Epstein Files Full PDF

This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

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 April 2024 - June 2024 July 2024 - September 2024 October 2024 - December 2024 January 2025 - March 2025 April 2025 - June 2025 July 2025 - September 2025 October 2025 - December 2025

	Happy New Year!
	Hello Ponyo: Did you know ... that back in 1885, Wikipedia editors wrote Good Articles with axes, hammers and chisels? Thank you for your contributions to this encyclopedia using 21st century technology. I hope you don't get any unnecessary blisters. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:01, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Happy New Year elves}} to send this message

CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:01, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think the latest post, from an anon, ~2026-83147, seems suspicious (their only post?), is incoherent and unclear as to their exact meaning but it reeks of antisemitism. I suspect sock but at the very least would appreciate you looking in on the comment & get your opinion. I almost deleted it myself but, like I said, would appreciate your opinion. Thanks. - Shearonink (talk) 04:04, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

They're a known entity; blocked now.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:13, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, can you please block User:MaxGarteburger, He is obviosity a sockpuppet of DavidBEKT as he recently re-made a hoax Draft Draft:Nedim Jahić. Also, is it possible you can contact Rotten Tomatoes? as he has added fake credits at [1]. Mysticair667537 (talk) 10:50, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The DavidBEKT account was blocked 6 and half years ago. The MazGarterburger account made three promotional-type edits (declaring a COI) two weeks ago, received a warning and has not edited since. I don't think there's anything that needs urgent attention unless the new account returns to editing. You can contact Rotten Tomatoes if you like; my concerns don't extend beyond these Wiki walls.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:35, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

[2]. It's bloody discouraging to have to faff with that stuff on top of everything else. Shall we all take a protest break? Bishonen | tålk 18:50, 8 January 2026 (UTC).[reply]

Add in the Checkuser layer of complexity and I'm just throwing my hands up most of the time and hoping for the best. It's harder for us to combat vandalism and disruption than it is for bad actors to engage in such beahviour, but (vague handwave towards the WMF) "reasons". It's all privacy theatre.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:59, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I noticed someone on the Abuse filter log is trying to make an account called "Ponyo is 31536000 minutes in a year", It happened a minute ago. Just bringing it to your attention. BoxOfThings123 (talk) 16:37, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the link https://teknopedia.ac.id/w/index.php?title=Special:AbuseLog&wpSearchUser=Ponyo%20is%2031536000%20minutes%20in%20a%20year

Just incase. BoxOfThings123 (talk) 16:38, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. There's nothing to be done at this point as they are being disallowed from creating the account, so there's nothing to check or block.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:41, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Per Wikipedia:Moving a page#Before moving a page (quoted out of context): You are unable to move the page because your account is too new (the account must be autoconfirmed). Quote from WP:AUTOCONFIRM: Confirmed and autoconfirmed users can perform the following actions: [...] move pages. This is also reflected in the code of Module:Protection banner, see Special:Permalink/1281325360#L-122--L-126, quote Users need to be autoconfirmed to move pages anyway, so treat [...] semi-move-protected pages as unprotected.

This means that move-protection of History of Poonch district (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) doesn't actually do anything. Log entry: "add move protection" with "Move=Require autoconfirmed or confirmed access". —⁠andrybak (talk) 22:58, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrybak: It was move protected alongside the edit semi-protection. You haven't actually commented as to whether you think it should be changed, and if so, to what. Or are you just noting the discrepancy?-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:04, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It caused the article (between Special:Diff/1310664695 and Special:Diff/1332271550) to appear in Category:Wikipedia pages with incorrect protection templates. The root cause is how the module interprets the "useless" semi-move-protection. I tried looking deeper into it in the past, but don't remember the details. —⁠andrybak (talk) 19:10, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. I've removed the redundant move protection.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:51, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Last March, you were so kind as to block the offending IP from this discussion. They have discovered the majesties of temp accounts and are back at it again (also on Darth Stabro's talk page, too). If you're so inclined, I think a block on the /48 would be a good idea. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 05:41, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind—Ad Orientem saved the day. Best wishes to you both, ~ Pbritti (talk) 05:43, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I blocked the underlying /48 range x 1 year. The /64 range already had several blocks. This user is a net negative that we can do without. -Ad Orientem (talk) 06:08, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for getting rid of that IP that was messing with Terror on the Prairie, but I have to say I was jump scared by the block notice appearing in my inbox. I ought to set it to NOT add talk pages to my email notifications/watchlist. I like Astatine (Talk to me) 17:03, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

So, for the last week or so. I've been quietly reverting fake block messages on my talk pages on various wikis. Including ones I rarely or never use. So Andrew5 in familiar sockpuppet fashion starts trolling me on Wikinews of all places. After a while I got fed up and started reporting these to local administrators noticeboards. As of now there are a bunch of discussions on the equivalent on Wikinews. Now we get to the reason why I am posting this. Last night, @WeatherWriter thought it would be a good idea to post on a publicly visible talk page, that he had reported Andrew5 to the FBI. If you've gotten this far, you can probably imagine how Andrew5 felt when he read said comment. I checked back this morning (because in the meantime, I had posted a talk page message to a local administrator on Wikinews requesting the comment be revdelled. Andrew5 gets wind of this too, and proceeds to spam his talk page, and then says he saved the whole FBI comment to archive.today, which kinda defeats the purpose of revision delete. Unfortunately I verified that A5 was telling the truth (I linked the archive.today page). I then proceeded to tell WeatherWriter point blank that it was a bad idea and asked that he never do something like that again. I say all of that to ask. Did I do anything wrong? And if so, how could I have handled it differently? Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 14:09, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If someone is being harassed to the extent that they contact the FBI, then I suggest looping in Trust and Safety (see contact info here). If there are imminent threats of harm, then emergency@ should receive an email with links to the threats. If neither of these scenarios applies, with LTA cases such as this, then I strongly suggest reporting and disengaging entirely. These trolls are looking for a tasty meal, don't give them a juicy steak to gnaw on.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:26, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently WeatherWriter was lying about the FBI report. I'll leave it at that. EOM, response not needed. Going back on break. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 20:20, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

And one last thing, I have been WP:DENYING for most of this (I learned that after being trolled in 2024). The main reason why I've been going to the noticeboards was mainly to ask for my talk pages to be protected. That was ultimately granted on three wikis including this one. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 20:26, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If my reply came of sounding negative towards your actions, it wasn't intended as such. We're all in this together!-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:31, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I completely understand. And believe me, I learned my WP:DENY lesson a long time ago. I just got fed up and started asking for help on various noticeboards. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 20:35, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I did it with good faith, and a helping of not knowing some history regarding redirects and socks. Please accept my apologies for the extra work. I shall get better at this. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 23:38, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I was planning on leaving a wee note on your talk page to ensure you that you know that there is no doubt whatsoever that your edits were done in good faith. That's the most galling bit of the matter; the abuse of helpful editors such as yourself in the quest to decieve. You can't know what you don't know, and now that you do know, please keep on being your regular helpful self.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:42, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm grateful. I will try to stick to areas where I am as certain as I can be that I am not being taken for a ride. I anticipate some errors. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 23:46, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If you crack the code to being perfect, please let the rest of us in on the secret!-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:52, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

~giggles helplessly~

I was still annoyed with myself. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 08:16, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have suspicions about Hobbes Open Source. Can't put my finger on why. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 09:57, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Bingo!-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:50, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

An opinion of Fillová would be useful. That is one heck of a lot of redirect requests for a day old user. I smell some sort of coatrack despite its all appearing above board. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 18:07, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'd keep an eye on it for further oddness, but a single edit won't provide much technical data.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:51, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the diff they removed several TTT24s handled requests, in addition to making several requests (double check my eye balls though). S0091 (talk) 18:57, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, I'm aware. I was just waiting to see what they did next to allow for more CU data. My guess is they'll just abandon the account now. Pretty sure they watch my talk page.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:59, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

My issue is that I am now minded to decline what in many other circumstances have the appearance of validity. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 19:01, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Thanks Ponyo! And you too @Timtrent. S0091 (talk) 19:02, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

And, as suspected....-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:21, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Goal! 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 20:17, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I am either seeing false positives everywhere now or am simply going nuts. Special:Contributions/Tandemaus looks odd for a new editor. Why are these their first two ports of call? 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 10:23, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It's an odd first edit, but not much else to go on (yet).-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:51, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ponyo. You hard-blocked the account Dr. Fahim Vohra for spamming, but I can see that they also created seven other accounts (Special:Log/Dr. Fahim Vohra). It is customary to pre-emptively block those accounts as socks, or not because they have no edit history (yet)? --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 14:23, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. My guess is that the accounts were either created on behalf of students (not good, shared passwords etc.) or this is a UPE account creating new accounts named for each article they intend to create (double-plus ungood). I'll block them and leave a note on the Dr. Fahim Vohra talk page notifying them.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:57, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I am really sorry about the loss of your father. I am sending love and strength to you and your family DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 02:34, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, but it was many months ago. I was justing letting her know that I understand, to some extent at least, what she is going through.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:44, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

you know that person you just indefinetly blocked? they may come back so im gonna preemptively open a SPI shane (talk to me if you want!) 20:27, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

okie dokie.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:32, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

He seems to be going on some kind of long trip right now - various states are popping up on the map (I don't think it's proxies as his journey is on a southward line, but that's the most I'll say). Andrew IP hops and travels, but I've never seen him hop around this much. Would appreciate some help here wrangling this down: Special:Contributions/~2026-37494-8 wizzito | say hello! 08:20, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

He's on an RFPP and AfD nominating spree as of the moment (see SPI). I would appreciate admin eyes on Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion and Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Increase, especially for new users and temps making nominations in the areas of football and weather. wizzito | say hello! 08:44, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've long believed that there is Andrew5 + an LTA joe jobber pretending to Andrew5 (amongst other accounts). -- Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:53, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

As a CU, flag these incidents. Both have Y2K ~2026-48033-9 (talk) 21:36, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Since the deletion of 2029 British & Irish Lions tour to New Zealand SANZAAR has released a 2026–2030 calendar schedule outlining the schedule for all SANZAAR nations (Argentina, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa) between this period. In the release SANZAAR confirmed that the 2029 Lions tour to New Zealand would be taking place in July 2029, as per previous Lions tours to the Southern Hemisphere. This satisfies "significant new information has come to light since the article was deleted" as mentioned in the undeletion request by MPGuy2824 (talk). SANZAAR calendar schedule release, Oct. 2025 MarioBayo (talk) 17:53, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The source that you linked here shows that this event is a worth a redirect, but not a whole article. For a whole article, there would need to be enough sources to show that the event meets WP:GNG. I suggest that you mention this future tour at an appropriate place and then create a redirect to that location. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 04:09, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Or, alternatively, you can start a draft. Simply existing is not a reason to create an article; if you can demonstrate significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, then the draft can be moved to article space. Or you can attempt to create it again and see if it survives another deletion discussion should one occur, but that's not the best option. The state of the article when I deleted it was a single sentence and basic infobox.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:50, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did. Thanks for taking care of it. Bishonen | tålk 18:29, 27 January 2026 (UTC).[reply]

I only assumed as much as I did the same thing very recently.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:32, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've done it too sometimes.

I see a fair number of instances in which spam accounts post paid editor notices, sometimes bulked out with AI text, in the belief that it insulates them against deletion or blocking, despite the references to Wikipedia T&C and policy. Acroterion (talk) 18:34, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at WP:REFUND § Draft:Manndakini Bora. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:58, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ponyo. Just letting you know about this as a courtesy since you deleted Draft:Manndakini Bora. There might also be a WP:PROMONAME issue with the requestee's user name. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:58, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Marchjuly; I've left them a COI notice as they had not received one yet. -- Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:33, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Ponyo, can you please also strike this [3] edit's contents? MossOnALog^Talk 22:19, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Done.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:20, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! MossOnALog^Talk 22:22, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. I was perusing recently created pages when I came across the user Shelly Meilson (Contribs), the edits seem kind of like the edits of TTT24 socks. I am not really sure on this but you seem to be the local TTT24 expert. Thanks. --Seawolf35 ^T--C 03:49, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, that's them. Now blocked.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:10, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Wantoninf.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:26, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Dęblin and Irena is probably them too but so far has only edited on the 27th. S0091 (talk) 17:31, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That's likelythem as well, along with Takahanga Marae , on a blocked proxy.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:36, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ponyo. --Seawolf35 ^T--C 18:19, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think you struck the wrong comment at Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion#2022_AFC_Championship_Game_and_2023_AFC_Championship_Game. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:27, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I sure did! Thanks UtherSRG. -- Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:36, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ngôi sao Chống phá hoại (The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar)

Thank you for protecting the 14th National Congress of the Communist Party of Vietnam page that I just created during 2026 New Year's Day (January 1st, 2026), despite my inactivities, study & vandalism (including sockpuppetry). I was not aware on my created page when vandalism happened. It wasn't done until yesterday's early morning (03:17 AM, January 30, 2026 on Indochina Time), when you protected my created page. Thank you lad! And I'm wrote a long message to you. Thành Hưng (talk) 12:40, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I see that this user has been quite hostile in response to your warning, even leaving a personal attack -- I'm not necessarily saying a block must be put in place, but I just wanted to alert you about this. JeffSpaceman (talk) 21:55, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not too concerned about an editor getting prickly towards me, but the userpage they created afterwards put them squarely in not here territory. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:00, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

... for hopping right on that TA over at Reconquista before I even had the chance to send them off to AIV. This "old whore" (as if!) much appreciates it. :) Emma (chats ✦ edits) 23:49, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you had banned an IP who repeatedly reverted source material - just to say thanks, but also that there seems to be another IP doing the same after I made a further edit (now reverted by another IP). Same IP seems to be diluting source material to make it seem less contentious, I believe. I previously made a request to add protection to the article but it was rejected. Dunno if it passes thresholds for protection? Happy to take advice from someone with experience on this, otherwise Ill just keep an eye on the page and try to keep on top of this (assuming no issues with my own edits). Macarism (talk) 17:25, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked the new temp account, who appears to be the same editor. I have the article on my watchlist and can add protection if the disruption continues.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:35, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ponyo! Hope you are doing well. I wanted to let you know that after a recent ArbCom motion, page protections are automatically logged, so you no longer need to do this manually. See Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log/Protections § About this page for exact details.

I am reaching out as a fellow admin, not as an arb; you are absolutely not in trouble :)

Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 17:51, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I find the entire process confusing, to be honest, so I try to avoid any type of enforcement of the various contentious topics and such. I'm curious, though, why Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log/2026 is still active (which is where I noted the protection) if logging isn't required to be done manually.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:56, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Non-protection restrictions still need logging (e.g. topic bans). Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 18:01, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Can you restore it to draftspace? I may have moved it to mainspace prematurely and will not move it again until there are enough sources for it, but the sources are there. According to the New York Times (https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/01/world/asia/moo-deng-thailand-zoo.html) she is Moo Deng's cousin, but she has received a lot of media coverage aside from that fact. RanDom 404 (talk) 23:13, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm concerned as you said the same thing when you asked another admin to restore the article to draft. There was nothing at all in the article that indicated signifincance, only that the hippo was born and had been named. -- Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:16, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There was the mention of 116,000 people voting on her name though. Maybe not direct indication of importance however. You are right that the article was pretty short and didn't say that much else. Like I stated before, I won't move it back to mainspace until it is expanded. RanDom 404 (talk) 23:21, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The was minimal content and hardly amount of work it would take to undelete redarftify etc. As a compromise I'll email you a copy of what was deleted and you can work on it at Draft:Poppy (pygmy hippopotamus).-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:24, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

In which case I can just start from scratch. RanDom 404 (talk) 23:25, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I emailed you all of the content you had compiled so far.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:26, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

WP:3X says editors who are confirmed by a CheckUser to have engaged in sockpuppetry on at least two occasions after an initial indefinite block that is active, for any reason, are to be considered site banned by the English Wikipedia community. They recently got caught with J1mmyJ0nesy not long after you blocked Alien456. --Prothe1st (leave me a message)-- 00:57, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I've updated the tag on the master account.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:51, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

sock return [4]? Shah Of Nowhere ^talk! 13:45, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Looks to be. Another admin has blocked.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:52, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Scary Monsters (video game) was hijacked almost immediately by the requesting TA 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 08:30, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Looking through the contribs of their various TAs, I can't link them to any blocked accounts. This just appears to be their style of editing.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:55, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Timtrent when that happens, I usually move it to draft space as an ABF redirect request. S0091 (talk) 19:00, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both of you. This one has been NPP reviewed. Sorry, @S0091, my TLA bran just failed. "ABF"? 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 22:44, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Something like ‘assumably bad-faith’.—Odysseus1479 22:54, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Timtrent One thing we know for sure, this is not UPE given it is a 1987 video game. What does TLA mean? S0091 (talk) 15:20, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@S0091 I'll trade Three Letter Abbreviation now I understand ABF

A agree, not UPE. I guess just weird. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 18:30, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It's gaming behaviour. There's a reason why unregistred accounts cannot create new articles; requesting a redirect then immediately replacing it with article content is circumventing community consensus regarding content creation.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:35, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with your carefully considered conclusion. Today's letter is C. :) S0091 (talk) 19:23, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

User:~2026-91933-7, Vandalized an article, blanked it, please indefinitely block this temp account. Mastercane F X (talk) 16:20, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Meh. They appear to have abandoned the account. If they come back to edit disruptively they can be blocked.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:57, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I saw you at "Just want an admin?" at ANI. I have asked User:Oncamera to revert this edit where they seem to be soliciting other editors to monitor my edits. I've had my share of being followed on Wikipedia and don't need more of it. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you! Magnolia677 (talk) 23:24, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You have been making large-scale changes that do not align with the Manual of Style (MOS), and you have ignored discussion about whether you intend to follow MOS guidance in future edits. That is the central issue here.

If you clarify that you will adhere to the MOS and work toward consensus going forward, I am open to adjusting my comment. Otherwise, continued edits that conflict with established style guidelines will be reverted, and the matter may need to be addressed through appropriate noticeboard processes regarding that problematic behavior. No one has time for going on side adventures while you ignore the actual policy issue here.  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 23:29, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot solicit your friends to follow me. Revert your edit. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:31, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Are you going to follow the MOS in future edits?  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 23:34, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm out for the day, if this is something that needs immediate attention it will have to be discussed elsewhere.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 00:13, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I will. Cheers. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:54, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. You recently blocked WaisherRox (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as being a sock. I would reckon that they are related to WP:Sockpuppet investigations/LilaMorillo. There seems to be another one of those situations at Special:History/Draft:Laila Odom. --Seawolf35 ^T--C 16:00, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Could be; they did declare their paid editing status, so it could also be more of a WP:MEAT situation with multiple people chasing the same contract. The editor I was comparing them to, EncyclopediaEcho, edited predominantly from open proxies, so Checkuser isn't a whole lot of use here.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:36, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Unreferenced articles | March 2026 Backlog Drive
There is a substantial backlog of unsourced articles on Wikipedia, and we need your help! The purpose of this drive is to add sources to these unsourced articles and make a meaningful impact. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles cited. Remember to tag your edit summary with [[WP:MAR26]], both to advertise the event and tally the points later using Edit Summary Search. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you have subscribed to the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:13, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

As you were the last at the SPI I thought perhaps you'd like to know about these:

• Hy349l2s (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• K8gh32pr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• T6nhde55 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Kl98fg56 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Thanks, ~2026-10830-00 (talk) 19:21, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Azul411. I didn't bother listing the last three as they're abandoned.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:37, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome, thank you very much. It was a familiar LTA, but it took me a while to remember who it was. I had to survey the history of a few articles to locate another signature nickname... Fortunately, the block log entry named it (this is where block log entries may be useful to future patrollers). What a wanker, eh (mutual-Canadian stereotypical eh)? Thanks again. ~2026-10830-00 (talk) 23:32, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'd hoped they had given up...alas, no.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:36, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I started an AFD, but now the creator has been blocked as a sock, It is eligible for G5 speedy. What do you suggest? Leave it for the AFD, or tag G5 speedy to save time? Zuck28 (talk) 20:53, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It's not eligible for G5 as the article would had to have been created in violation of a block or ban. There was no block in place (that I'm aware of) when the article was created. -- Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:55, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick response! Zuck28 (talk) 20:58, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Jinnifer is back to editing the categories at Friday the 13th Part III since your recent block. NJZombie (talk) 04:16, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That article was a nice little honey pot, but now it's just annoying. I've restored the semi-protection.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:35, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Precious

Nine years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:53, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Almost a decade!-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:36, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I hope you're in a good health. I wanted to Understand you following comment

https://teknopedia.ac.id/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A89KimberlyRoad&diff=1143909812&oldid=1143908218

If the user is socking, shouldn't he be banned? RaynorRaider (talk) 02:32, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure I had my reasons, but it was three years ago, so it's lost down the memory hole. -- Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:39, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I believe, I share some of those reasons. :D RaynorRaider (talk) 18:35, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to say W mans. Goated mf right here. PHLOGISTON ENTHUSIAST (I am one chatty Cathy!) 00:03, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You mad always block me and give random reson. Unblock me. Tejas101099993 (talk) 05:20, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Tejas101099993:, the explanation for the block is on your talk page, which you know because you responded to it with an appeal. To reiterate, you are creating way too many articles that do not meet the criteria for inclusion as written. This is eating up volunteer time in reviewing, assessing and moving your articles. You are only blocked from article space in order to allow you to improve your many article creations that have subsequently been moved to draft space, where you are still able to edit. This will provide the opportunity to have your drafts reviwed and to receive feedback on how to establish notibilty through reliable sourcing.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:44, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Jéské Couriano — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-12576-31 (talk) 22:12, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

For reference: Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)#Process wikipedia into tree knowledge dependency data structure using AI for human use in MMU RAG chats via api (et cetera). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 22:16, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thank you for removing the vandalism from my talk page. I missed the actual edits as I was away from home, and I noticed one was RevDeleted. I presumed that they were some sort of bot mass adding these posts, but it seems that my talk page is their only edit history. What happened there, and if you can share, what was said?

This seems particularly strange to me as I do not spend much of my time actually in contentious topics, despite my "contentious topics" template on my talk page.

Thanks again for catching it. Cmrc23 ʕ•ᴥ•ʔ 18:43, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The first edit, which is still in the history, was just nonsense. The second (rev-deleted) edit from the same editor included some derogatory language that doesn't bear repeating. I don't think it was directed at you specifically, it was just used for shock factor. -- Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:50, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, thanks! Cmrc23 ʕ•ᴥ•ʔ 19:23, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ponyo, I HAVE checked, this IS the same person, please do NOT delete, thank you Leoleoleoooo (talk) 00:03, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You checking is original research. We do not add content to articles, especially biographies, that is not supported by reliable sources.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 00:05, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've been working to update Space Pirates (2007 TV series). I was confused by 1.31. Having checked around, it seems this episode does not exist. This edit of yours meant a WP:HOAX episode was on this article for two months. I've removed it now. BMB, whilst good when it means bad content is removed, was actually detrimental in this instance. 11WB (talk) 06:36, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@11WB: The policy you quote, and which I linked to in my edit summary, specifically addresses your contention that differentiating between "bad" and "good" is unnecessary when reverting. It states "permitting them to edit in those areas is perceived to pose enough risk of disruption, issues, or harm, to the page or to the project, that they may not edit at all, even if the edits seem good". In situations where the editors are banned (and not just blocked, where WP:BANREVERT applies) returning to the status quo prior to the banned editor's edits being made is generally desirable (obviously, exceptions apply). This particular sockmaster was blocked for long-term and extensive addition of unsourced content to articles. I'm not going to check every single one of the sock's 416 edits to see whether they are correct or not prior to restoring the status quo of the article. Thank you for catching the error and removing the incorrectly listed episode, it's appreciated.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:45, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It's a more unusual case where following policy caused a content guideline violation. You followed policy, which in turn meant a legitimate reversion of a hoax the disruptive editor made was undone, restoring the hoax. Certainly checking 400 individual edits would be a bit ridiculous. 11WB (talk) 21:51, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it sucks. Dealing with the seemingly never ending firehouse of socks on this project sometimes leads to mistakes, so thanks again for catching that error. -- Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:52, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don't envy the work of CheckUsers. I return the thanks, it's a difficult job that keeps Wikipedia in a much better state than it would be otherwise! The article itself is the real winner here. 11WB (talk) 21:58, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]