User talk:TonyBallioni/Archive 33
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:TonyBallioni. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 | Archive 33 | Archive 34 | Archive 35 | → | Archive 40 |
Administrators' newsletter – January 2020
News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2019).
|
|
|
Guideline and policy news
- A request for comment asks whether partial blocks should be enabled on the English Wikipedia. If enabled, this functionality would allow administrators to block users from editing specific pages or namespaces, rather than the entire site.
- A proposal asks whether admins who don't use their tools for a significant period of time (e.g. five years) should have the toolset procedurally removed.
- Following a successful RfC, a whitelist is now available for users whose redirects will be autopatrolled by a bot, removing them from the new pages patrol queue. Admins can add such users to Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Redirect whitelist after a discussion following the guidelines at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Redirect whitelist.
Arbitration
- The fourth case on Palestine-Israel articles was closed. The case consolidated all previous remedies under one heading, which should make them easier to understand, apply, and enforce. In particular, the distinction between "primary articles" and "related content" has been clarified, with the former being
the entire set of articles whose topic relates to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly interpreted
rather thanreasonably construed
. - Following the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been appointed to the Arbitration Committee: Beeblebrox, Bradv, Casliber, David Fuchs, DGG, KrakatoaKatie, Maxim, Newyorkbrad, SoWhy, Worm That Turned, Xeno.
- The fourth case on Palestine-Israel articles was closed. The case consolidated all previous remedies under one heading, which should make them easier to understand, apply, and enforce. In particular, the distinction between "primary articles" and "related content" has been clarified, with the former being
Miscellaneous
- This issue marks three full years of the Admin newsletter. Thanks for reading!
Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Lean Anael
A tag has been placed on Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Lean Anael requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. UnitedStatesian (talk) 19:16, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
HI Tony. I was patrolling this BLP and noticed that after curation, an editor noted in the lede that they are a Wikipedian and gave their username in the lede. I checked their user page of the BLP subject and they do seem to state that they are the BLP subject. I just wanted to check that this is all ok and not a violation of WP:OUTING. Outside of their user page, I could not find an external independent reference confirming that the suggested user name is the BLP subject in question? Thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 12:20, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
- Hi, Britishfinance, sorry for the delay. I’m travelling and haven’t been tracking my talk page. It seems user:AWCzarnik has self disclosed on his user page, so the link is fine from an outing standpoint. I’m not sure if it’s worth mentioning though from an editorial standpoint (Iridescent may have thoughts on our obsession with highlighting Wikipedia things when they fail WP:DUE. I think he’s discussed it before?) If there’s nothing mentioned in independent sources about him being an editor it probably isn’t important for his biography. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:47, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks Tony – appreciate that and understand. Only just realised you were away, so doubly appreciated. All the best, Britishfinance (talk) 16:49, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
Revdel for copyvio by COI user
earwig shows the source. I reverted Academia7270 (talk · contribs) who in their edits of two pages has included the phrasing our, leading me to highly suspect COI since both pages (and possibly the name) are related. Jerod Lycett (talk) 08:51, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker)
Done, I've also droppped a copyvio note on their talk. stwalkerster (talk) 09:06, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
Happy New Year, TonyBallioni!
TonyBallioni,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
💵Money💵emoji💵Talk💸Help out at CCI! 12:52, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.
You've got mail!
Message added 15:29, 11 January 2020 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
L293D (☎ • ✎) 15:29, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
- Hi L293D. Thanks, I’ve seen it, but haven’t had a chance to look closely. Got me on the front end of a vacation and I’m catching up on my wiki email over the next few days :) TonyBallioni (talk) 15:31, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
- Sure, no rush. L293D (☎ • ✎) 15:34, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
User Biografer
Hello. Given the heartfelt appeal by the user near the bottom of their sockpuppet investigation page, and the productivity, growth, and interest in the project they have shown, can this indef for sockpuppeting be overturned or maybe give them a week slap-on-the-puppet ban but let them return? Seems a possible case for leniency. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:10, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
- Randy Kryn, I will admit I haven't been following the case in detail - but per their block log on the socking account, they have been using multiple accounts abusively. The best way forward is probably going to be to take some time away from enwiki - maybe contribute constructively to simple or another project, then come back with an unblock request on the original account. SQLQuery me! 16:14, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
- Looks like only the one account after the first was banned, which has been constructively contributing for almost three years. I'll also add this note to the recent banner's page. Sometimes giving a sucker an even break would help the project, and this seems like it may be one of those. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:19, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
- Well, I actually don’t consider that account to have been a particularly productive contributor for the last few years: there were copyvio and CIR issues with welcoming anything that moved. They also lied by socking for three years, and I personally detest lying and am unwilling to make exceptions to our rules when someone engages in dishonesty. Anyway, they should make a UTRS appeal from their main account, but I’d likely oppose unblocking. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:03, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
- Looks like only the one account after the first was banned, which has been constructively contributing for almost three years. I'll also add this note to the recent banner's page. Sometimes giving a sucker an even break would help the project, and this seems like it may be one of those. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:19, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
Arbitration case opened
You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kudpung. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kudpung/Evidence. Please add your evidence by January 28, 2020, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kudpung/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, CodeLyokotalk 05:06, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Partial block opt-out script
If anyone else wants to remove the options from Special:Block you can find a handy way to do so at: User:AntiCompositeNumber/Hiding partial blocks. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:44, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
- " I'll proudly say I will not use the feature once on en.wiki because I consider it to be the single worst technical idea we've ever had" I have to say I am utterly astounded at hearing this. So partial blocks are worse than Superprotect and Flow? Seriously? The ability to have a finer granularity on how we sanction users and allow a better balance between protecting the integrity of the encyclopedia and stopping drama based on sanctions being draconian is not a bad thing. It is one of the most important features to be implemented on the encyclopedia, and should have been put in at least 15 years ago. I hope it doesn't come to this, but if I see solid evidence you have implemented a sitewide block when a partial one would have sufficed, I would consider it disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:45, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
- Oddly enough, I consider usage of partial blocks to be disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point: they’re a glitchy feature that has no use case where they are possibly better than a sitewide block. The only use case that people have put forward that may be okay is edit warring, and even then it’s not as good: 24 hours and get them to agree to stop it on their own followed by an immediate unblock is far less “draconian” than a block from one page that’ll not be lifted. So yes, this is worse than Flow. I’ll give you super protect, but I was more discussing features that we could use. So, yes, I’ll continue blocking like I always have: in line with policy and the best interests of the project. I’m not going to stop doing that because a new toy that doesn’t align with that comes along. TonyBallioni (talk) 12:56, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
- And, for the record, part of the reason I oppose these so strongly is because they’re a massive expansion of admin power and will likely result in more sanctions, not less. Either someone is disruptive enough to be blocked or they aren’t. A partial block blurs that line and is nothing but negative. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:02, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
- I hear you, Tony. It's a hell of a lot of T -and A-BAN like powers on the shoulders of individual admins, without the policy backbone to go along with it. But I think it can also be a useful part of an admin's toolset. Certainly, sitewide blocks are fine. No one is mandating anyone to adopt partial blocks — at least I hope they're not. El_C 13:06, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
- See, everyone I’ve talked to says basically what you’ve said, and when pressed admits the only thing they can think of that it’s good for is first time edit warring blocks, which I’ll give you, I don’t think it’s useless there. I do think it’s less useful than site wide blocks in that instance though: they’re basically 30 minutes unless someone insists that they plan on continuing to edit war. In those circumstances we would want a sitewide block.But to Ritchie’s apparent fear I’ll keep blocking people if practice and policy change: no, I’ll just take no action. It’s my sincere belief that there’s no circumstance where these aren’t harmful to Wikipedia or less useful than the equivalent sitewide block, and that they’re normally going to be more disruptive than the behaviour that leads to the partial block. If others disagree, consensus says they can use them, but I’m certainly not going to do what I think amounts to increasing disruption on this project. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:18, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
- "Either someone is disruptive enough to be blocked or they aren’t." Except when the editor is Eric Corbett, or Cassianto, or Giano, or ... well, you get the idea, block any of them (no matter how justified the block may have been) and watch the fire of Hades rain down on your head and the drama level on ANI explode. And that's precisely why I suggested partial blocks in the first place - to allow any sanctioning admin a solid response of "oh for goodness sake, it's not like they're blocked from the entire encyclopedia forever is it?" Obviously, it depends on which admin area you work in - somebody who's disruptive on one WP:ARBIPA article is probably going to be disruptive on all of them - but for longstanding editors who make lots of good faith edits but occasionally screw up, it can be a useful device. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:25, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
- You’ll notice I’ve never blocked any of those names. I’ve never been the civility police: it’s usually a bunch of people behaving poorly and trying to get someone else to cross a line. Blocks there aren’t helpful and increase disruption. And let’s not pretend all hell won’t break loose the next time they’re partial blocked. That’s a social phenomenon, not a technical problem.Basically Ritchie, my philosophy on all blocks is not to use them if they increase disruption or if there are other more useful means available. For partial blocks, I think they will almost always fail this test. They’re basically the block equivalent of pending changes: something nice we can point to saying we let more people edit but more of a headache than they’re worth to implement. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:36, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
[T]he block equivalent of pending changes
— interesting parallel. El_C 13:44, 20 January 2020 (UTC)- Note also that I've only found one opportunity befitting a partial block since it gained functionality — out of many tens sitewide ones. El_C 13:48, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
- Agreed, I've only found a handful of instances - but there's a world of difference between saying "I don't think partial blocks will be used much" or "I can't see me using partial blocks in my line of admin work" (both of which are fine) and "this is the worst technical idea ever implemented in the history of Wikipedia" which is just hyperbole. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:54, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
- See, I stand by that (knowing it’s your idea, so sorry). I don’t see any case use where it’s a good idea to use one and the potential for social disruption is pretty huge. Sorry Ritchie, but I still think they’re the worst technical idea someone has had (with the possible exception of article creation logs, but that only bothers oversighters and doesn’t cause much of an issue to anyone else.) TonyBallioni (talk) 14:04, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
- Well, the feature isn't refined enough yet to include categories but if it were, a good use case would be to block Thai ranges against editing firearms articles which would go a long way towards nullifying the Thai gun hoaxster while still allowing other anons to edit other articles.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 14:12, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
- Well, the feature isn't refined enough yet to include categories but if it were, a good use case would be to block Thai ranges against editing firearms articles which would go a long way towards nullifying the Thai gun hoaxster while still allowing other anons to edit other articles.
- See, I stand by that (knowing it’s your idea, so sorry). I don’t see any case use where it’s a good idea to use one and the potential for social disruption is pretty huge. Sorry Ritchie, but I still think they’re the worst technical idea someone has had (with the possible exception of article creation logs, but that only bothers oversighters and doesn’t cause much of an issue to anyone else.) TonyBallioni (talk) 14:04, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
- Agreed, I've only found a handful of instances - but there's a world of difference between saying "I don't think partial blocks will be used much" or "I can't see me using partial blocks in my line of admin work" (both of which are fine) and "this is the worst technical idea ever implemented in the history of Wikipedia" which is just hyperbole. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:54, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
- You’ll notice I’ve never blocked any of those names. I’ve never been the civility police: it’s usually a bunch of people behaving poorly and trying to get someone else to cross a line. Blocks there aren’t helpful and increase disruption. And let’s not pretend all hell won’t break loose the next time they’re partial blocked. That’s a social phenomenon, not a technical problem.Basically Ritchie, my philosophy on all blocks is not to use them if they increase disruption or if there are other more useful means available. For partial blocks, I think they will almost always fail this test. They’re basically the block equivalent of pending changes: something nice we can point to saying we let more people edit but more of a headache than they’re worth to implement. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:36, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
- "Either someone is disruptive enough to be blocked or they aren’t." Except when the editor is Eric Corbett, or Cassianto, or Giano, or ... well, you get the idea, block any of them (no matter how justified the block may have been) and watch the fire of Hades rain down on your head and the drama level on ANI explode. And that's precisely why I suggested partial blocks in the first place - to allow any sanctioning admin a solid response of "oh for goodness sake, it's not like they're blocked from the entire encyclopedia forever is it?" Obviously, it depends on which admin area you work in - somebody who's disruptive on one WP:ARBIPA article is probably going to be disruptive on all of them - but for longstanding editors who make lots of good faith edits but occasionally screw up, it can be a useful device. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:25, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
- See, everyone I’ve talked to says basically what you’ve said, and when pressed admits the only thing they can think of that it’s good for is first time edit warring blocks, which I’ll give you, I don’t think it’s useless there. I do think it’s less useful than site wide blocks in that instance though: they’re basically 30 minutes unless someone insists that they plan on continuing to edit war. In those circumstances we would want a sitewide block.But to Ritchie’s apparent fear I’ll keep blocking people if practice and policy change: no, I’ll just take no action. It’s my sincere belief that there’s no circumstance where these aren’t harmful to Wikipedia or less useful than the equivalent sitewide block, and that they’re normally going to be more disruptive than the behaviour that leads to the partial block. If others disagree, consensus says they can use them, but I’m certainly not going to do what I think amounts to increasing disruption on this project. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:18, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
- I hear you, Tony. It's a hell of a lot of T -and A-BAN like powers on the shoulders of individual admins, without the policy backbone to go along with it. But I think it can also be a useful part of an admin's toolset. Certainly, sitewide blocks are fine. No one is mandating anyone to adopt partial blocks — at least I hope they're not. El_C 13:06, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
That’s a good one, the general issue people have raised with category blocks is that it would de facto allow non-admins to sanction, and in AE, this would very much be a problem. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:29, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
- Yeah, I don't think it would be a good idea to have partial blocks operate on a category. If a category could be "frozen" to a list of pages in MediaWiki: space somewhere, that would fix that problem. That would require tools to maintain those topic lists though, making the entire feature unlikely to be implemented. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 15:57, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
- I reckon we could use the same approach as the message delivery lists - protect it so it's admin only, and make the block target that. Create a quick-and-dirty script to diff it versus a category, and it should be fine. The issues that will likely arise would be a) how often do you update the list, and b) how do you handle subcategories? stwalkerster (talk) 18:06, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
- MediaWiki doesn’t have the functionality to block subcategories at this point, iirc. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:18, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
- I reckon we could use the same approach as the message delivery lists - protect it so it's admin only, and make the block target that. Create a quick-and-dirty script to diff it versus a category, and it should be fine. The issues that will likely arise would be a) how often do you update the list, and b) how do you handle subcategories? stwalkerster (talk) 18:06, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
You've Got Email!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Administrators' newsletter – February 2020
News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2020).
|
|
|
Guideline and policy news
- Following a request for comment, partial blocks are now enabled on the English Wikipedia. This functionality allows administrators to block users from editing specific pages or namespaces rather than the entire site. A draft policy is being workshopped at Wikipedia:Partial blocks.
- The request for comment seeking the community's sentiment for a binding desysop procedure closed with
wide-spread support for an alternative desysoping procedure based on community input
. No proposed process received consensus.
Technical news
- Twinkle now supports partial blocking. There is a small checkbox that toggles the "partial" status for both blocks and templating. There is currently one template: {{uw-pblock}}.
- When trying to move a page, if the target title already exists then a warning message is shown. The warning message will now include a link to the target title. [1]
Arbitration
- Following a recent arbitration case, the Arbitration Committee reminded administrators
that checkuser and oversight blocks must not be reversed or modified without prior consultation with the checkuser or oversighter who placed the block, the respective functionary team, or the Arbitration Committee.
- Following a recent arbitration case, the Arbitration Committee reminded administrators
Miscellaneous
- Voting in the 2020 Steward elections will begin on 08 February 2020, 14:00 (UTC) and end on 28 February 2020, 13:59 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
- The English Wikipedia has reached six million articles. Thank you everyone for your contributions!
Thank you
Thanks for the rights restoration. Doing it all in one go has saved lots of individual requests.
Also, many thanks for your kind note on my talk. The support there has given me a lot to think about. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:08, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
- Tony, may I ask about the template editor user right? It doesn't look like BrownHairedGirl had granted herself that right in the 13 odd years she was an admin, which brings up the question whether she would need it at this time. -- Dolotta (talk) 15:03, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
- Admins have it on their own. It’s included in the bundle, which is why she would never have had it. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:08, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
- I learn something new. I had in my mind that the only the 'view,' and not the 'edit' right was bundled with the admin tool set. Thanks Tony! -- Dolotta (talk) 15:12, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
- @Dolotta: most user rights below admin are automatically assigned to admins, the notable exception is edit filter manager but admins can assign it to themselves. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:17, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
- I learn something new. I had in my mind that the only the 'view,' and not the 'edit' right was bundled with the admin tool set. Thanks Tony! -- Dolotta (talk) 15:12, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
- Admins have it on their own. It’s included in the bundle, which is why she would never have had it. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:08, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
@Crouch, Swale: Thanks for jogging my memory. That is what I had in my mind when I sent the original message. I had just mixed up my user rights. Thanks a million! -- Dolotta (talk) 15:44, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
You're (kinda) being talked about
I know Bbb23 turned off pings, but I don't know if you have, and figured in this case it was best not to risk it. You might want to check out Template:Did you know nominations/Clarice Phelps if you haven't already. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:50, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks, Hijiri88, I’m staying out of that, but thanks for the note :) TonyBallioni (talk) 02:54, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
- I did not turn off pings, so please stop saying I have.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:07, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
- Okay, I don't think I have every said you turned off pings in the past (I think I tried to ping you, someone told me you had turned off pings, and maybe I asked you on your talk page if you had turned off pings) -- are you confusing me with someone else again like here? Moreover, I wasn't even talking about you specifically; I mentioned that I "know" you turned off pings merely to indicate that I have heard that it is possible to turn off pings, something I have never considered doing myself but since I heard that you had turned off pings I have tended less to treat them as a reliable method of getting someone's attention. There's no need to make a big deal out of it anyway: now that I know you don't like people saying that at some point in the past you turned off pings, I'll just say
I know it's possible to turn off pings
. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:34, 12 February 2020 (UTC) - Bbb23, I thought I remembered seeing somewhere that you had turned off cross-wiki pings - maybe that's source of the confusion.-- P-K3 (talk) 14:36, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
- I can't imagine that Hijiri88 is ever confused about anything.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:38, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
- Okay, I don't think I have every said you turned off pings in the past (I think I tried to ping you, someone told me you had turned off pings, and maybe I asked you on your talk page if you had turned off pings) -- are you confusing me with someone else again like here? Moreover, I wasn't even talking about you specifically; I mentioned that I "know" you turned off pings merely to indicate that I have heard that it is possible to turn off pings, something I have never considered doing myself but since I heard that you had turned off pings I have tended less to treat them as a reliable method of getting someone's attention. There's no need to make a big deal out of it anyway: now that I know you don't like people saying that at some point in the past you turned off pings, I'll just say
New Page Reviewer newsletter February 2020
Hello TonyBallioni,
- Source Guide Discussion
The first NPP source guide discussion is now underway. It covers a wide range of sources in Ghana with the goal of providing more guidance to reviewers about sources they might see when reviewing pages. Hopefully, new page reviewers will join others interested in reliable sources and those with expertise in these sources to make the discussion a success.
- Redirects
New to NPP? Looking to try something a little different? Consider patrolling some redirects. Redirects are relatively easy to review, can be found easily through the New Pages Feed. You can find more information about how to patrol redirects at WP:RPATROL.
- Discussions and Resources
- There is an ongoing discussion around changing notifications for new editors who attempt to write articles.
- A recent discussion of whether Michelin starred restraunts are notable was archived without closure.
- A resource page with links pertinent for reviewers was created this month.
- A proposal to increase the scope of G5 was withdrawn.
- Refresher
Geographic regions, areas and places generally do not need general notability guideline type sourcing. When evaluating whether an article meets this notability guideline please also consider whether it might actually be a form of WP:SPAM for a development project (e.g. PR for a large luxury residential development) and not actually covered by the guideline.
Six Month Queue Data: Today – 7095 Low – 4991 High – 7095
To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here
16:08, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
You've got mail!
Message added 18:24, 13 February 2020 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
A barnstar for you!
|
The Special Barnstar |
| Thank you for creating this essay. SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 07:10, 14 February 2020 (UTC) |
A bowl of strawberries for you!
|
For writing the essay Wikipedia:Don't cite bite. Thank you. I agree that BITE is one of the heavily misused article by both newcomers as well as editors with years of experience. DBigXrayᗙ 07:59, 14 February 2020 (UTC) |
Folks should certainly take a look at it before misusing BITE. --DBigXrayᗙ 08:00, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
@DBigXray: Under no circumstances, are you to ping me again.
Tony, this editor is starting to harass me and they know it. I never cited bite when I started an ANI discussion[2] on them. So why the hell are they mentioning me here except to harass and this editor has a history of it and been warned[3] never to do it again.
Again Xray you are not to ping me again under any circumstances. I will consider it harassment if you do....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:06, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
- William, In case you have forgot, here is the diff [4] Where you had claimed
What I see is Xray biting/harassing two editors unless they prove otherwise.... WilliamJE
. You claimed that the templating them was BITE and harassment, while none of those templated editors were noobs (one was here for Sixteen years and the other has been editing for 11 years), So clearly this was not a case of WP:BITE by a long shot, but then who cares, when the intention is to create an alphabet soup full of false allegations. --DBigXrayᗙ 11:15, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
- I went to that ANI report, saw that WilliamJE has accused Xray of sending a personal attack template and that there was no personal attack, then I randomly clicked on one of Yappy2bhere edit and it was a personal attack lol. The editor said
You're one sick puppy.
[5]. If this is not personal attack then what is this? (by talk page watcher).--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 11:40, 14 February 2020 (UTC)- That's a good find, SharʿabSalam▼, wonder why no one else bothered about it. Thanks for removing that. --DBigXrayᗙ 13:19, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
Tony, I ask that you block Xray for harassing me. He ignored the above warning not to ping me again[6]. On top of that, he refactored my ANI post. He also refactored[7] a 2nd time.
I will repeat again, Xray, you are not to ping me again under any circumstances and if you do it again it will be considered harassment....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:59, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
- You are not a neutral admin or a uninvolved ANI editor. let them handle the case and propose if they deem fit. --DBigXrayᗙ 13:00, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
JosefHe
There's a good chance that the JosefHe account that was trolling is a HarveyCarter sock, and might be worth a CU. Acroterion (talk) 16:47, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
- I wouldn't be shocked if it were, but since I just was on that talk page explaining to a long-term contributor that "evil" is how RS describe the actions of a certain Mr. Adolf Hitler and that NPOV does not require us to take a culturally relative view to plain English, I'd rather someone else look (maybe Berean Hunter or Bbb23 (no ping because I know he watches this page :p) TonyBallioni (talk) 16:50, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
- I'll check with Bbb23 - BH has been away for a while. Acroterion (talk) 16:52, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
- He can actually take a wikibreak. Unlike me, where it turns into my getting dragged into random stuff after getting an email. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:54, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
- You think we pay you zero bucks and you still get to take a vacation?! Bloody communists ... ——SN54129 16:57, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
- Don't you know that all Communists are just as evil as Hitler and thus Hitler isn't evil? (Context for any confused talk page watcher) TonyBallioni (talk) 16:59, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
- One would think that an ideology that is entirely based on the subjugation or elimination of other races would be an easy call, but it's not in some quarters. Acroterion (talk) 17:04, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
- Don't you know that all Communists are just as evil as Hitler and thus Hitler isn't evil? (Context for any confused talk page watcher) TonyBallioni (talk) 16:59, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
- You think we pay you zero bucks and you still get to take a vacation?! Bloody communists ... ——SN54129 16:57, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
- He can actually take a wikibreak. Unlike me, where it turns into my getting dragged into random stuff after getting an email. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:54, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
- I'll check with Bbb23 - BH has been away for a while. Acroterion (talk) 16:52, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
On the broader question of multiculturalism in morality/conceptions of right and wrong, the idea of absolute relative morality based on culture has grown out of fashion in academic circles that aren't anthropology departments even a decade ago, and by now even the anthropology departments might have caught up. There's a pretty good argument that humanity has a shared sense of right and wrong and that while cultural nuances exist, the overarching thread of practical ethics in terms of principles is the same for most human cultures. Cultural moral relativism was a late 90s/early 2000s fad that isn't really taken seriously by many anymore, but unfortunately it rears its head on the internet and by people taking gap years talking about the world in coffee shops.
In the particular case of whether or not Wikipedia should say in the article Adolf Hitler that his actions are nearly universally regarded as evil, the argument being raised now is that evil appears to be too loosely defined across cultures and that thus our description of Hitler's actions as such is imprecise. I don't find that particularly compelling because this is the English Wikipedia, and while it certainly has great value for ESL speakers, the primary people reading are going to be native English-speakers, who will have a shared cultural context of what the word "evil" means in this language.
We don't do anyone any favours by just describing the man's actions. Letting anyone who reads know that the world's judgement here is that his actions were the embodiment of evil is important, and getting lost in nuances of language or flawed theories from a few decades ago just help the people who think Hitler had the right idea. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:21, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
- CU blocked, at least we can recognize HC's new argument when we see it. Acroterion (talk) 18:39, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
question re discussion section
Hi, I saw that you are an admin who has closed some discussions at the Village Pump. is it possible for you to close my proposal, on the tab for proposals? it is the proposal for a community workspace. I think the discussion has run its course. There was no consensus in favor. I greatly appreciate your help. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 01:26, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
I was attacked
Dear TonyBallioni,
I have seen your effort on helping new users fighting against WP:BITE, I know I am in the right place were my right will not be violated again, I was attacked and insulted by a user in talk page that does not even belong to him or her. The user speaks very harsh on me, and made mention that my contribution is useless and blatant. I hope you will help to fight against WP:BITE. Anasskoko (talk) 06:42, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
Questions and update
Dear Tony Ballioni,
It has been a while since we have spoken and I want to know how you are doing and what is new. I see you are doing some very great work as always and it is always a pleasure seeing your admin nominees excel. As for me, it has been a rough and busy winter. I lost someone close to me and I have been very busy. I also do vacation quite a bit so that adds to the inactivity. I promise though that I am coming back to my full capabilities. A bright future is coming and I still absolutely love editing Wikipedia. I recently discovered CCI and am doing some work with reducing the backlog. AA88 is always here to help and if you need help with anything, just ask.
I have a few questions; If you recall, I had an unsuccessful RFA back in August and I am wondering how I can improve. You were an inspiration to me and helping me focus on improvement:
- Do you still recommend for me to change my name?
- What skills do I need to improve on?
As always, I really admire your work and if you need any help, just ask.
AmericanAir88(talk) 21:52, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
- Hi AmericanAir88, I wouldn’t say I recommend it, but you can if you want. My usual personal rule is if something is pointed out to me that it might make others uncomfortable or question its usefulness, I change what I do, but I also personally don’t see it that harmful of a name. That is to say, it’s up to you.I’ve just come back from a week of travel, so haven’t had much time to look at things. I’ll try to answer your second question next week. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:26, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
ping from Drmies' page
Hi, (leaving reply here since I don't want to upset Drimes). See also my notes about this at phab:T234743, I don't want to get in to a heated discussion about it. Short story of my understanding: there is an intermittent access issue bug with pending changes (specifically FlaggedRevs), here the same bug applies to sysops and non-sysop pending changes reviewers. Being a member of multiple groups that contain the review permission doesn't prevent you from hitting the bug. Membership in (or not in) checkuser or oversight is a red herring. — xaosflux Talk 19:10, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks. I understand that. Quickly reading over your comments there and what a few people were saying, I think you’re misreading them. Neither Doug or I were implying that access to CU/OS had any impact. I was more trying to point out how silly the FlaggedRevisions extension is that an IP can prevent an established user from editing, and it’s been that way for years. Basically Doug/me were using the terms socially and not technically. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:20, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
Hi, can I ask you about "(Changed protection level for "2020 Hanau shootings": switch to autoconfirmed only as this is so active right now". What does that mean, because when I look at the edit history the article was not that active at the time of protection, nor in the 24 hours prior to it? From what I can see there had been one instance of vandalism, a couple of minutes before you removed PC availability. Thanks. 31.52.164.55 (talk) 15:10, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
- There was too much editing activity for pending changes to work from a purely technical angle. It was preventing established editors from making edits because the FlaggedRevisions software sucks. I changed it as a purely technical change as it was already under PC but that was glitching so the only other option for maintaining protection is semi-protection.Basically pending changes is a royal nightmare on any article that gets more than one edit a week and for there to be any editing going on at all that doesn’t require people wasting time trying to figure out what’s going on it needed to be removed. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:25, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
- Well maybe you should unprotect it then. As I said, there is very little vandalism on it at the moment (actually there wasn't much when it was unprotected anyway), and the incident that it documents is now slipping into history. 31.52.164.55 (talk) 15:32, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
- JzG did the original protection. You should talk to him. Also, the fact that there’s been no documented issues since it’s been semi-protected isn’t really surprising due to the fact that semi-protection prevents that. I’m not saying you’re wrong, just that I’m not removing protection on an article that I made just as a technical measure because of a software glitch. The original protecting admin should be consulted. I don’t object to removing it, but when PC is bugging the only real option is to switch it to semi. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:46, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
- Background at Talk:Hanau shootings#Blocked already (I was the IP). I'll leave it. Thanks anyway for your replies. 31.52.164.55 (talk) 16:02, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
- JzG did the original protection. You should talk to him. Also, the fact that there’s been no documented issues since it’s been semi-protected isn’t really surprising due to the fact that semi-protection prevents that. I’m not saying you’re wrong, just that I’m not removing protection on an article that I made just as a technical measure because of a software glitch. The original protecting admin should be consulted. I don’t object to removing it, but when PC is bugging the only real option is to switch it to semi. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:46, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
- Well maybe you should unprotect it then. As I said, there is very little vandalism on it at the moment (actually there wasn't much when it was unprotected anyway), and the incident that it documents is now slipping into history. 31.52.164.55 (talk) 15:32, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
Discussion on the Draft namrespace
As a user who has expressed an interest in the Wikipedia:The future of NPP and AfC, you are invited to join a discussion at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Rethinking_draft_space. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:06, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
Un-deletion request
Hi TonyBallioni! I saw on 11 February you deleted the page for the song "It's Every Night Sis" as part of a mass deletion of pages created by a banned account. I believe the page qualifies for WP:N and had been thinking about creating the page myself before it was made—I'd now be happy to steward the article but would prefer to work using (what I think I remember being) a pretty good start article created by the banned user. Could we have that article un-deleted? —Shrinkydinks (talk) 18:49, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you! —Shrinkydinks (talk) 20:32, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
Socks
Do you know who غير مسجل12 and کژدوم are? They seem related to the sock farm at Morphem. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:30, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
- NinjaRobotPirate, yeah it's Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/مهیار مهرنیا. @Ladsgroup and Ahmad252: might be interested in it from a fa.wiki perspective. Normally that ISP plus entertainers is them, and there's a few other tells. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:47, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks, good to know. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:03, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks. Behavioral evidence is the same as well. I blocked them on fawiki and deleted all their pages. On a side note, I also requested global lock. Ahmadtalk 10:35, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks. I CU'ed the users and the ranges in hope to find something useful, everything is alreaby globally blocked it seems. Ladsgroupoverleg 00:06, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
You've got mail!
Message added 03:41, 29 February 2020 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Potential Bureaucrat?
Hello Mr. Tony,
I have seen your work here on Wikipedia as an administrator and so far I am satisfied with your results. I was wondering if you take it one step further and consider becoming a bureaucrat. I think you would be a great bureaucrat for our community. If you do, I'd be happy to draft a nomination statement if you desire. It's OK if you don't want to be one, I'm not forcing you to do anything. Anyway, thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Don't forget to ping me in your response. Interstellarity (talk) 22:32, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
- Not something I’m particularly interested in, and I think I’ve stepped on enough toes that I likely wouldn’t pass. Thanks for the thought, though. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:37, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
- @TonyBallioni: No worries. Interstellarity (talk) 23:25, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
- *cough* m:Stewards/Elections *cough* OhKayeSierra (talk) 00:33, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
- I have opinions and am a native English speaker. I’ve also been fairly critical of the culture among m:SWMT and how in many cases it’s an IRC clique of people who don’t understand the purpose of Wikimedia projects. I’d fall below 80% easy. Steward elections are a behind the scenes exercise in which language communities can canvass enough people to support or oppose given candidates, and there’d be at least one Asian language community opposed to me and canvassed on WhatsApp or what have you. On the plus side, I’ve been told ar.wiki likes me. Wouldn’t get me elected, but it’s nice to be liked. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:48, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
- *cough* m:Stewards/Elections *cough* OhKayeSierra (talk) 00:33, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
- @TonyBallioni: No worries. Interstellarity (talk) 23:25, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
In fairness, SWMT has turned into an IRC/Discord clique of sorts, but I certainly understand your reluctance to give it a shot. Steward elections have turned into a weird mix of a popularity contest/canvass-fest as you described, as well as a weighing of souls. Eugh. Also, how dare you have opinions or thoughts about things? 
OhKayeSierra (talk) 01:00, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
- I don't know. I was fairly controversial (sanctioned by ArbCom in 2006, which was a lot closer to 2014 than it is now - plus failing CU in 2013) and outspoken but I still got well above 80%. But I also had admin/OS on Wikidata, and admin on en.wikivoyage, and GS. --Rschen7754 01:20, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
- I was about to ask you the same question, Tony, but Interstellarity beat me to the punch! -- Dolotta (talk) 17:18, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
SPI
What are you on? Your 20th cup of coffee? Cleaning up the entire SPI world. Now, if you'd please clerk the backlog of open requests... --Bbb23 (talk) 21:26, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
- I'm delaying organizing my tax paperwork! Nothing like SPI for procrastination! TonyBallioni (talk) 21:27, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
- If we didn't pay you such a large salary, you wouldn't have any taxes to pay.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:32, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
- Should have had them send it to my offshore account. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:37, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
- If we didn't pay you such a large salary, you wouldn't have any taxes to pay.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:32, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) Ha ha... sounds like a less-than-fun day, trudging through SPIs and then having to do tax returns. Thanks as ever for the hard work, anyway! — Amakuru (talk) 21:29, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
- Heh, thanks :D TonyBallioni (talk) 21:37, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
New message from Bobherry
Message added 01:42, 2 March 2020 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Administrators' newsletter – March 2020
News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2020).
|
|
|
Guideline and policy news
- Following an RfC, the blocking policy was changed to state that sysops
must not
undo or alter CheckUser or Oversight blocks, rather thanshould not
. - A request for comment confirmed that sandboxes of established but inactive editors may not be blanked due solely to inactivity.
- Following an RfC, the blocking policy was changed to state that sysops
Technical news
- Following a discussion, Twinkle's default CSD behavior will soon change, most likely this week. After the change, Twinkle will default to "tagging mode" if there is no CSD tag present, and default to "deletion mode" if there is a CSD tag present. You will be able to always default to "deletion mode" (the current behavior) using your Twinkle preferences.
Miscellaneous
- Following the 2020 Steward Elections, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: BRPever, Krd, Martin Urbanec, MusikAnimal, Sakretsu, Sotiale, and Tks4Fish. There are a total of seven editors that have been appointed as stewards, the most since 2014.
- The 2020 appointees for the Ombudsman commission are Ajraddatz and Uzoma Ozurumba; they will serve for one year.
Thanks for prior assistance - Thomas & Friends and formatting vandal
Vandal 2601:81:C402:AD20:0:0:0:0/64 came back to vandalize as 135.180.75.159. Obviously, childish vandal got access to multiple provider IPs. Assistance very appreciated. Info posted here: WP:AIV. --2600:1700:C2A0:AF80:697C:ED3E:84AE:AAA7 (talk) 07:43, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
- Blocked by Materialscientist. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:47, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Just noting
BBB23's personal attack on the editor who trouted you was uncalled for. This isn't an isolated recent incident[8] from this administrator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:25, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
- I don’t really consider that a personal attack. I didn’t mind the thing because it’s a weird habit on Wikipedia, but my view of it as a tradition is close to Bbb23’s. It’s a kinda dumb internet thing. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:57, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
- BBB23 said in his edit summary 'in good faith but childish and unnecessary'. He called someone's edit childish. And the other edit I linked to was criticized by multiple editors. He's called editors disruptive and childish and multiple members of the community find this objectionable but you don't?...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:43, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
- I think trouting is fairly childish, yes. That’s not a personal attack. I just don’t think the practice adds anything constructive. I don’t usually complain about it, because it’s an accepted part of internet culture especially around these parts, but I don’t fault Bbb23 for his views on it. I also find the recent trend of people thinking administrators accurately describing disruptive behaviour as such as being abusive to be fairly troubling. Bbb23 is blunt, usually blunter than me, but he’s almost always spot on in his assessment of situations and accurate when he describes them. People need to lay off him. He’s one of the best sysops we have. That’s all I’m going to say on this matter. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:10, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) People need to learn to differentiate from someone expressing an unvarnished opinion/fact vs personal attack. Opining that trouting is a childish practice falls under the former. Me responding to some sovereign citizen fringe pushing troll who asks me why I am being mean to him with; "because if ignorance were a virtue I'd be collecting your toe nail clippings as holy relics" falls under the latter. Beyond which folks need to toughen up a little bit. There's probably close to a half million people who make some sort of an edit on here every month or so. Some of them just don't come with sugar coated keyboards. True attacks need to be dealt with. People just tellin it like they see it is part of the landscape. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:59, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
- ↑This. Exactly this. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:05, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) People need to learn to differentiate from someone expressing an unvarnished opinion/fact vs personal attack. Opining that trouting is a childish practice falls under the former. Me responding to some sovereign citizen fringe pushing troll who asks me why I am being mean to him with; "because if ignorance were a virtue I'd be collecting your toe nail clippings as holy relics" falls under the latter. Beyond which folks need to toughen up a little bit. There's probably close to a half million people who make some sort of an edit on here every month or so. Some of them just don't come with sugar coated keyboards. True attacks need to be dealt with. People just tellin it like they see it is part of the landscape. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:59, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
- I think trouting is fairly childish, yes. That’s not a personal attack. I just don’t think the practice adds anything constructive. I don’t usually complain about it, because it’s an accepted part of internet culture especially around these parts, but I don’t fault Bbb23 for his views on it. I also find the recent trend of people thinking administrators accurately describing disruptive behaviour as such as being abusive to be fairly troubling. Bbb23 is blunt, usually blunter than me, but he’s almost always spot on in his assessment of situations and accurate when he describes them. People need to lay off him. He’s one of the best sysops we have. That’s all I’m going to say on this matter. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:10, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
- BBB23 said in his edit summary 'in good faith but childish and unnecessary'. He called someone's edit childish. And the other edit I linked to was criticized by multiple editors. He's called editors disruptive and childish and multiple members of the community find this objectionable but you don't?...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:43, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Arbitration case opened
In 2018, you offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has now accepted that request for arbitration, and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Jytdog. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Jytdog/Evidence. Please add your evidence by March 23, 2020, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Jytdog/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.
All content, links, and diffs from the original ARC and the latest ARC are being read into the evidence for this case.
The secondary mailing list is in use for this case: arbcom-en-b@wikimedia.org
For the Arbitration Committee, CThomas3 (talk) 17:09, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
ARCA Notice
You are involved in a recently-filed request for clarification or amendment from the Arbitration Committee. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Amendment request: Genetically modified organisms and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the Wikipedia:Arbitration guide may be of use.
Thanks,
Space Relations
Hello TonyBallioni, I noticed that you recently deleted the page Space Relations due to its creation by a blocked editor. I was wondering if there is any way to recover that article. I thought about just doing it myself, but am not fully familiar with any guidelines or regulations concerning such an action. I am still a relatively new editor. Thanks. ~ HAL333 01:13, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
Request
Today I Requested a Pending changes reviewer on Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Pending changes reviewer .Please see [[9]].and granted Permission pending changes reviewer. (Thanks for taking) Vivek ji123 (talk)10:58Am,23 March2020 (UTC). Sir you gave other User rights but didn't see My request.I am Correctly say your selfish.
- I started at the middle of the page and worked up. I’m a volunteer like everyone else. Calling me selfish is also pretty much a guaranteed way to get me not to look at the request. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:35, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
- I've declined the request. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:53, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
You've got mail!
Message added 17:58, 24 March 2020 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Whoa
Someone has too much time on their hands. Drmies (talk) 22:05, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
What can i do with user that continuously made disruptive editing?
Hi TonyBallioni. Can you give some input? I am very disturbed by the edits made by User:Fahrurozi.86. Based on the contributions of these user, i have tried to tell him not to add country flag next to the year based on WP: MOSFLAG, but he ignored that and continuously made that disruptive editing. Especially on the page that was recently created by the user, the user added references that did not cite or not related to the article. (ex: 1, 2, there is no relationship between the title of the articles and the reference). I already gave warning level 2 in February 2020, for not doing factual verification and try to find reliable sources while editing in Wikipedia, and in March, i asked the user to read the WP:V, WP:NOR and for awhile to stop creating articles before the user understand that guidelines. I also suspect that User:Fahrurozi.86 contributing in Wikipedia with this IP 103.81.134.19, based on user editing style, log in and log out. Can i doing mass revert for user contributions that does not in accordance with Wikipedia policy? Stvbastian (talk) 20:07, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
- Hi Stvbastian, if an editor continues to behave disruptively after attempts to resolve the issue on their talk page, raising the issue at WP:ANI is usually the correct way forward. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:24, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi Tony,
I saw Drmies' post on WP:AN about this article. I had a look through the history for BLPVIO diffs and found a number needing revdel. List is below. (I'll add to it as I find them. Blackmane (talk) 06:14, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
- Blackmane: handled. For the ones I suppressed, best to email those in :) TonyBallioni (talk) 20:21, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
- Would those edits rise to the level of needing oversighting though? IMO revdel would have been sufficient, but YMMV Blackmane (talk) 11:10, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
- Blackmane: anything that has the potential to be libelous gets suppressed. We generally interpret that broadly, but without going into details, two of the links were things that are basically auto-suppression. The third you could argue but my view is that anything accusing someone of being a criminal is libelous and falls under the suppression criteria. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:20, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
- Fair enough, I'll keep that in mind. Cheers Blackmane (talk) 00:53, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
- Blackmane: anything that has the potential to be libelous gets suppressed. We generally interpret that broadly, but without going into details, two of the links were things that are basically auto-suppression. The third you could argue but my view is that anything accusing someone of being a criminal is libelous and falls under the suppression criteria. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:20, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
- Would those edits rise to the level of needing oversighting though? IMO revdel would have been sufficient, but YMMV Blackmane (talk) 11:10, 29 March 2020 (UTC)