User talk:TonyBallioni/Archive 18

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

→

Archive 25

Administrators' noticeboard

Per your answer at ANI. How is that "clear" that my edits are controversial? What's clear is that this user thinks he WP:OWN the category and can revert anything he wants without any reason whatsoever. It's not a content dispute because he doesn't provide any argument. It's about this user's behavior. Also, look for "Debresser" at the revision history and talk page to see his constant edit-warring and abuse of reverting. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 17:13, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

I didn't say it was clear that your edits are controversial. I don't have an opinion on the issue. I full protected the page as it was a content dispute and given that the page has been the subject of edit wars in the past, and that the category and some of its children are used controversially to violate the BLP policy, talking about it on the talk page or in another forum is the best way forward. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:17, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

"So whatever your initial believe and whether it was well founded, it's clear now that your edits are controversial." – ANI. There's absolutely no basis for that statement. The user just reverting without explanation and not responding. No content dispute. That's why I posted at ANI. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 17:26, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

I did not say that, another user did. It’s a content dispute as you made a bold edit, and someone twice disagreed with it and reverted. You should use the talk page or another form of dispute resolution. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:35, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Sorry for that, I didn't noticed it was another user. After I brought it to the talk page, he continue to refuse giving a reason and wrote "You may command you wife and children, but not me.": [1]. I think thread at ANI should be reopened or I will start new one. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 20:28, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

I think they were likely angry because it is possible to read your ping as being in the imperative voice, which can make people angry as this is a volunteer project. It was snarky, but I don't think it worth another ANI. I'm certainly not reopening that ANI thread, and I don't think you should open a new one, but should work through the dispute resolution process for this content dispute. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:31, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Could you unlock Category:Jews, as the other user is not objecting anymore. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 14:49, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, and clarification

Hey, thank you for hearing me out on that Channel Awesome ANEW thread. I wanted to clarify something else, though, and didn't think it appropriate to keep that going any longer now that the IP has been warned.

Basically, my BLP rationale can apply to the contributor who died in 2014 or not, but I feel that BLP would still apply to one of the reverts (and the both of the non-reverts) anyway. The two edits that were mostly about the contributor who died in 2014 (one of which was an original edit on my part, blanking controversial content but without regard for who had added it and when, so not a revert) were also partly about whoever it was who wrote the Channel Awesome "response" that may have accidentally "outed" said deceased individual: that person was not explicitly named on-wiki, but it could have only been one of two or three people, which one of those two or three people it was was quite obvious to anyone who read it (it selectively responded to accusations made against one particular individual) and both the linked Reddit thread and our article cited their name several times. Saying, essentially, that Someone accidentally defamed an individual and outed them as X, and if you click this source you can find out who it was is pretty inappropriate regardless of BLP, and I would argue that BLP does apply even if we don't name them explicitly.

Anyway, thanks again for dealing with it, and here's hoping that's the end of it.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:28, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not overly familiar with the topic area (my internet culture awareness largely depends on what certain other admins I'm friends with force me to read off-wiki ). I'm not sure exactly what chapter and verse you want to cite for the removals, but if all else fails, it was clearly in the interest of the encyclopedia, poorly sourced, and about a real person. While I don't ever condone edit warring or reversions or whatever (and as you mentioned, the 4 reverts was a bit of a stretch anyway), what you were doing was clearly something in the spirit of IAR and the BLP policy. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:45, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you again. I actually don't think it matters much: now that the page is semi-protected, there won't be any more IPs/new accounts posting questionable content, I can continue gradually fixing problems at my own pace, and if any good-faith editors disagree with me (so far no one has...) I can discuss it with them. Honestly, I think in the long term Wikipedia will need to come up with a broader solution for articles on quasi-notable internet celebrities, who have many fans among Wikipedians (myself included), but about whom almost nothing can be written without resorting to self-published sources, written either by the subjects themselves or by disgruntled fans who are upset that the creators have essentially retired. The Spoony Experiment actually has even worse problems, and if it weren't for the "I found sources! GNG!" keepist crowd who I know would immediately shout me down, I'd probably open an AFD right now.

But I actually just noticed this: you said in your first response to me that you typically don't like semi-protecting in a dispute with an IP, but "an IP" (I initially misread it as "a dispute with IPs") was actually not involved in the dispute in question, had never edited the article, and had not expressed any interest in the topic. It was just him stalking my contribs and auto-reporting me when he saw me make two reverts and two original edits he could paint as reverts. My content dispute with the IP was actually on the unrelated article Momoiro Clover Z, and I wasn't even invested in that personally (I joined in after the first or second time it was brought to ANI). The only common factor is that the editor I was disputing with in both cases was violating BLP.

I don't really mind it anyway: I'm not even the current victim who has it worst, and I'm fairly certain the problem will solve itself fairly soon.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:06, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, you're correct, and thanks for pointing it out. It looked like there were other IPs in there at the same time you were removing stuff, and on articles with a lot of activity it can be difficult to tell who is doing what. I noticed that later when I was going through the revisions more closely. Thanks for pointing it out to me. I'm certainly not infallible and never mind changing stuff. :) TonyBallioni (talk) 10:23, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

More on ArbCom and desysopping

Hey Tony,

I've been doing more thinking on this. I'd like to say it's because of a slow week at work, but it's been a really fast week at work... so I need to sort out my priorities. But since I'm here...

I'm coming around to the ArbCom desysopping model. After thinking about this some more and looking at how it is applied in practice, I like how it forces discussion. Most community-initiated processes can cut that step of the process out almost entirely, but discussion is important and can resolve a lot of issues at the lowest level.

I also thought of a potential (big) downside to community-initiated processes. I'm not sure how much you've looked at past steward confirmations, but most of the concerns are always with activity. Basically, the commenters make up their own standard for activity and then apply it to the candidates. I wouldn't want that to happen here, and that could realistically cause a reRfA to fail even if it were initiated on other grounds (and the two together might cause serious damage). I still think that the evil grudgers is still mainly a myth, but there are some real downsides to turning the process into a vote.

Anyway, I'm pretty much done with the discussion on VPP, but was interested enough in thinking about this to pass it by you :P

-- Ajraddatz (talk) 18:19, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Always worth the conversation . I'm done with the VPR discussion as well. Currently it is mainly venting on what I agree was a pretty weak motion i.r.t a bright line issue and also with another now former sysop where there was a lot of privacy stuff going on. I suppose I have a pretty unique perspective here as someone who is both an admin but who has also brought a successful desysop case at ArbCom, which forms a lot of my viewpoint here. My position in the MisterWiki case was that Salvidrim! should have resigned (pinging him as a courtesy), and because he didn't, ArbCom should allow the community to have a say by desysoping and forcing an RfA is he wanted to continue to use the tools. If you look at the discussion amongst arbitrators at that case, that was basically the theory the desysop went off of (breach of trust where a new RfA was needed.)

At the same time, I think that in that workshop, there were good points raised as to what "community trust" meant, whether it was just me riling up a mob of anti-paid editing anger, and whether it would be better for Salv to have a last chance. I think that part of the conversation was just as important as the result, and it also allowed him a fair hearing. I'm only bringing that case up because I think it is actually a pretty good model for a semi-streamlined but fair ArbCom process, especially as it had a lot of community input.

In terms of the grudges, I can think of one or two admins on en.wiki who I don't think should be desysoped who I think there would be a good chance of a reRfA getting accepted and failing because of their work in controversial areas. I'd agree that isn't the biggest concern though. What I think is a bigger concern is in cases where everyone is acting bad, someone makes a mistake, someone opens up a reRfA in the middle of the anger, and works up an ANI-style domino effect that ends with a desysop but no one elses actions being examined.

I think everyone would agree that scenario isn't something we want, but I think it would be the most common type of desysop. While people like to point out the bureaucratic hurdle of an ArbCom case in preventing needed desysops, people also forget that it works both ways: it makes people think twice if it is really needed because their own actions will be looked at. In most of these cases, the answer is usually "yeah, admin X don't be dumb. Other person you are fighting with, stop being dumb too. Let's move on and get some coffee." TonyBallioni (talk) 19:02, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

🙄 Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 19:21, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Agreed that the MisterWiki case was a good example of how it should work. Even though I personally think Salv shouldn't have been desysopped over it (hi salv, just talking about you again ;-)) I understand the rationale for their decision requiring another RfA to get the tools back and I think it was worth filing a case over it. You're also probably right that the grudges could remove a few highly-active admins in a community process, or present at least enough of a threat to its operation that I shouldn't describe them as a myth. I like to use a bit of polemic with my arguments, but it isn't always warranted. Anyway it'll be interesting to see what ArbCom ends up doing for cases like this in the future. I wasn't particularly inspired by their decision on the current case posted today. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 22:12, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure how I think that the recent case request/motion should have gone, but I think it might have been better with a full case, even if it just ended in the same result. There was complaining on both sides over that motion, and there were complex enough issues that it might have been worth the case just so that the principles could be spelled out regarding full protection and INVOLVED. I think the justification regarding the motion, which is also fair, was that they self-reverted the admin action, so an admonishment was likely all it would have resulted in, and, well, no one wants to go through a full (or even abbreviated) case for an admonishment. The flip side being while Wikipedia "doesn't operate on precedent" ArbCom case principles are cited throughout policy documents that are not likely to change, so getting a principle is sometimes worth it. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:25, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Asking a tough question...

Our NPOV policy states: This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus. It appears to me that when an editor reverts material that is noncompliant with NPOV, the 1RR rule-Consensus first restriction goes against that policy which is one of 3 core content policies. How is that particular DS restriction justified? ^{Atsme📞📧} 13:08, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

(talk page watcher)How do you justify that your interpretation of NPOV (one of the most subjective criterion in areas, you work upon) is objective enough:)?! ~ Winged Blades^Godric 13:12, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, tis because what is NPOV is highly disputed, and so consensus is the only way to figure it out. Also, the same way WP:3RR and any other behavioural restrictions are justified. Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:13, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

No, there are PAGs that have established guidelines we must follow - especially as it relates to BLP. To imply NPOV and BLP are unclear or even highly disputed is a strawman argument; one that has allowed such disputes to favor a particular POV. Editor consensus cannot supersede NPOV - and when NPOV in a BLP is questioned or challenged, the option we've been following has wrongfully favored keeping the material rather than adhering to NPOV policy...especially as it relates to BLPs and NEWSORG material. Some of the unambiguous PAGs that support arguments regarding NPOV & BLP noncompliance include such things as failure to include a denial by the accused, and/or failure to use in-text attribution, and/or failure to use high quality RS without considering whether or not they are simply reprints from a single report such as AP, BBC, etc., and/or faillure to use in-text attribution for opinions or contentious labels and allegations. When one or all of the aforementioned fail, then NPOV is clearly not being adhered to and neither is BLP. An excellent example of the point I'm trying to make is this diff. ^{Atsme📞📧} 13:38, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

WP:3RRNO only applies to obvious BLP violations, and generally is understood to mean removing content rather than restoring it.(i.e. if an article said Mr. Frumble is a child rapist. and there was no sourcing, you could remove that as many times as you want (and then email the oversight list/email an oversighter who is online to get it suppressed.) Adding content about whether or not Trump denied allegations, while it may be an NPOV issue, isn't necessarily obvious that they should be there. In those cases, 3RRNO doesn't apply. The easy way to figure out if something is covered under 3RRNO is ask yourself "Would virtually every experienced editor agree with my actions here?" If the answer is "No." then it doesn't apply. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:57, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, Tony - but that isn't quite what I was referring to; rather, it's about the 1RR/Consensus in articles subject to DS. NPOV tells us that generally, we should not remove sourced material, that we should try to fix it first. The 1RR/Consensus works contrary to that statement. I added a diff in my original comment as an example. When a lede fails to include the accused's denial to an unsubstantiated allegation, it is unequivocally noncompliant with WP:PUBLICFIGURE which states: If the subject has denied such allegations, that should also be reported. If an editor adds the required material to the lede, and it's removed as challenged per 1RR/Consensus, then that sanction is clearly in conflict with BLP policy and NPOV. My question is, how can such an action be justified when it is clearly noncompliant with our 3 core content policies? The strawman arguments that the material is questionable so removal or omission is justified is, quite frankly, gaming the system under the conditions I just described - Yes or No? ^{Atsme📞📧} 14:49, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

The purpose of the DS is to allow conversation on high profile articles so that they are relatively stable. This is both good for editors (less disruptive editing) and for the public (having a relatively stable article on Trump is good for our readers, even if there are some issues with it.) I think Galobtter makes a good point that what "neutral" is is disputed and when that is the case, it take a lot of work to find a common ground. The DS is designed to help facilitate that process by forcing discussion. If there is disagreement and the talk page isn't working, WP:NPOVN is always a good option. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:09, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Tony, Tony, Tony - NPOV/N is an extension of the article TP whenever controversial articles are involved...but ok. Your response is understood. Try not to work too hard. 🍻 ^{Atsme📞📧} 23:51, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Tony, you can hat or archive this discussion. I learned the answer today at AE. ^{Atsme📞📧} 18:30, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Your DYK closing

Thanks for how you closed the DYK issue. Well understood, well read, well thought, well written, and a sound roundup conclusion. Wikipedia is better from here. - DePiep (talk) 18:41, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Not a problem TonyBallioni (talk) 19:05, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Would you agree there is strong consensus to move the Nominations, Approved, and Queue pages - so long as a plan is developed ahead of time? I can see how moving the individual nom subpages needs more discussion, but I was expecting the close to at least direct the community to develop a plan to move the main process pages. The close right now implies there is no consensus to move at all, which could be cited if one were to try to develop a timetable and plan for the moves. -- Netoholic @ 07:08, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

No. I would say there is no consensus on the matter at this time. I'm also not one to try to spin narratives out of RMs or RfCs: the proposal failed because it achieved no consensus as presented under the circumstances at the time. Any new discussion will be distinct and have its own set of circumstances and proposal. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:36, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Advice

I've got a user repeatedly claiming I'm stalking them while they mock and belittle me. Would you have time to take a look and maybe give me some advice? Legacypac (talk) 06:49, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

I could, though I try to stay away from disputes I'm not already involved with once they reach a point where those type of allegations are being made. My general advice anytime another user is claiming that you are doing XYZ to them and that you are [insert any insults/accusations here] is to ignore it and give them breathing room. You've dealt with mutual IBANs before, so I'm sure you know how unpleasant it is to actually go through the process of getting formal sanctions and a resolution on the issue. There are plenty of people on Wikipedia and in real life who don't like me, and I try to stay away from them just out of respect for the fact that for some reason, they have a bad opinion of me and being around them likely wouldn't be beneficial for anyone. Unfortunately that doesn't always work and sometimes sanctions are needed, but I typically try to go with the "give someone a wide berth" approach first, even if you think they are completely in the wrong. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:43, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank-you. Legacypac (talk) 18:32, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Quoting

Regarding this edit summary, can I quote you on that? <g> - Sitush (talk) 18:33, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Heh, anytime. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:50, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Invitation to WikiProject Portals

The Portals WikiProject has been rebooted.

You are invited to join, and participate in the effort to revitalize and improve the Portal system and all the portals in it.

There are sections on the WikiProject page dedicated to tasks (including WikiGnome tasks too), and areas on the talk page for discussing the improvement and automation of the various features of portals.

Many complaints have been lodged in the RfC to delete all portals, pointing out their various problems. They say that many portals are not maintained, or have fallen out of date, are useless, etc. Many of the !votes indicate that the editors who posted them simply don't believe in the potential of portals anymore.

It's time to change all that. Let's give them reasons to believe in portals, by revitalizing them.

The best response to a deletion nomination is to fix the page that was nominated. The further underway the effort is to improve portals by the time the RfC has run its course, the more of the reasons against portals will no longer apply. RfCs typically run 30 days. There are 19 days left in this one. Let's see how many portals we can update and improve before the RfC is closed, and beyond.

A healthy WikiProject dedicated to supporting and maintaining portals may be the strongest argument of all not to delete.

We may even surprise ourselves and exceed all expectations. Who knows what we will be able to accomplish in what may become the biggest Wikicollaboration in years.

Let's do this.

See ya at the WikiProject!

Sincerely,    — The Transhumanist   10:24, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Can you help?

Hi, Tony, hope all's well with you. I've been trying to initiate communication at User talk:Pldx1 about an unsourced article I came across on New Page Patrol and asking what their sources were - unfortunately tagging it as unreferenced and messaging the editor seems to have caused great offence. Can you help resolve this? I think anything further from me would make it worse. Thanks, Boleyn (talk) 17:04, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

I'll take a look (talk page stalker) Legacypac (talk) 17:06, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Ok I clarified the role of a NPR for the user and PRODed the unsourced article which should result in the addition of the sources. Will watch. Legacypac (talk) 17:17, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Legacypac! Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 17:18, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Your work pushing WP:ACREQ thru was amazing. Legacypac (talk) 19:24, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Legacypac. I appreciate the kind words. TonyBallioni (talk)

Sorry for being late, but I too would like to thank you for all the work you have done in NPR and getting ACREQ installed. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 13:29, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Template

Unfortunately, as predicted, it has descended into edit warring, with editors who have no previous involvement appearing. Given the most recent edit summary and comments on the talk page from the editor who has just appeared, I strongly suspect there's been some off-wiki canvassing because this editor hasn't been involved in the discussion that mentioned Ireland on my talk page or the TfD discussion yet has repeated exactly the same arguments as the main protagonist (who was involved in this infamous case, as was the only other editor to comment on the TfD so far...). So much for being able to enjoy my holiday... This is the same behaviour that led me to write part of these comments about Estonia many years ago. Number 57 14:31, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Number 57: full protected for 10 days. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:39, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, but unfortunately I'd reached 3RR and wasn't unable to undo the most recent removal of the elections... If there's any chance you could revert to the stable version, that would be most appreciated. Number 57 14:44, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm pretty conservative on not touching the text of anything I protect. I'd post at the WP elections page to get more comments (or talk page stalkers here might be able to weigh in.) If there is a consensus to restore pending further discussions, I can restore to the stable version then. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:52, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Never mind – this is exactly why I was seeking protection at the outset and sadly it seems this is going to become another area of Wikipedia that's off-limits to rational editors. Not particularly aimed at you, but the lack of action from admins over many years has allowed groups of editors like this to flourish and take over certain parts of Wikipedia. Number 57 03:33, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't think labelling people you disagree with as "Estonian nationalists"[2] meets the criteria of a neutral notification per WP:CANVAS, particularly when you yourself contributed to the edit-warring. --Nug (talk) 03:40, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

• Could you check the deletion logs of this template {{Soviet Estonia Elections}}, to check if it was previously deleted. It disappeared a few days ago while I was editing it, then seemed to have been restored.

FWIW, there clearly isn't concensus to restore Number57's preferred version. Apparently he believes some editors are trying to make it appear that Estonia was not part of the USSR[3], which is complete nonsense. The template {{Croatian elections}} doesn't include Yugoslav elections but provides a link to them, nobody is attempting to make it appear that Croatia was not a part of Yugoslavia. --Nug (talk) 02:47, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

This is the sort of denialism I'm referring to. Number 57 03:31, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

LOL, apparently User:Bbb23 must be an "Estonian nationalist" too[4]. --Nug (talk) 03:49, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't Bbb23 has a track record of making these sorts of edits for around a decade and I suspect they were only reacting to a report of sockpuppetry or edit warring report. Number 57 03:54, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

In my experience the only people that seem to get really upset over it are those that appear to adhere to a Russian nationalist viewpoint. --Nug (talk) 04:05, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

There are no deleted revisions for that template. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:18, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for checking, must have been some weirdness with my browser. --Nug (talk) 03:44, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

• General comments: I do my best to stay out of any ethnic/nationalist disputes on Wikipedia. As an administrator I will full protect or block when necessary, but stay far away from them otherwise. I'm not familiar enough with this situation to be comfortable restoring a different version through protection, and my general stance on protections is that I protect whichever one is there when I get to it. In terms of this dispute, template talks are less watched, so bringing it to a wider forum might be better, whether that be NPOVN or the elections wikiproject.
  Number 57, no worries on the general critique of admins not acting in these areas. I think it is probably fair to some extent, and don't take it personally: I'm naturally conservative on using the tools, and even more so when it comes to content that is full protected, so I'm sure that your criticisms probably apply to me as well. If not in this case, at least in others. This area is under AE discretionary sanctions (Eastern Europe), so if someone is consistently POV pushing and are aware of the sanctions, AE is an option, and while it has its flaws, it does tend to work if there are longterm issues in a conflict area. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:25, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

"Episode-Choose Your Story"

Hi, thank you for your comment. Sorry I haven't been on Wikipedia recently and I didn't see your comment, I would really appreciate it if you send the article to the email : (Redacted)

However I would be more grateful if you could edit the actual article and point out which exact line, or paragraph I need to change. Thanks a lot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by L weiwei yt (talk • contribs) 13:09, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

User:M7mdnk123

Hello Tony, Hope you are doing well. Please, can you delete this page User:M7mdnk123 s it include obvious Cyberbullying and Harassment --Alaa :)..! 13:41, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Deleted. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:33, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Re:Copyright

Thanks for the message. I'm a little rusty for having not been using admin tools much and I'm trying to make the rounds at CSD and ANI in an attempt to practice a little before I need a vacuum cleaner instead of a feather duster such as it were. I'd forgotten that copyright in the US is assumed unless its a work of the US government in which case it defaults to the public domain. Thank you for the refresher, and I will keep the copyright info in mind next time I try and make a lap around the csd pool. Thanks also for the message, chewing people out is the easier skill but correcting someone's faults should be the preferred approach, if we learn from our mistakes then hopefully we wont make the mistakes next time we try. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:34, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

TomStar81, not a problem. I hope that it did come off as a refresher rather than a chewing out. Copyright and Wikipedia is a difficult area, so I understand why you might not be familiar with the details if you don't work in it all the time TonyBallioni (talk) 02:36, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Just as an fyi, copyright comes into existence the moment a work is "fixed" in some physical medium for all signatories of the Berne Convention, with no notice or registration required. (I can't see the diffs, so my apologies if this was already mentioned or is otherwise irrelevant.) isaacl (talk) 03:31, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

I said instant of creation, but yeah, same idea: anything that could be copied to Wikipedia from an online source is assumed copyright. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:44, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moderate Left (Liberal Party of Australia)

You closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moderate Left (Liberal Party of Australia), which was a joint nomination along with Conservative Right Liberal Party of Australia, with a unanimous consensus to delete both. I think you've missed the latter? Conservative Right Liberal Party of Australia is still live with the AfD tag. The Drover's Wife (talk) 22:48, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

The Drover's Wife, deleted. Sorry about that. The script missed it because it didn't read as bundled, and I forgot about it by the time I had finished reading the discussion. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:50, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick fix! The Drover's Wife (talk) 22:51, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Phab

Can you have a look at this

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T159028

please? I'm not sure how to interpret the workflow and can't figure out if it has been done. Looks to me that it's been shunted to the WMF where it has been blocked by Community Tech. I hope I'm wrong. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:01, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

It has stalled, though I don't think it has been assigned to any team. User:AKlapper (WMF) just gave a snarky response rather than actually answering the question, which might be why you are confused. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:06, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't see how that was "snarky". To me it was direct and honest... --AKlapper (WMF) (talk) 06:58, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

I cannot but often wonder how all-most all of the WMF folks have such pathetic communication-skills.One ought to find out whether it's the effect of the organization, they work in or that WMF selectively chooses these sort of people...... ~ Winged Blades^Godric 07:26, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

​You didn’t actually provide a useable answer to anyone who doesn’t know how WMF development priorities work and ended with sarcasm. Anyway, I’m not here to fight over wording used 7 months ago, and I certainly don’t want this to turn into a WMF-hate fest: Kudpung is asking the question again because he didn’t understand the first answer you provided, so I think he’d appreciate it if you explained it to him on his talk page. TonyBallioni (talk) 07:34, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

I see, thanks for explaining. My first answer referred to meta:2017 Community Wishlist Survey (I should have provided a link, indeed). --AKlapper (WMF) (talk) 07:51, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

AKlapper (WMF), your answer at Phab wasn't helpful at all. These issues are not something for ComTech's Weihnachtsstrumpf. Please be mindful that you are dealing with unpaid volunteers who work just as hard, if not harder than the WMF. There is now also the issue of the apparent procrastination over switching ACTRIAL back on to be ACPERM. We don't want people taking weeks to 'work on defining the priority' - the priority is now: 3 May (or earlier) as was agreed with Horn. Getting on with it promptly will strengthen WMF-Community relations which at best are always strained. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:34, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

I can only offer ways that I am aware of. If that's unfortunately not helpful, so be it. --AKlapper (WMF) (talk) 11:05, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

UPE as a driving reason to delete a draft

Hi Tony,

I’ve started seriously reviewing your recent policy talk posts, you are definitely very sensible, I find nothing disagreeable, and I would like to get onboard with being sensible.

A current difficult case in point is Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Generations of Hope. What you you do? Could you please consider commenting, either there or here? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:58, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Seen this. Distracted by a lot of other stuff on here and IRL today. I’ll comment tomorrow. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:06, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

ACTRIAL

Any update on T192455?! Anyways, I tampered a bit with the wording of the proposal and if that seems to be worse in your eyes, feel free to revert:) Best,~ Winged Blades^Godric 07:47, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Amanda Swimmer

On 25 April 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Amanda Swimmer, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Amanda Swimmer was one of the first individuals to propose different uses and names for traditional Cherokee pottery? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Amanda Swimmer. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Amanda Swimmer), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 12:03, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

request

Hey. I know this will sound funny, but would you mind G6ing Comités Jeanne so I can recreate it and get the "official creator" title? I already saved the wikitext on my computer. L293D (☎ • ✎) 18:20, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

How would that be either uncontroversial or maintenance? G6 is not for "title" seeking. It should be fine for DYK credit if that's the credit you're after. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:55, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

L293D, I agree with Amory. I don’t think that’d be a legitimate use of deletion. As an aside, if you look at all of “my” GAs on my userpage I didn’t create any of them. A fair amount of my DYKs are like that too. What matters is the work you do, not the initial editor. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:29, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Traptor12

Hi TonyBallioni.

Traptor12 (talk · contribs) is repeatedly using extremely unreliable sources in BLP articles, and multiple comments from multiple editors (including yours) hasn't appeared to have changed this behavior. [5] [6] [7] [8]. I certainly think a block is necessary at this point. --Ronz (talk) 22:45, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Ronz, I forget the specifics of what those were about, but just looking at the reference in the warning, I’m assuming it involved sexual assault, so the diffs above, which I haven’t examined too closely, seem significantly different. If you feel that their editing in regards to BLPs is problematic enough to warrant sanctions, I would suggest making a report at WP:ANI or WP:AE. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:52, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

A heads-up

I am drawing this to your attention because of your involvement in the Dec 2017 - Jan 2018 "Conduct of Mister Wiki editors" ARBCOM case. I am not asking for or suggesting any action; this is purely an FYI.

I have just received an email from User:JacobPace, of which the operative part reads: (Redacted)

My edit (my only edit, I think) on Disney Digital Network was to resolve a {{dn}} tag on 19 March 2018. I found it curious to get an email referring to it 5 weeks later.

I had no intention of following up the email even before I tracked down and read the ARBCOM decision. Should I choose to reply, it will be through a Talk Page post and not by email; for a couple of fairly obvious reasons. Yrs, Narky Blert (talk) 15:03, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Does make one wonder, if someone's only motivation for being on Wikipedia is to recruit editors and further their business, at what point that overlaps with not being here to build an encyclopedia. GMG^talk 15:20, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Mmmm. The argument trotted out against that is "why can't they are doing both?" Pffle. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 15:24, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Well it's not like this is in any way a net positive. In fact, at this point, it would take probably a year of sustained constructive editing to even break even. GMG^talk 15:29, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

• Narky Blert, thank you for the heads up. I've redacted the content as we are typically not supposed to post emails on-wiki without the consent of both parties. I'd advise you to forward the email to the arbitration committee list at arbcom-llists.wikimedia.org. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:36, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
• Narky Blert: fix ping. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:37, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the redaction and the advice. I've forwarded the email as suggested. Narky Blert (talk) 15:50, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

• can someone please summarize the email message? Jytdog (talk) 02:34, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
  • @Jytdog: They noticed that Narky Blert had edited a page recently and was getting in touch about Studio 71 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Jacob thinks it was only deleted to "spite" paid editors and he wants to "recover" it. He wants to pay Narkey Blert to "consult" on this. SmartSE (talk) 07:39, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
    • thanks for explaining. Jytdog (talk) 14:35, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
      • @Jytdog: SmartSE's summary is fair; except that I didn't follow though to look for possible Studio71 involvement. However, their site does suggest that they can help you get hits on social websites. If you follow that ARBCOM case all the way through, you will find that one editor took 30 pieces of silver $80 and got desysopped as a result. I wonder if I may have been the only editor to get an unsolicited email like that one? Narky Blert (talk) 02:36, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
        • It is clear what the email was about. Jacob was looking for someone else to work on the Studio71 page; Studio71 is a client of MisterWiki, which is Jacob's paid-editing company. I'm aware of what happened in the arbcom case. It was unwise of Jacob to send that email to you, but everybody chooses their own path. Jytdog (talk) 02:40, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
          • It's clear from his talk page that he has asked other editors, and I know of at least another who has personally. Like I said above, if anyone receives an unsolicited offer of employment (or hint of it), they should forward the email to ArbCom. I personally think it goes against at least the spirit if not the letter of Wikipedia:Paid-contribution_disclosure#Promotion_and_advertising_by_paid_editors to use the Wikipedia-provided email service to solicit employees, but that's just my view. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:43, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
            • @Jytdog: Good adjective, "unwise". Narky Blert (talk) 22:28, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Re:Thanks

Dear User:TonyBallioni, thank you for your message on my talk page. I saw your comment on WP:XNB and decided to help out at the article. I appreciate that you were able to specify that he was a cardinal when he wrote the text and I will definitely be on the lookout for other cases of that issue. Have a blessed night! With regards, Anupam^Talk 06:01, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Food

Curd Rice

Hello! After the successful pilot program by Wikimedia India in 2015, Wiki Loves Food (WLF) is happening again in 2018 and this year, it's going International. To make this event a grant success, your direction is key. Please sign up here as a volunteer to bring all the world's food to Wikimedia. Danidamiobi (talk) 08:58, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Orangemoody editing

Hello Tony, take a look here. I think it's related to en.wiki also and there's accounts need to be blocked --Alaa :)..! 08:58, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Alaa. I've sent an email to the functionaries mailing list letting them know about this, as they normally handle Orangemoody reports here. (Pinging @KrakatoaKatie and Drmies: on here as well so they're aware.) TonyBallioni (talk) 13:58, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Papal conclave, 1689

On 30 April 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Papal conclave, 1689, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Pope Alexander VIII, elected in 1689, was the first Venetian in over 200 years to become pope? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Papal conclave, 1689. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Papal conclave, 1689), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 12:02, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Sock of an account that you blocked

Hi,

I'm pretty sure that Dbdbbd (talk · contribs) is a recently created account to evade your block on Ndjdndbd (talk · contribs). (Similar edits from the two accounts: ([9] and [10]).

Could you please indef the sock? Thanks. 185.106.31.159 (talk) 00:52, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Dloh has indef'd it. They've been editing on an IP as well. I'll file an SPI to look for a range block/sleepers. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:59, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Mmm..... It looks like Dloh has only 31h'd it, not indefed. L293D (☎ • ✎) 01:02, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

So he did, fixed. See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ndjdndbd. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:08, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

You got there first

:) But my edit summary was better than yours...I'm afraid WP:DENY still applies, even if Vote (X) happens to be summer hols at the time  :) —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 13:35, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Heh the CVN overlay does a pretty decent job at helping figure out which IPs probably shouldn't be commenting on stuff like that TonyBallioni (talk) 13:39, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Qbugbot

Hey Tony, I just discovered Qbugbot due to the spike in new page creations. I noticed that you strongly opposed the bot in the RfC, but then struck through your vote. Why did you change your mind? Just curious. Kaldari (talk) 17:56, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Kaldari, it was a long discussion, but I believe I struck it after there was a general agreement for some type of throttle and manual review. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:52, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Template:Asianet Programmes

Hi, why did you delete Template:Asianet Programmes? The seven-day grace period that is part of WP:CSD#T3 will not expire for 6 days 23 hours and a lot of minutes. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:48, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Redrose64: my mistake. The nomination came up on my watchlist as the creator was a sock I'd filed an SPI on, and I saw that it was not used and a duplicate, but missed the 7 day bit, as I'm not normally active dealing with T3s. Restored now. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:51, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

If they are a proven sock, and the sockmaster was blocked at the time that the template was created, it may be summarily deleted under WP:CSD#G5 with no grace period. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:55, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Posilikely, but behaviorally part another admin agreed they were likely to be part of a UPE family. If you think G5 works, I can delete it. Don't know why I didn't tag it the first time around. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:59, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

G. Simon Harak

Apologies for my edits on G. Simon Harak. When I reviewed the edit, the infobox did not appear on my computer screen. This lead me to assume that it was a test edit. However, after you reverted my edit, it would seem that the infobox finally appeared. Perhaps I was reviewing another edit accidentally. INeedSupport (talk) 03:12, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	ACPERM is a reality! I've chipped in a little extra at NPP since ACTRIAL ended, having gotten the NPP flag during ACTRIAL. The difference was incredible. Thanks for your dilligent efforts. John from Idegon (talk) 01:10, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Appropriateness

Hey, what do you think of this? !Voting on a discussion about AFD, with virtually the whole text of your comment being grave-dancing about a user who had been TBANned from deletion discussions (read: unable to defend themselves) seems a little out of the pale. I had half a mind to respond and tell him off for it, but I suspect that might just make it worse, and my last block was essentially for saying things that would have been completely acceptable and uncontroversial, if the editor I was talking about had been able to defend themselves... so, yeah, bad idea... Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:39, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

• TenPoundHammer (talk · contribs) is not dead, this is not grave dancing. TPH was a high profile example WP:BEFORE violator, and raising this case demonstrates the seriousness of the problem, noting that it takes a long time for the community to be stirred into responding. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:43, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

FWIW, I've had people talk about me dancing on the graves of blocked editors and people dancing on my grave because I was retired; I've rarely seen "grave dancing" used literally on Wikipedia. If TPH was so critical to the case being made for amending the guidelines, AD would not be the only one to invoke their name, and the simple fact is that very few commenters in the ban discussion invoked BEFORE (AD didn't). Anyway, your showing up here when you have only edited this page once before (and that to open a new thread) strongly suggests you are BLUDGEONing a discussion that will be SNOW-closed before long. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:51, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

I think it was in bad taste, but I wouldn't call it gravedancing, and I think you can make an argument like SmokeyJoe did for it being an example rather than an attack. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:03, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Meh. Maybe "gravedancing" was a poor choice of words. Honestly, if it were talking about an editor who had been TBANned and decided to leave the project rather than abide by, and ultimately perhaps appeal, the ban, I think invoking such a user's behaviour (though perhaps not explicitly naming them) as an example would be less inappropriate. It's discussing an editor who is still actively contributing to the project but who cannot respond to a comment in which they were explicitly named that concerns me. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:38, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Naming and simple facts is better than innuendo. TPH is ok, he admitted going overboard, it’s a rare example of a slow response, as I said. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:54, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) But, as Joe and Tony point out, Andrew did not state anything that was new. TPH was a serial BEFORE-violator whose approach to deletion got him tbanned. That's public knowledge. What exactly would TPH have to defend himself against? Regards SoWhy 08:58, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

No idea. But it still seems somewhat icky -- a certain editor was blocked two years ago for battleground behaviour, and he did autopass a GA for a friend of his, and did viciously defend this action, all of which was public knowledge, but that didn't protect me from getting blocked for expressing satisfaction over the whole affair. Criticizing people when they are unable to defend themselves is inappropriate. (All that said, I might have only been blocked two years ago because a friend of said editor presented what I said as a "personal attack" as though it was a personal accusation made without evidence.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:13, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

"I think invoking such a user's behaviour (though perhaps not explicitly naming them) as an example would be less inappropriate." Not that you would ever do the same? You do seem to have an issue of precising others, "grave dancing" when they are not. If someone does 'grave dance,' it only degrades the dancer as a small person, but as you are so obsessed with it. Perhaps you should regularly take your concerns to AN/I or if it does not rise to that level, then leave it be; this is my suggestion. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 01:38, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

@C. W. Gilmore: No, I do do that; the problem is that it is not the same. As I stated in the text you quoted directly above, "grave dancing" is actually kinda the opposite of the problem: it's badmouthing editors who are still part of the Wikipedia community but are unable to defend themselves. It seems akin to bringing up a user's interaction bans in an unrelated context, so that they are unable to rebut you (which has happened to me, and I've seen it happen to others and told the offenders off for it). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:59, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) C. W. Gilmore, you are welcome here as well (any editor is), but I do ask that when people are on my user talk they not fight. Hijiri88 and I have a pretty good relationship, so I don't mind him asking me questions that might be more controversial on a noticeboard. I'll tell him what I think (as in this case, I disagree that it is gravedancing), and others are welcome to chime in as well, but there shouldn't be accusations or aspersions here. I want this to be a friendly space for everyone. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:03, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

• Basically unrelated issue except that it involves the same editor: does this seem a little weird? I know we have a fair degree of freedom with our own user talk pages, but retitling, decontextualizing, and "consolidating" other editors' messages seems inappropriate. Full disclosure, I'm still waiting on a reply to this message from three months ago, Ctrl+Fed my sig on his talk page, and noticed this for the first time since I posted it; I noticed further down the "thread" he had received a warning from Bish that struck me as interesting, but seemed weird that it took me a month and a half to notice something that had apparently sprung out of a discussion I had been heavily involved in, until I noticed that they were actually unrelated. Honestly this bothers me more because an editor who is being told off for not understanding a topic area he is editing in should not be "consolidating" discussions that he considers to be on the same topic (a similar conflation of Miyazawa Kenji with Daisaku Ikeda was a big problem for me back in 2015; arguably led indirectly to the Arbitration case, in fact). Not entirely sure what to do about it; I would ask him directly if I wasn't getting the feeling that the community might not share my feelings on the matter -- I respect your opinion, Tony, and if nothing else your talk page watchers can at least give a more diverse spectrum of opinions before I do something stupid like request that he self-revert. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:02, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Hi, Hijiri 88, first, apologies to you or anyone else whom I haven't been quick in responding too while appearing to be online: I've been busy today and likely will be through most of the weekend, and only have had the time to do a few quick things today.
    I've always found Andrew's talk page archive system a bit confusing. I'm assuming he likes to arrange it topically for his own reference. I've never been able to keep track of the formal TPO guidelines and how they interact with the freedom we tend to give people on their user talks: my rule has always been just to not mess with other's messages. Bishonen might have a better idea, and she was also consolidated there as well. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:03, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
• Basically the issue is that TPH's actions do not rise to the level of Grave Dancing C. W. Gilmore (talk) 01:42, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

@C. W. Gilmore: Umm ... what? The above comment had absolutely nothing to do with TPH ... ? What? Heck, even the unrelated issue at the top of the thread was not about TPH's actions. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:59, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

ec

Man, you just beat me to closing, when I had a great edit summary ready:

issue resolved, closing as This business will get out of control! It will get out of control and we'll be lucky to live through it! — xaosflux ^Talk 22:06, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Looking back, I probably should have closed as "These aren't the droids you're looking for, move along." Also, it is a travesty that is not listed. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:19, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Also, I would have earned bonus points considering the dates. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:23, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Huh

I had actually emailed Yunshui about CUing whoever that was. I was considering preemptively striking the comment as being from an obvious sock but decided against it. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:57, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Shit. Meant to ping User:Yunshui so he knows I know User:DoRD already did what I asked him to do, and to apologize for requesting something that I probably should have known would have been done immediately without either of us lifting a finger. Also, since I'm now being accused of being the sockmaster, I would appreciate some assistance in getting this whole mess cleared up; I'm honestly thinking it's a joe-job by one or another of DS's enemies, but can't say for certain. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 16:07, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

For the record, Hijiri88, whoever it is has pulled the joe job on other people as well. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:13, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Update

I have been using STiki for the past couple of weeks and made a few thousand classifications with no talk page complaints. One, counting reverts made without the tool. Do you think now would be the time to re-apply for rollback or should I wait a couple of weeks? Septrillion (talk) 21:56, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi Septrillion, feel free to apply again at PERM, as it’d likely be quicker at this time. If someone doesn’t get to it before I do, I’ll look it over. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:05, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Another RfC on Net Neutrality

A month ago you participated in an RfC at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 147#Net neutrality. The same proposal has been posted again at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Proposal: A US-only CentralNotice in support of Net Neutrality. (This notice has been sent to all who participated in the prior RfC, regardless of which side they supported). --Guy Macon (talk) 20:50, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Unscintillating SPI

Since you were active in the last SPI, I wanted to make you aware that I opened a new one for Unscintillating, but this time I believe the proof is indisputable. see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/UnscintillatingThanks. --Rusf10 (talk) 03:04, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll let another administrator review this one as I closed the last one. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:30, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Request on Talk:American Nazi Party

Could you take a look at this and this? I'm concerned that I may have gone overboard out of frustration. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:01, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken, replied there. I think you were correct on policy. I would never cite a historical FBI memo in an article unevaluated by a secondary source. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:36, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for intercedinig. The last source they cited, Black Sun is a reliable secondary source, so I've altered the text and added an information note about the unclear date of the name change. (It's actually possible that both sources are right, that the change was approved internally in 1966, but papers weren't filed until 1/1/67. The internal decision might or might not leave a paper trail, whereas any official change in name -- say for tax purposes -- would have one. Of course that's entirely speculation on my part, so it's not in the note.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:40, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Can you please return to the page in question and moderate the discussion between myself and BMK? BMK is making unsubstantiated personal attacks against me and engaging in multiple behaviors found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Tendentious_editing#Characteristics_of_problem_editors 2602:306:30D2:40D0:2839:B635:775C:F019 (talk) 18:55, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

March 2018

Fine we'll talk this out...Mcelite (talk) 21:46, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

User talk page access for banned editors

Hi Tony. While I don't have any concerns about your close of the community ban discussion regarding DanaUllman, I was wondering if there was a reason why you chose to prevent him from editing his own talk page (or if you ticked that box inadvertently): [11].

Usually we don't block talk page access unless a blocked/banned editor has shown an inclination to misuse/abuse their talk page. (See also the notes at WP:OPTIONS, Wikipedia:Protection policy#Blocked users.) Is there a history of such abuse in this case? I don't expect DanaUllman to offer a particularly compelling appeal of his ban any timme in the near future, but we don't generally preemptively close off lines of communication. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:16, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi TenOfAllTrades. See WP:BANBLOCKDIFF. The two main differences between a ban and an indefinite block are that bans need to be lifted by the community, while a block can be lifted by an individual admin, and that we usually revoke talk page access for banned editors. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:19, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Huh. I'm surprised, frankly. Yes, I'm aware of the difference between a block and a ban (I've been an admin since – good God, I've wasted my life – 2005), but I hadn't noticed that the policy specifies that we "usually" pull their talk page access. Still not sure it's necessary in this instance, or that that "usually" really reflects real-world practice and expectations...but it's definitely not worth arguing. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:31, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Not a problem. I was sure you knew there was a technical difference, but wanted to explain the policy reason why I had the box checked. ​ TonyBallioni (talk) 20:35, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

UTRS appeal #21460

A user you have blocked has opened UTRS appeal #21460 on the Unblock Ticket Request System. The reviewing administrator, Just Chilling (talk · contribs), has requested your input:

Kim Jong-Un's Whirling Aluminium Tubes (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Time: May 10, 2018 19:53:19

Message: Hi, please see my question on this appeal. Thanks.

Notes:

• If you do not have an account on UTRS, you may create one at the administrator registration interface.
• Alternatively, you can respond here and indicate whether you are supportive or opposed to an unblock for this user and your rationale, if applicable.

--UTRSBot (talk) 19:53, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Just Chilling, let a note there. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:07, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Note and warning on my talk page.

I took your advice and read the note on my talk page. The first thing I'd like to clear up is that I think you have taken this all way too personally as I see that your misperception is that I've accused you of underhanded things. The truth is that I only made some simple observations of things you already freely admit to and are well known for because you express these ideas frequently. So, you can't accuse someone of things they already express to be their own agenda. For example, all one need do is read your comments and they can easily learn from the opinions you freely (and proudly) profess that you have a very strong aversion to the GNG. It does does not take a rocket scientist to figure out this aversion to the GNG is part of your personal agenda (don't worry about it everybody has one or two of them). So, for me to make this observation and point it out isn't accusing anyone of doing anything underhanded, it's simply noticing what your agenda is. I apologize if I came across as accusing you of anything, but I don't ever remember directly accusing you or alluding to anything that you haven't already freely admitted to yourself. So, I saw it as anything but accusing and I apologize if you did.

Plus, I had already agreed to drop all these so-called accusations long before you decided to continue to beat me up about it on my talk page. When I told you: "However, I think it's best to leave you alone now." "We will call it beating a dead horse and quash it here..." "I want to spare you any further indignities of having to come up with any more "explanations" for your behaviour." "Let's just say that even though I shouldn't, and don't have to AGF, that I will do so anyway in favor of knowing that I don't have to prove anything to anybody..."

Stop taking it so personally because the way you have taken this so personal concerns me and is affecting me in a negative way that I don't deserve because you became too WP:INVOLVED. This is born out by the fact that you put a warning on my talk page that I clearly didn't deserve. The bulk of the warning talks about disruptive editing revolving around a content dispute and asking me not to restore disputed content. However, I had received a warning 2 hours prior which already mentioned "edit warring" and I had made a grand total of "ZERO" edits to the page when you decided to come along and double-warn me for no good reason other than the fact that you were admittedly under the stress of feeling accused and taking things personally.

The reason I am bringing this to your attention here is because I feel I have been treated extremely unfairly and WP:ADMINABUSE recommends to me that, "If a user believes an administrator has acted improperly, they should express their concerns directly to the administrator responsible and try to come to a resolution in an orderly and civil manner." So, here I am in an orderly and civil manner, coming directly to you to express my concerns about how I feel you may not have acted properly toward me so we can resolve it.

First, I think you took things too personal and were too WP:INVOLVED to be leaving warnings on my talk page and it clouded your judgement because you were experiencing the understandable duress of feeling "accused" at the time so that you were unable to objectively see that I had already been warned and I had made no more edits since I had been warned the first time. The very fact that you continued to beat me up about accusations on my talk page even after I already agreed to drop it is evidence enough for anyone that you were still taking things too personal to be objectively leaving warnings on my page. I also think it would have been more appropriate to get another admin. to take a look at the situation since an outside viewpoint would not be influenced in any way by the stresses of feeling accused or taking things personally.

All I'm asking in order to resolve this is that you kindly rescind the warning and remove it from my talk page. I think this is a very reasonable request considering I have already agreed to stop any accusations before your warning even existed and I still have yet to make any "disruptive" edits since even THE FIRST warning existed and I also have not contested or even said a peep about the removal of the sentence. Plus, I apologized. All things considered, I think I'm giving a lot here and not asking that much in return to resolve this. Thanks. Huggums537 (talk) 02:58, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

• You are free to take me to ANI. I’ve already explained myself. I gave you good advice, and to be honest, you’re not that great of a WikiLawyer, so I don’t think ANI would go the way you expect it would. Talk page stalkers here are also always free to tell me I’m an idiot, I often am, and my crowd tends to be the type that will disagree with me at will.
  Also, you really should read up on your ALLCAPS. Warnings are not admin actions and you are free to blank them from your talk page at any time: they’re recorded in the history if they need to be cited at a noticeboard; I won’t be striking though. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:04, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
  • I have no reason to take you to ANI. Need I remind you that I already agreed to drop all accusations against you even before you posted the warning on my page? If I have no complaints against you other than just the warning that I want to resolve here now, then why refer me to ANI for that simple matter?? I appreciate you reminding me I can blank my own talk page, but that does not show much regard for my future as an editor here. Anyone could use that warning as a disadvantage and it would be on "my record". I feel that it was unfair to begin with and believe it shouldn't be on my record. If I wanted to blank it from my talk page then I would not have spent my precious time to come here and resolve the matter now. Again, I have no accusations to bring to ANI. I'm only asking that you kindly rescind the warning and remove it at your leisure. Thanks. Huggums537 (talk) 09:24, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

April 1st was over .... uhm, April 1st. I think that says it all. ^{Atsme📞📧} 03:08, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

If it's all really just a joke, as you suggest, then it should be no problem for this admin. to remove the warning and laugh it off... Huggums537 (talk) 09:32, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)::sigh:: Huggums537 just drop it now. Tony, I'm an idiot. That makes two of us. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:57, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm surprised you suggest me to "drop it" after I already made it clear I dropped it long before this admin. went to my talk page to beat me up some more about it. That's "hitting below the belt" and "not playing fair" when an admin. feels they are being accused so they promptly go to somebodies talk page to repay them by needlessly marring their record even though the person already agreed to "drop it" and leave them alone...Huggums537 (talk) 11:02, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) (talk page stalker) Huggums, I would strongly urge you to reconsider your manner of interacting with other editors, and perhaps your editing priorities. ANI has a very strong bias against new editors with low mainspace edit counts (say, less than 40%) and especially new editors who spend a disproportionate amount of time arguing over policies and guidelines, and at this point if you took anyone to ANI I would guess the result would be a boomerang, and you'd be lucky to come out of it without either a TBAN from edits to the policy/guideline space or a block. I'm not going to hold your conduct last summer when you were a brand new editor against you, but the way you've contorted yourself the last two times I interacted with you on the MOS:FILM talk page, rapidly escalating a minor dispute to mudslinging, then when threatened with sanctions by NRP (the same admin literally did the same thing both times) apologizing and "thanking" them, before continuing to do the same thing elsewhere, occasionally in areas not subject to discretionary sanctions ... well, it doesn't make you come across in a positive light. Maybe you should consider withdrawing from editing policies and guidelines entirely for a while, and write some articles on whatever topic it is that interests you. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:02, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

I would strongly urge you to pay attention to the conversation. I have already indicated I have no need for ANI. As for my editing choices, those are my business, kindly mind your your own. Thanks. Huggums537 (talk) 11:02, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) When your edits keep causing disruption on pages on my watchlist, they are my business. And it doesn't look to me like you have decided to drop it: your last edit to this page before I showed up consisted largely of the text it should be no problem for this admin. to remove the warning and laugh it off. This may just be what you consider harmless snark, but that's not how it looks to the rest of us. Anyway, if you are not willing to take my advice, that is your business. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:34, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Let's be clear Hijiri: You received the EXACT SAME discretionary sanction warning from NRP that I did the first time, and I specifically ASKED for the discretionary sanction warning [to be announced on the discussion page] the second time, So, OF COURSE I thanked him. In fact, I remember thanking him BOTH times. At any rate, I would strongly urge YOU to remember YOUR OWN involvement in ALL of the incidents you mentioned between us. And, I will thank you so very much for not holding my past conduct against me since I was a brand new editor and I'm very glad that I had a good excuse for it now, but what then was the excuse for your own conduct in all of these incidents between us? Huggums537 (talk) 11:20, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

If you're going to miss the point of my advice, that's also your business, I guess, but please don't come back and throw your misinterpretation in my face as a "gotcha". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:34, 19 May 2018 (UTC)≠

• I haven’t read all of this, but from what I have, it looks like you’ve been given some good advice, Huggums537. Like I said if you still feel I’m abusing my admin bit here, you are free to ask for a review at AN or ANI. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:46, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
  • I'll take that as a stubborn refusal to be reasonable and cooperate as well as a general lack of concern and just be happy and say I tried. I'm not willing to waste any more of my time with ANI over something that easily could have been solved here amicably. I offended you now you have your satisfaction so all is well that ends well. Huggums537 (talk) 13:56, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
    • I have no clue what I'm offended about, because I don't feel offended by anything currently, just in need of coffee. You Wikilawyered to restore a removal of text from a guideline that has (and had) talk page consensus after you had been reverted by another editor, and continued to post rants about how everyone else was wrong but you. That's disruptive editing, and I always give that as "level 3", regardless of other warnings. The other (IMO, valid) warning from Legacypac was about attacking other editors, and was only related in that you also did that on the same talk page. Anyway, if you're dropping it, fine, but I'm still not exactly clear what I did that was against any behavioral expectations for administrators. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:06, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
      • TonyBallioni, That's perfect. If you're not offended, then I'm not offended either. However, I do need to clarify that after the other editor reverted me, I only made 3 edits and one of those edits held the clues to let you know I was dropping it. However, I will say this much in your defense: I actually did do a lot of ranting in those couple of edits and those clues to let you know I was dropping it were probably not that easy to see/find at all. So, it's not like you actually KNEW I had dropped it and just deliberately went to my page just for the sake of retribution or anything like that, you probably just saw the rants and thought it was disruptive and acted accordingly. However, all I was asking you to do is go back in hind-sight now that you DO KNOW the clues are there and reconsider your decision accordingly? Doesn't that seem like a fair thing to do in light of the fact that you are now aware of information you were not aware of when you first made the decision? Huggums537 (talk) 14:52, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
        • The warning was for disruptive editing, which your edits and rants were, even if it's not the intent. The purpose of a warning is to get someone to drop it, which you say we have, so it's all fine. Anyone is free to remove a warning (or anything other than a declined unblock request) from their talk page, so you are free to blank it, but I'm not going to. Like my friend the integer says below, telling you that you could take me to AN or ANI was my telling you in a diplomatic way that I really don't want to continue the conversation here, and that if you think it's a big enough deal that it needs to be continued, please open a thread so others can review my actions. Otherwise, I think we've covered about as much as we can here. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:00, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
        • Consider the matter closed then... Huggums537 (talk) 15:22, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

I think that that's extremely magnaminious of you :D —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap shit room} 15:45, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I try. Maybe I can be a great Wikipedia admin. one day... I can only hope! Huggums537 (talk) 15:54, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

(watching) @Huggums537: Can I just clarify a potential misunderstanding? The thing is, although you are, of course, fully entitled to "take that" any way you like, may I suggest it means something else? You should take it as something along the lines of "do something or get off the can," as the vernacular would have it. In other words, this conversation will only continue at ANI—one way or another. And without you necessarilly filing it, of course. Why not go write some articles? Take care, and Happy Editing! —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap shit room} 14:14, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Comment: TonyBallioni, I said I would leave you alone and I have, but now you've put another warning on my page that was not needed. You reverted my edit advising me not to mock another person on your page and I acknowledged the mistake with a corrected reversion and an apology. You then reverted my corrected edit without explanation and I left it alone at that, but you rewarded my efforts with the threat of being blocked.

I came to your page pleading with you to reconsider your decisions all while I subjected myself to the indignity of being berated by a parade of your page watchers and this still has not been good enough to satisfy as recompense for my errors in judgement.

Look, I'm very sorry that I made things personal for you, because when I'm honest with myself, I realize that the only reason you have been taking things so personally is because I made them personal in the first place. That was my mistake and I apologize for that. I realize now that somewhere along the way during my ranting I somehow managed to single you out and I should not have done that.

I have no problem admitting when I'm wrong, as you can see here. All I have asked is that you consider the possibility that you've made some errors in judgement as well. Maybe I didn't HAVE to open an RfC, but you didn't HAVE to close it either, and maybe I didn't HAVE to go on a rant like I did, but you didn't HAVE to respond with warnings when the rant was over and done with either. It seems like you have played tit for tat the whole way and pretending like you are an angel who couldn't have possibly misunderstood being provoked and yourself over-reacted. The only difference between the way YOU over-reacted and the way I over-reacted, is that you didn't make yourself out to look like a fool as I did with my ranting. Apart from that, it feels like you have made sure to repay me in like kind for making it personal.

It was never my intention to provoke you or single you out, as I've said many, many times, my rant was over and done with when I made it clear my intent was to drop it, but you and LegacyPac sure wasn't going to let me go without "teaching me a lesson" first. I got carried away with myself and you as an admin. should be able to understand that might happen from time to time. I support you in putting a stop to it when goes on and on, but when it happens as it has in this case where I'm doing everything as right as I know how and then quickly correcting my errors when they are brought to my attention, then you have to consider the possibility that just maybe your actions are based on the fact that you won't just forgive me for my transgressions and let bygones be bygones. Huggums537 (talk) 05:49, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) (Non-administrator comment) This is where WP:STICK is useful advice. In the scheme of things, a single template-warning you don't like is meaningless. Your defense that, because you left it alone after making the edit twice, it's irrelevant, is kind of silly. If you keep this up, this will end up at WP:ANI very soon, with either a TBAN from project-space or a full ban a likely outcome. power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:21, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You restored a revision where you talked to a grown adult like a child with only minor changes that still kept the tone. No, I did not overreact, and no, this is not an issue of text not conveying meaning: the meaning was clear. Despite what you think, I have been far more patient with you than most editors and administrators would have. You will not, however, talk to other editors like they are children on my talk page. That is unacceptable behavior here or on any Wikipedia page. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:29, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Fine, I'm dropping the stick then. Thanks. Huggums537 (talk) 06:40, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

I'd like to add one last apology that I'm sorry I mouthed off to you. You've proven that I barked up the wrong tree. I now know how it feels to be painted in a bad light, and it SUCKS real bad! I think I've MORE than learned my lesson. Thank you for your patience. Huggums537 (talk) 11:14, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}}

TonyBallioni, I wanted to let you know that I also went back to strike the insulting and speculative comments that were made as a gesture of good will. Thanks. Huggums537 (talk) 19:16, 20 May 2018 (UTC)