasionally edit Wikipedia articles as a hobby, mainly regarding wildlife and modern extinctions. I find it fun but I'm not emotionally invested in it; I have no bandwidth for edit warring or abuse.

What is my aim bringing this to your attention? If this is this person's first offense (that was reported as least), I'm hoping that this user can have a friendly chat with an authority figure regarding their behavior, and maybe a speedy deletion for the article List of mammals from the British Isles extinct since the Late Pleistocene. But, that's not up to me to decide.

Please let me know if you can help in any way, or direct me to other resources.

Edit: I wasn't aware of this when I initially posted the above comment, but it appears that user Hemiauchenia had a 24-hour block earlier this year for personal attacks or harassment. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&logid=178197457

Columbianmammoth (talk) 21:56, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Lurker here. I think that User:Hemiauchenia should know about this petty attempt to get them into trouble. (I hope that a WP:BOOMERANG can be applied.)- Walter Still not in the Epstein Files Ego 08:26, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The European heatwave has left me somewhat sleep deprived and aggravated, my apologies. I reverted the obviously rude comments shortly after I made them because I recognised they were inappropriate, and I would just like to leave it at that. I reverted the comment on my talkpage because I have no desire to engage with Columbianmammoth further on this issue on my talkpage (especially when the heatwave is making me unreasonably grumpy), and I am entitled to remove comments on my own talkpage per WP:UOWN. If Columbianmammoth has constructive comments they want to make on relevant article talk pages, I am not stopping them. I don't think my reverting edits Columbianmammoth has made, or moving some of the deleted contents to a new separate list is really a conduct issue, they were genuine disagreements rather than just a petty attempt at getting back at them or something like that. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:56, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Hemiauchenia

I initially took your reverting the inappropriate post as a full apology, but then I felt like some of your behavior after that made me less sure. To be honest, I was not aware of WP:UOWN in this context, regarding the later behavior. I also felt more comfortable coming forward because you had made a similar personal attack against me in 2025.

I will take your post above as a fully apology, thank you! Also, I have read about the European heat wave in the news, it sounds unpleasant. My own area sometimes gets to 40 degrees or more in some months, but right now its a pleasant 20.

For what it's worth, I will not post on your talk page again.

@Roxy the dog

I do not think I did anything wrong, my post was pretty polite. "Perhaps their overall contributions to Wikipedia (especially in paleontology) are mostly good, but I have had several unpleasant interactions with this person over the years," seems like a somewhat fair assessment of the situation. And my offending post on Hemiauchenia's talk page that they chose to revert was also polite; the issue was just that they prefer not to talk to me at all, which is within their right. I also chose not to engage in edit warring, once Hemiauchenia reverted my edits I chose not to re-revert them without opening this discussion first, since that would've been inappropriate.

But, if you choose to take disciplinary action, I will not actively engage in the process and will simply ride the wave. Sometimes I voluntarily step away from Wikipedia for months at a time to focus on what really counts. Columbianmammoth (talk) 17:24, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I haven't replied is that the initial post essentially described a content dispute with a bit of minor mud slinging over an extended period of time; I didn't see anything concerning enough for me to feel I needed to step in at all, let alone unilaterally sanction anyone. There is certainly friction in your interactions, but following the various dispute resolution methods available should provide some guidance.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:49, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Ponyo,

Thanks for following up. Since @Hemiauchenia apologized in the tread above, I'm not interested in discussing the incident further.

To clarify, I wasn't asking for a unilateral sanction, the most I was asking for was a friendly conservation about conduct. I did note in a follow-up edit that this user had previously been banned for harassment or personal attacks (although the language in that case appears to have been much worse than what I experienced), but that was not something that I was aware when I wrote the initial comment. The only reason I reached out to an admin is because I'm not familiar with the bureaucratic side of Wikipedia, and because the user specifically told me they don't want to engage with me directly on their talk page.

Thanks for the link, I appreciate it! But again, I'm not interested in discussing this further, I accept their apology. Columbianmammoth (talk) 21:51, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

TA is back

They seem to be back as ~2026-31627-20. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:44, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Other TAs on those ranges are all the same person, so I extended the blocks and hardened them. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:50, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:55, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@ScottishFinnishRadish: They are back as ~2026-31828-37. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:44, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, their /64 shows a partial block on some articles. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:49, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:53, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Request regarding deleted draft Draft:Saleem Mairaj

Hi, I noticed that Draft:Saleem Mairaj was deleted in April under G5. Would it be possible to restore the deleted content to draftspace at Draft:Saleem Mairaj, so I can review it, make substantial updates, and submit it through AfC? I understand that the restored content should not simply be reposted, and I will take responsibility for checking notability, neutrality, reliable independent sourcing, copyright, and any COI disclosure requirements before submitting. Thank you! Umais 🗣 14:53, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Umais: The article was created and edited nearly exclusively by a very prolific sockmaster with 80+ socks tagged to date; my strong preference would be for you to just create the draft yourself. The content was minimal - outside of a very brief one line lead and three lines in the combined early life and career section, the rest was just filmography tables. If you put together a draft that meets sourcing and notability criteria I'll remove the create protection on Saleem Mairaj so your draft can be moved to article space. Does that work for you?-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:33, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Ponyo Thank you for clarifying and yes, that definitely works. I'll start a fresh draft, make sure it meets the relevant criteria, and let you know once it is ready for review. Thanks again. Umais 🗣 17:40, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect. Good luck with your draft! -- Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:43, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again @Ponyo. Draft is now in place at Draft:Saleem Mairaj. If approved from your end, please remove protection from the mainspace so it can be submitted through AFC. Thank you for your time and attention. Umais 🗣 05:29, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Umais Bin Sajjad: I've removed the protection as requested.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:03, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you :) Umais 🗣 05:10, 3 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Protected edit request

Hello Ponyo,

You fully protected Nic Vansteenberghe on November 21, 2025. I have created a draft of the page with enough reputable sources and significant coverage to prove notability, and made a protected edit request on the redirect's talk page. Please let me know if you could clear it and allow the draft to move forward for approval. Thank you. Daring Dolphin (talk) 03:20, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Daring Dolphin: The draft is still waiting review. I'm not sure whether the concerns expressed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nic Vansteenberghe have been addressed, but that's for an AfC reviewer to decide. If the draft is approved then the reviewer can make the necessary requests to enable the move.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:09, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

How do I get unblocked from Wikipedia?

I haven't even used this account in like 2 years and I've made like 1 edit on it to begin with. Clown Man468 (talk) 23:37, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) @Clown Man468: you are not currently blocked. What makes you think so? --ABx11 (she/they | formerly TheAuroraBorealis | In solidarity) 15:15, 3 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Clown Man468: If your account was blocked, you wouldn't have been able to post your message to this page.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 15:58, 3 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps they are affected by a partial autoblock of some sort? --ABx11 (she/they | formerly TheAuroraBorealis | In solidarity) 20:04, 3 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Talk:Master Grunthos the Flatulent

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Talk:Master Grunthos the Flatulent. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. User "Oreocooke" (speak of the sun and it shines) 01:35, 5 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Luigi Lucheni

needs protecting again. The sock is back almost as soon as your previous block expired. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:37, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm watching it now. Might leave it unprotected for a bit and see what TAs show up there.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:45, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

More TTT24 socks

When you get the time it may be worth looking into whether more rangeblocks are feasible. Just sniffed out ~2026-35032-02 coming immediatly on the heels of ~2026-34978-92. I saw you got Question narc and ~2026-26544-01 earlier so thought you might remember this one, thanks. ~2026-34922-84 (talk) 00:37, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This looks all handled whilst I was away.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:04, 16 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Should've figured someone else would get to it, thanks for looking this one over anyway. ~2026-34947-78 (talk) 22:20, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A few more ducks

Hey Ponyo, ~2026-34557-71, ~2026-34920-78 and ~2026-35083-24 seem very likely to be ~2026-30664-15 and ~2026-34532-22. -- ferret (talk) 14:33, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

All buttoned up (I think).-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:03, 16 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

June 2026

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regarding your recent edits to Hiromasa Yonebayashi when you modified the page, you introduced unknown parameters. Just because you specify |some_param=some_variable does not always mean that variable will display. The |some_param= must be defined in the template. You can look at the documentation for the template you are using but it is also helpful to use the preview button before you save your edit; this helps you find any errors you have made and ensure that the values you have added are displaying correctly. Below the edit box is a Show preview button. Pressing this will show you what the page will look like without actually saving it. It is strongly recommended that you use this before saving. Note I have likely fixed the error by now so check the history of the page to see how it was fixed. If you have any questions, contact the help desk for assistance. Thank you. Appreciate your ban revert, but you reverted a little too far... Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 22:20, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing the minor infobox template error. Note that I didn't revter too far, I simply reverted to the version of the article prior to the banned editors edits.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:22, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha. Please try to check for these errors when you revert. Obviously the revert is justified, not disputing that. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 22:27, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Candy Candy - you forgot to add {{pp-dispute}}

CAN SOMEBODY ADD THE DAMN PADLOCK??? 🗣️🗣️🗣️🗣️🗣️🗣️🗣️🗣️ – SimpleObjects-9 ei 🏖️/☀️/🥵 (🌎 CentralAuth) 23:40, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]