User talk:TonyBallioni/Archive 37

Archive 30

←

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

Archive 38

Archive 39

Archive 40

CommanderWaterford

Hey Tony, You recently indeffed CommanderWaterford per CIR, 79.67.78.175 has left a message on CWs talkpage asking for him to be unblocked,
Not sure if it was worth doing an SPI so thought I'd let you know instead (I can still file one if needed), Many thanks, Regards, –Davey2010^Talk 14:44, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

also see this Praxidicae (talk) 14:51, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

RevDelete request

Hi Tony -- Would you RevDelete the abusive edit on Talk:White privilege that I just reverted? Thanks. NightHeron (talk) 20:47, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Tony (or others) can of course disagree, but I don't think that particular edit really needs to be revdeled. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:05, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Request for comment relating to an unblock request

Hi, Tony. A year ago you put a hard block without talk page access on an editor called "Merge8productions". (Block log, User talk:Merge8productions). The editor had been extremely uncooperative and unconstructive in relation to an earlier soft block, and your escalation of the block was totally necessary. The editor has now made an unblock request at UTRS, and is expressing a much more cooperative attitude, and accepting that their earlier behaviour was unacceptable. It was a year ago, and I am very much inclined to give the editor another chance, on the understanding, of course, that any more unhelpful editing will lead to the block being restored. Do you have any comment to make? JBW (talk) 10:22, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

JBW, no real thoughts. Don’t remember the block, to be honest. My general comment on these is that I prefer appeals not be directly granted in UTRS, but prefer that TPA be restored so the appeal is public. No objections to unblocking generally. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:02, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I didn't expect you to remember the block after a year, but even in that situation I almost always ask, just in case the blocking administrator knows something relevant that I don't know. I agree with you about restoring TPA rather than granting an unblock on UTRS, unless there are special reasons for making an exception,which in this case there aren't, as far as I can see. I'll follow that route. JBW (talk) 21:33, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

IP 2605:6440:4002:0:0:0:0:A50

Hi TonyBallioni. Seems like a case of WP:QUACK per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nawab Afridi, but the IP has made only one edit so far and perhaps they just wanted to get that rant off their chest and won't be coming back. I removed the talk page post, but I'm wondering if you'd mind watching the page for a bit just in case they do decide to come back. It's probably not worth the trouble of a block after just one edit. The article is protected until mid-October and they won't be able to edit it until the protection expires, but they try and make themselves a bit of nuisance on the talk page. FWIW, I'm asking you since you were the last admin to block one of these socks and you also protected the page. It seems a bit pointless at this point to start a SPI about this after only one edit, but I can if you think it's warranted. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:13, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Revdel request

Hello, TonyBallioni. Please check your email; you've got mail!
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.

Schazjmd (talk) 15:17, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! Schazjmd (talk) 16:07, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

You're right

I misread the language, sorry. Lev!vich 17:39, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

No problem :) And thanks for posting here. Saves me a post on the talk page! TonyBallioni (talk) 17:40, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

I tried self-reverting but you beat me to it. Actually, I never realized that "the 24 hour rule" applied to all sanctions discussions and not just site bans. Learn something new every day! Cheers, Lev!vich 17:52, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Adding Copyrighted Images

@TonyBallioni: Hey Tony! - I'm hoping all is well. I have several images that I am hoping to include as part of the Wikipedia page I am creating. They do not belong to me, nor have I uploaded them to Wikipedia Commons. I have, however, contacted the owner of these photos and he is willing to grant permission (for their use on Wikipedia). I've read through much of the information re: uploading copyrighted material and how to proceed, but I'm still mostly unsure which is the best way to proceed. Should he use the Interactive Release Generator? Should he upload his photos to Flickr and, from there, I'd be able to use them? Should he use the Declaration of consent form? Any advice would be greatly appreciated. Thank you, kindly.

Ryan (Ryancoke2020 (talk) 21:28, 16 August 2020 (UTC))

(talk page stalker) Hi Ryan, the easiest thing to do is use the Interactive Release Generator - it generates a declaration of consent based on what the image donor inputs. It's simple to use and lets the donor send the release directly to OTRS. I walked a PR guy through it once for an image he donated and had no issues. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:33, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

An image released only for Wikipedia use isn't allowed, though, is it? These images surely must be released with a licence at least as free as CC BY-SA - effectively releasing them to everyone for reuse with modification. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:40, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Oh, I assumed when he said "for their use on Wikipedia" and was talking about Commons and the release generator he meant uploading them under an appropriate free license. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:04, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

It might mean a full release suitable for Commons, but I have come across quite a few new editors who ask copyright holders if we can use an image on Wikipedia without actually understanding our requirements. Best to be sure. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:36, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Learning about how admins shall handle this case

Hi TonyBallioni,

You withdrawn your support and says "Can’t support after Q10, unfortunately. Sorry. " on en:Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Chongkian, I am reading through Q10 and I don't understand why that's not a good answer for what an admin shall do. Can you help me better understand what a good/qualified admin in this case are generally supposed to do? I hope one day I can gain CIR to apply for adminship as well. Thank you in advance xinbenlv ^{Talk, Remember to "ping" me} 16:46, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Something seems fishy about this user:

• Bretieni

They have only made a few edits to AfD and RfD and that seems pretty much it. I do not know if this is WP:SOCK or whether this is a newbie trying to learn the deletion process. I am trying to AGF, but I do not know how to coach this user or something... can you maybe find a way to welcome the user? If I made a mistake, let me know as well :) Aasim 05:35, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

+1 @Awesome Aasim: that quite uncommon, the user seem to know "procedural close" within their <20 edits. Have you reached out to the user themselves? I assume an user who knows procedural close will also hear about WP:SOCK and the need of disclosure. xinbenlv ^{Talk, Remember to "ping" me} 17:35, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Xinbenlv, gave them {{subst:Uw-agf-sock}}. We'll see how they respond. Aasim 17:38, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Block evasion?

Hi TonyBallioni. Earlier this month, you checkuser-blocked the user TikTokJournalist. One of their articles, Draft:Jeshua Oneal, has been recreated by an IP editor. Is this a case of block evasion? --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 16:02, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Drm310, the two versions aren't substantially similar. Five bucks says two different UPEs. GeneralNotability (talk) 16:40, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Possible Sockpuppetry alert

TonyBallioni and IamNotU I know I am banned and not sure this violates by ban on here as I did create a new account I apologise but I think this guy is back https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Zorro544/Archive

He used the same references and puts in the same piechart on the pages he was involved in before and even reverted my edit old edit on my azeri account so I think the following accounts are from zoro plus all of these account have been created recently or after zoro was caught and its the same pages he edited before:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Aldo_fitla

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Hommenoir91

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Stemafia111

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/89.80.96.255

TonyBallioni Do I get in trouble for doing this I am sorry if I am. Arsi7862 Arsi7862 (talk) 06:17, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

I made another account to revert the vandalism edits you can block my account Arsi7863 (talk) 18:04, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Sure, but please stop recreating accounts. I’d prefer to unblock you in 6 months rather than keep blocking you. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:13, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

W R Brown

You declined unblock at User talk:W R Brown, but it looks like the user had two identical unblock requests open at the same time. Safe to assume we can decline the second request based on your first decline? only (talk) 10:18, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Ah, yes. I only looked at the first one I saw on my screen! TonyBallioni (talk) 11:53, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks

Sir, I am thankful for my unblock. Best regards RAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 10:45, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Sir, Please do/advise something about this template https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:RAJIVVASUDEV. Regards RAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 10:16, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) As you are now unblocked, it would be fine for you to remove that template yourself. I've done it for you now. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:43, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

@RAJIVVASUDEV: I'll just add that if you want to remove all the block/unblock templates (and any other old discussions) from your talk page, you are free to do that too. It might help you with a clean start. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:46, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

@Boing! said Zebedee Thanks for the help.RAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 13:03, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Arameans article

Hello there, could you please take a look at Arameans article from time to time due to countless edit warrings with a group of national vandalists, such as user Mugsalot, who have successfully established themselves here on English Wikipedia by spreading POV editing. This has been going for the last couple of years. Permanently violating Wikipedia's policy instead of being a neutral encyclopedia, welcoming high-quality academic sources even if it doesn't fit these people's views, which shouldn't matter here. Many thanks in advance. --Optra2021 (talk) 08:59, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

[1] ——Serial 10:16, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Hommenoir91 / Zorro544

Hi, thanks for your explanation on RoySmith's talk page. Some of the ways of tagging socks are still a little mysterious to me...

You may have seen this: User talk:Hommenoir91#Block evasion, Hommenoir91 / Zorro544 is suggesting that Zaytunkhatub (talk · contribs) is a sock of Arsi768. I don't have time at the moment to look closely at the editing patterns, but just wanted to point out that Zorro544 had previously tried to use their own socks to frame Arsi768. Here, as one of their socks (TurkishMapper) accusing another (MuhammadxHusayn) of being Arsi768:[2], and here as Hashashi9 accusing actual Arsi768 sock Straubook, but then adding their own sock ChechenWarrior: [3].

So, I'm not sure at the moment who Zaytunkhatub is, but it's just as likely to be Zorro544 as Arsi768. --IamNotU (talk) 12:55, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

IamNotU, yeah, that's Arsi786. See also my recent blocks, for a list of all the accounts. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:34, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Well that's disappointing. I thought Arsi786 had smartened up. So they're both coming to you to snitch on each others' socks, while continuing to knit their own? Battling sock farmers! Sounds like the latest phone game... --IamNotU (talk) 21:07, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

I am sorry guys I swear this will be tge last time all of these accounts besides zaytun and other one was after our discusstion the others were all from last month before our recebt discusstion.

I swear on god this will be the last time of my sockpupperty and if I ever do that 6 months thing I will request for a check user on my account as proof as I haven't been doung sockpuppetry and I will start doing wiki news on commons as it seems like its something I would enjoy.

I swear the next time you will see me on english wikipedia will be 6 months from now. @IamNotU: and @TonyBallioni: I would probably be back if zoro is back but I won't be behind a sockpuppet. Arsi7864 (talk) 08:30, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

And then an hour later you do this: [4]. Seriously? That's the last straw for me. You're clearly unable to control yourself. --IamNotU (talk) 11:37, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

IamNotU @IamNotU: Last edit plus that wasn't sockpuppetry anyways that zorro guy should also be banned he violated the rules twice on sockpuppetry he created at least 5 accounts then he got blocked then he returned again with 3 or 4 accounts new accounts then he got blocked but not banned anyways I am done see you hopefully in 6 to 7 months. Anyways I saw what you said about me with zorro he aint a angel the arab barometer poll he loves using is pov pushing as that survey literally says these countries are 99% muslim except for egypt and lebanon as they have a high christian population check the talk page on religion in tunisia but here is the link https://arabbarometer-online.com/online.jsp?collection=11&ref=MjAxOTQ2NzI1Mjg%3D#.Xx8i8-xWKy4 anyways bye. Arsi7864 (talk) 12:23, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Deletion of MediaWiki:Offline.css

Hi TonyBallioni, You have deleted MediaWiki:Offline.css. This is mandatory for a proper rendering of the offline Wikipedia. Therefore we have a problem now. Would you be able to restore please or if not to point me to the discussion/rationals behind this decision? Thank you in advance for your help. Kelson (talk) 12:56, 1 September 2020 (UTC) @Docjames, Nemo bis, and Bluerasberry: Kelson (talk) 12:56, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Propose undeletion pending discussion. The deletion was tagged as noncontroversial when discussion first is the norm. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:07, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

@Kelson and Bluerasberry: talk to Primefac about it. I did procedurally as an IntAdmin at his request on the understanding that the underlying page it relied on no longer existed (So really should have been G8, I guess.) TonyBallioni (talk) 13:27, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

@Primefac: What are the rationals behind your request? This is breaking a lot of things, a quick action would be appreciated! Kelson (talk) 13:31, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

At this discussion it was mentioned by Xaosflux that the .css could be deleted following the template deletion. Since this is apparently incorrect I suppose the page should be restored. Primefac (talk) 16:50, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Hmmm.. @Primefac: thanks for the note, though I'd be interested to hear where this is a problem? Without that template, what is still invoking a class that needs to style content that the TfD discussion basically said didn't need to be styled? — xaosflux ^Talk 16:59, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

@Kelson: I suppose you would have the examples? — xaosflux ^Talk 17:00, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

@Xaosflux: "Template:OnlyOffline" is needed to have something displayed only on offline version of Wikipedia. "Mediawiki:offline" is a stylesheet which is applied to any offline Wikipedia article. Wheither used or not (at some point it was used and it might be used in the future), the template is not there, it is not possible anymore to do that. For the stylesheet, AFAIK there was a few rules to do specific things but here again everything erased so not history and no way for me to recreate it. I'm a strong supporter to clean unused things but here you went a bit too far and I would really appreciate your restore these two pages. What wonders me a bit is that you have been specifically warned about the problem during the discussion, but still went through to the deletion. Kelson (talk) 16:31, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

@Kelson: so I'm a bit lost here - please provide an example of a page that is not working here on the English Wikipedia? If you are referring to an off-site resource, they should manage their own style sheets. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:44, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

@Xaosflux: Yes "offline" means "off-site". There was no problem AFAIK, 3 volunteers at least explained to you there is a problem. You don't really get it, but you still explain to me how we should work to avoid the problem you created. Now all of this is going to take hours and hours of discussion... why? Next episode tomorrow. Kelson (talk) 17:46, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

@Kelson: so if some non-Wikipedia site is having some problem, it's not really our problem. The contents of that page were literally:

.onlyoffline {
display:inline !important;
}

but also, I'm not aware that we are even declaring that class on any of our pages, so where would that even be used (please point to a page if it exists)? If an external site is injecting their own classes into our content, they can provide their own styling for their class as well. If you are here to argue that we should maintain, and actually use Template:OnlyOffline you can take that up with the others because that is a much bigger argument that I haven't been involved in at all. — xaosflux ^Talk 18:05, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) I'm assuming this breaks something to do with [Kiwix] or WP:1 (Kelson is named on the latter page). That... isn't our problem at all, and Kiwix/WP 1.0 should consume Wikipedia as-is instead of asking us to maintain workarounds. -- a ^{they/them | argue | contribs} 18:25, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2020).

Administrator changes

Eddie891

Angela • Jcw69 • Just Chilling • Philg88 • Viajero

CheckUser changes

SQL

Guideline and policy news

• Following a request for comment, the minimum length for site ban discussions was increased to 72 hours, up from 24.
• A request for comment is ongoing to determine whether paid editors must or should use the articles for creation process.
• A request for comment is open to resolve inconsistencies between the draftification and alternative to deletion processes.

Arbitration

• A request for comment is open to provide an opportunity to amend the structure, rules, and procedures of the 2020 English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee election and to resolve any issues not covered by existing rules.
• An open request for comment asks whether active Arbitrators may serve on the Trust and Safety Case Review Committee or Ombudsman commission.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:57, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

I 82 I

As you may know, I welcomed the user, and in response, they said that they are not new. User page design and knowledge of procedures support that. I checked the list of missed friends (of the "... or have just given up" kind) but nothing turned up. All I know is that I didn't see anything "disruptive" in their editing. The collapsing of a section with a non-neutral belittling header offended me also. It's only my stubborn abstinence from that kind of discussions preventing me to interfer. The calculation that when you wrote 50 FAs you are entitled to do such a thing hurts me as well, but same. Moxy has it right. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:38, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

70.49.251.168

user:70.49.251.168 is abusing her talkpage. CLCStudent (talk) 13:51, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

CLCStudent, sorted. Glen (talk) 13:58, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the wikibreak. I appreciate it. ◊PRAHLAD^balaji (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 20:24, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Rename request & courtesy vanishing

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I have chosen to ban myself from this website indefinitely due to an indiscretion that I made. The mistake was completely unintentional and not malevolent, but it doesn't seem like it was taken that way, and people's feelings seemed to have been hurt, so I will no longer edit. I completely misread the names of and mixed up two people that I shouldn't have. I have apologized.

Before I do leave, I'd like for my name to be changed and my account to thereafter be vanished, please. I put in a request via email, but it was rejected due to a duplicate request. I've tried contacting several renamers, but it's become a very complex issue. I would like to let bygones be bygones in this case. Had my mistake been intentional and maleficent, I would completely understand the seeming disputes between editors to have my account renamed. Is there any way for you or another administrator to manually get this done or to look over my request, please? Factfanatic1 (talk) 17:03, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Cuties

Hi there. I see you have protected Cuties for violations of BLP policy, but the page in question is not a BLP. While I don't intend to point fault I would be interested in hearing why this was done, in case there is something I have missed. Naleksuh (talk) 05:54, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) While it's mainly about biographical articles, the very first sentence of WP:BLP says "Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page" (emphasis original). So protections under WP:BLP can be applied to any page on which information about living people is being abused. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:38, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

I suppressed a lot of information on that page, and usually most admins know that a BLP protection with a ton of gray lines means that the protection was because of suppressed material. We try not to call attention to issues involving the oversight policy. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:27, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

@Boing! said Zebedee: Ah okay, so BLP policies is more "any information about living persons" rather than an actual BLP page?

@TonyBallioni: I am sorry if any undue attention was called to Oversighted material, I was just wondering about the page. I have no objections to this topic being removed either if it is a problem. Naleksuh (talk) 00:44, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Naleksuh, BLP applies on every page on Wikipedia. No worries about asking about it. It’s difficult for non-admins to tell if something is suppressed. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:38, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

@Naleksuh: Exactly. The "BLP" name is a little misleading, and I suspect it originated as something specifically about biographies before being extended. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 05:29, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

The BLP policy sprang from the Seigenthaler incident in the ancient days of 2005. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:19, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Aha, interesting, thanks. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:56, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Cuties

Hi there. I see you have protected Cuties for violations of BLP policy, but the page in question is not a BLP. While I don't intend to point fault I would be interested in hearing why this was done, in case there is something I have missed. Naleksuh (talk) 05:54, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) While it's mainly about biographical articles, the very first sentence of WP:BLP says "Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page" (emphasis original). So protections under WP:BLP can be applied to any page on which information about living people is being abused. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:38, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

I suppressed a lot of information on that page, and usually most admins know that a BLP protection with a ton of gray lines means that the protection was because of suppressed material. We try not to call attention to issues involving the oversight policy. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:27, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

@Boing! said Zebedee: Ah okay, so BLP policies is more "any information about living persons" rather than an actual BLP page?

@TonyBallioni: I am sorry if any undue attention was called to Oversighted material, I was just wondering about the page. I have no objections to this topic being removed either if it is a problem. Naleksuh (talk) 00:44, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Naleksuh, BLP applies on every page on Wikipedia. No worries about asking about it. It’s difficult for non-admins to tell if something is suppressed. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:38, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

@Naleksuh: Exactly. The "BLP" name is a little misleading, and I suspect it originated as something specifically about biographies before being extended. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 05:29, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

The BLP policy sprang from the Seigenthaler incident in the ancient days of 2005. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:19, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Aha, interesting, thanks. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:56, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Request for uninvolved administrative assistance

Hi TonyBallioni, I have come across a situation that could use the eyes of an uninvolved administrator. In the process of reviewing an RfC closure that I made as an uninvolved administrator on the page People's Mujahedin of Iran, I noticed that a prominent quote appears severely misquoted or potentially made up. Unfortunately, the page is under a consensus-required restriction authorized by community general sanctions, so I fear I cannot unilaterally remove the quote. Could you review this and advise and/or take proper action as an uninvolved administrator? Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 01:09, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello, L235, I’m not sure there is anything I can do as an uninvolved administrator, but if you want my advice as an editor who has been active for a while and is familiar with sanctions I can give it. I would remove the text because WP:V is the ultimate content policy, and general sanctions are not designed to allow unverifiable text to overrule V. While I ordinarily would not recommend this approach in a GS/DS regime, if you are of the view that there’s significant doubt as to the authenticity of the source WP:IAR and then seeking review on the talk page seems to be the best way to go. I’ll go ahead and do it if you’re concerned because of closing the RfC, though I think it would have been fine for you to remove as well. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:25, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for keeping an eye on the article, guys! El_C 01:31, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Indeed. El_C and myself have been the only administrators seriously monitoring that horrid mess for a while, and so any assistance is appreciated. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:35, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

FYI

Hello TonyBallioni, few arwiki sysops told me that TheEagle107 is a sock (behaviorally confirmed) to this master. As Bbb23 now retired, so if you can deal with it, or at least pass to other enwiki CUs please. Thanks in advance --Alaa :)..! 17:03, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello, علاء, if any of them speak English could you have them file an WP:SPI with diffs? That case is old and I’m not familiar with it, so having some things to compare would be helpful. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:46, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

TonyBallioni, yes of course. Thanks for the reply and clarification. Best --Alaa :)..! 20:35, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

That Zorro guy is back again

I also have stopped sock-puppetry you can check to I have a suspicion these three accounts are Zorro's account he or she loves making pie charts especially in religion in turkey and both dogan and hossein seem like diversion accounts something he or she also did in the past like with chechenwarrior and all of tgese accounts were made a few days ago and are inactive after their edits but here IamNotU can check to:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/ShamilAzeri https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Hosseinxxx1945 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Dogan2000

Btw I had to make this account I can't tag others from my main account when I tried it before. Arsi78602 00:22, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Appeal

Hi Tony, this is Biografer. I appealed the block six months after as Mishae and got denied by @Yamla: I am at a loss of what to do. I have tried everything. I know that by writing this to you I evading a block but I have no other options as you see. I waited 2 years - didn't got unblocked. I waited 6 more months after evading a block and appealed - same result. I followed all your suggestions of waiting six months and appealing - nothing. What am I doing wrong?--170.135.241.45 (talk) 16:09, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

ARE length

TB, I guess I can trim things down. Is it the initial post or the total post that needs to be under 500? I think it's hard to keep the total thing under 500 when you have people making claims that take a bit of unwinding. Regardless, I'm thinking about suggesting a voluntary 1RR on all AP2 topics until at least after the election. That will hopefully address concerns about my own editing. I would request that some of the disputed topics are changes to say consensus required since I think the core issue is questions related to consensus once a change is challenged. I understand if you only reply to the technical question here. Thanks Springee (talk) 01:42, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Hey, sorry, I didn’t mean to be snippy there—it’s just really hard to review all the statements when they’re much longer than 500 words. I think it’s reasonable for there to be (short) replies if admins ask you questions or there’s something negative said about you, but the idea is to make it so admins have a summary of your take on the issue, not a detailed analysis of every aspect. I haven’t followed AP2 that closely recently, but if it’s anything like real life, I’m sure there’s a lot of frustration there generally and things will be heated until the election, so some sort of action might be warranted. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:48, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I understand the importance of brevity (even if I rarely achieve it). I think I can hat the whole Dave Rubin topic as no one seems to think it matters to the discussion. That should help. Still, I think a 1RR restriction may be coming so I would rather self impose than have one imposed (if I have the choice). BTW, I don't think AP2 is much worse since I generally stay out of the Trump, Russia investigations etc. I don't know how people do Brexit or Trump related topics! It makes me want to stick to low confrontation topics like gun control :D Springee (talk) 01:59, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Protection request

For whatever reason the page Richard Douglass seems to have become the target of vandals.--Pokelova (talk) 11:50, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

While you're at it, Matt Heath (actor) has also been a target for several years, presumably by his own fans.--Pokelova (talk) 13:30, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

CheckUser request: ItsPugle and I-82-I

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

No CU is going to run a check based on a single closure. Also CU's user talk pages are not the place for sockpuppet allegations, SPI is. Since Tony is away more, I'm taking the liberty of shutting this down for him. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 18:27, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

---

Hi Tony, you have banned I-82-I before, I suspect ItsPugle is the same person. This user has just merged Exclusive economic zone of Australia with Exclusive economic zone#Australia (by creating a redirect) without getting any support in the talk page. This guy started the merge proposal on 2 August 2020, the proposal received no attention from the community. On 14 August 2020, I-82-I (the sock puppet) came and pledged its support for his proposal, just two days before the discussion was scheduled to be closed due to a lack of participation from the community. On 16 August 2020, exactly 14 days after the initial proposal was lodged, the sock puppet closed the discussion and manually created a redirect by deleting the whole article, which is exactly the same method used by ItsPugle this time. This looks like a planned action, a one-man show orchestrated by a sockmaster. What makes this user look even more suspicious is the fact that he has persistently defended I-82-I in the talk page. Please restore the article Exclusive economic zone of Australia and conduct a sock puppetry investigation against ItsPugle. Thanks. 2001:8003:9008:1301:DC36:B4D7:206:9C58 (talk) 09:17, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

I'll save you the time (though I'm sure you'll do a CU anyways) and just tell you that I'm not a sock. The merge had 14 days with no reply, then it got a support !vote from I-82-I, who then proceeded to close it and merge the content. A couple weeks later, during which there was no objections or comments about the merge, it was discovered that they were a sock puppet and their !vote and closure was reversed, which has left us here with a few anons trying to keep the article because "someone might add more content later". I may have been unreasonably bold in re-redirecting the article, but the entire discussion is so trivial and has so many flawed arguments with no actual justified or reasonable 'arguments' (in my view) to keep the EEZ of Australia article. Also, to this IP, you redirect articles by replacing the article with #REDIRECT [[destination article]] - all content was already covered in the master EEZ article, no content was purged from WP. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 09:49, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Your action was very childish. Why you've always turned a blind eye to other people's comments while keep repeating your "reasonable arguments" even though they had already been refuted many times? 2001:8003:9008:1301:DC36:B4D7:206:9C58 (talk) 10:13, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Your most recent reply is the first time that you've engaged with reason, so yes, I have turned a blind eye to the plethora of logical fallacies that you've expressed. Anyways, if you think I'm being unduly disruptive, feel free to report me to the ANI rather than bugging this administrator for a CU that's going to be negative. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 10:46, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Because you look suspicious to me. The fact that you have kept an eye on the talk page of an admin who had blocked I-82-I (a proven sock puppet which may or may not be related to you) makes you look even more suspicious. 2001:8003:9008:1301:DC36:B4D7:206:9C58 (talk) 12:35, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

You literally notified me by linking to my user page. Also, as this CU is on a wikibreak and alleged sock puppetry is time sensitive (when it's actually occurring), so you're best to report this to WP:FUNC by email. or to another CU on-wiki. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 02:21, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cryptopia

Can you restore Cryptopia as a draft?

Here are RSs from after the liquidation announcement which weren't in the article and not considered during the AfD.[5]

• May 24, 2019 "New Zealand Crypto Firm Hacked to Death, Seeks U.S. Bankruptcy" Bloomberg
• May 27, 2019 "Cryptopia cofounder stands by new venture, says failed company was 'like Game of Thrones'" The New Zealand Herald
• May 27, 2019 "US court hands Cryptopia bankruptcy protections" Stuff
• May 28, 2019 "How New Zealand company Cryptopia lost over $20 million from a hack" The Spinoff
• May 31, 2019 "Cryptopia first liquidators report shows it owes more than $4.2m" Stuff
• June 5, 2019 "Cryptopia liquidator knocks-back international buyer Stuff
• June 10, 2019 "Investors with tens of thousands in Cryptopia waiting for information" Stuff
• July 17, 2019 "Cryptopia boss blames former shareholder for company problems" Stuff
• December 13, 2019 "Liquidators retrieve Cryptopia customer info from Arizona" Radio New Zealand
• December 17, 2019 "Cryptopia heist: Cops update, liquidators ask court to rule on key question" The New Zealand Herald
• February 8, 2020 "Sabotage or theft? Inside the $24m Cryptopia heist" Stuff
• February 11, 2020 "Cryptopia anti-money laundering compliance issues revealed to court" Radio New Zealand
• April 9, 2020 "Cryptopia liquidation: Judge rules bitcoin is property The New Zealand Herald
• June 15, 2020 "$30m Cryptopia heist: Liquidators wheel out the heavy artillery" The New Zealand Herald
• July 21, 2020 "Tech firm caught in $20m Cryptopia hack takes legal aim at liquidators" Newshub
• July 24, 2020 "Controversial businessman recruiting Cryptopia victims for class action" Stuff

So I can add significant details of the liquidation / bankruptcy proceedings to the article. Would you agree that the article won't be worthy of speedy deletion if I improve it based off all this? Ҥ (talk) 22:38, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Ҥ, see Draft:Cryptopia. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:09, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Revdel?

Hi Tony, maybe this edit summary can be revdel'd [6]. Thanks!--Ermenrich (talk) 00:59, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

 Done TonyBallioni (talk) 01:38, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Secret City

The page Secret City (book) has been extended confirmed user protected as part of protection of discussion of Polish-Jewish relations generally. I am the author of that book, and the page completely misrepresents it. First of all, I don't see why I am not an extended confirmed user. Second, the book does not belong in the category of Polish-Jewish relations: it is a social history of a Jewish community, and only incidentally about its relations with Poles. However, it has been co-opted by one side of that controversy, then denounced by the other side on the basis of outright lies. The lies originate in a "review" by Leo Cooper, which a court has declared to be defamatory, contrary to what is stated on the page. Please unprotect the page - the errors are too numerous for an edit request. User:Gspaulsson —Preceding undated comment added 15:41, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Gspaulsson, first, sorry about the legal issues. The remedy for these pages includes pages related to the history of Jews in Poland during the World War II era, including the Holocaust in Poland. As the Warsaw Ghetto seems to be involved heavily here (regardless of whether it’s a primary or just a background issue), I don’t feel comfortable lifting the protection at this time. You can make an edit request or post your concerns at WP:NPOVN. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:54, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Move request

Hello, hope you are doing well. Can you please move Ro'ya to Roya TV? Thanks in advance --Alaa :)..! 16:54, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

علاء, done. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:56, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks a lot --Alaa :)..! 16:57, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2020).

Administrator changes

Ajpolino • LuK3

Jackmcbarn

Ad Orientem • Harej • Lid • Lomn • Mentoz86 • Oliver Pereira • XJaM

There'sNoTime → TheresNoTime

Guideline and policy news

• A request for comment found consensus that incubation as an alternative to deletion should generally only be recommended when draftification is appropriate, namely 1) if the result of a deletion discussion is to draftify; or 2) if the article is newly created.

Technical news

• The filter log now provides links to view diffs of deleted revisions (phab:T261630).

Arbitration

• The 2020 CheckUser and Oversight appointment process has begun. The community consultation period will take place from September 27th to October 7th.
• Following a request for comment, sitting Committee members may not serve on either the Ombuds Commission or the WMF Case Review Committee. The Arbitration Committee passed a motion implementing those results into their procedures.

Miscellaneous

• The Universal Code of Conduct draft is open for community review and comment until October 6th, 2020.
• Office actions may now be appealed to the Interim Trust & Safety Case Review Committee.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:44, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

New sock?

in Religion in Turkey user adds back content of last blocked sock of Zorro544 User:Palpatine the Good can you take a look because you blocked his last socks. Shadow4dark (talk) 06:39, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Deletion review for Cryptopia

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Cryptopia. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Ҥ (talk) 10:54, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

CU investigation

Tony, I just initiated this.[7] for Icewhiz/KasiaNL. What's the distinction between a quick check and a full CU request? I would like to have a full investigation, but I'm not sure where to file it. Could you assist me with that, move it to the proper location? I'll follow it from there. Thank you. - GizzyCatBella🍁 22:34, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Never mind Tony, I was already assisted by User:Dreamy Jazz [8] - GizzyCatBella🍁 22:41, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

RevisionDelete requests

Hello. Would you please remove completely the last edit (10 Oct.2020) in article "James Foley (journalist)". (Hide my ip address. The edit can be deleted too. I am writing from this ip now.) Please Jalurcub (talk) 10:36, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I have removed your IP address from the edit. The rest does not fall under the oversight or revision deletion policies. Next time, please don't request removal onwiki, as we have venues for that. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 11:50, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

User:The bandoleer

• The bandoleer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Request that my TB be removed. The editor is appealing the topic ban from Islam in American politics that you issued on 19 April 2020. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 00:25, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, TonyBallioni. Please check your email; you've got mail!
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. Doug Weller talk 15:24, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Requesting some advice as you are in Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to investigate copyright matters

I'd like to ask your opinion on a matter, if you have a moment: last weekend, after a long day of double and triple-checking my sources and writing long explanatory comments while trying to deal in good faith with an editor who'd been pulling a bunch of shady stuff, I noticed that one of their edits was primarily made from an exact cut-and-paste of most of a sentence from a source. (It doesn't require any sort of investigation in and of itself, I don't think—just one sentence and it's plainly obvious.)

This was on an Arbitration-Enforcement-marked article, and my previous experience with the WP:ARE noticeboard was that simply documenting a single instance of a 1RR violation on an AE-marked article resulted in an indefinite block of the offending user when all was said and done; so I figured that an actual legal issue, copyvio by a 14-year veteran user who must know better, was an adequate case to bring (link to case). But to my disheartened surprise the sole responding admin thus far has scolded me for a poor attempt at humor in which I used the trademark symbol in the initial report and who seemed to consider the copyvio by the other user (which they'd by then repeated through reverting me after being informed about it three different ways) an equivalent infraction?

The intro at the top of the WP:CCI noticeboard goes on about what a "serious allegation" a charge of copyright violation is (I didn't post there because it seems to want repeated violations, which hadn't happened yet, and the current cases there are long lists)—but do I have the wrong perspective here?

I guess as a corollary to the above questions I am asking about further investigation too... is there any sort of automated tool I can use to analyze this user's past edits, on the very likely chance this isn't the first time in fourteen years they've saved themselves work by cutting and pasting? So that, I guess, I could re-try the issue at CCI? I haven't tried investigating copyvio stuff before.

Or would even proving this editor to be a serial plagiarist/copyright infringer (were that to be the case) be futile, because it's only a "serious allegation" when it's paragraphs or entire works rather than nearly-whole sentences, and I'd get the same admin reaction as at ARE even with evidence showing many repetitions? Sorry to leave so many questions. --‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 21:33, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

(Edit: based on the first bullet under "Essays I've written" in your user page, you might have an interest in this other editor's further patterns in recent editing and their past appearances under the Wikipedia: namespace—I haven't looked deeply into the edits on that last issue but see here for context --‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 21:45, 14 October 2020 (UTC))

Shawn Abir

Possible Zorro block evasion. Please CU check. --67.85.37.186 (talk) 19:56, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!

Hey, TonyBallioni. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! Megan☺️ Talk to the monster 12:11, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Managing users unsuited for a collaborative environment

Regarding your recent statements on managing users who are unsuited for a collaborative environment: it comes down again to consensus not being very effective when the community doesn't already have strongly aligned views. With the large number of editors, there are significant supporters for a wide range of behaviour, making it hard to agree on sanctions for anything falling short of egregiously ill-conceived actions. Although some of it may be contrariness or self-defensiveness, a good deal of it is a genuine desire to speak on behalf of someone who may be getting short shrift, according to the speaker's standards. I know there are a good many people who don't like the flaws in other decision-making methods, but it's a choice of disadvantages that we choose to live with: we can work with and mitigate the disadvantages of having community discussions decide on editor sanctions (and the paralysis this engenders), or the disadvantages of other methods. We've been trying to accommodate the problems of managing editor behaviour by consensus for a couple decades now—it may be time to look at other alternatives.

Another aspect of decision-making we can alter is to work on ways to reduce the impact of poor behaviour on our working procedures. Recently I set forth a toolbox of techniques to try to mitigate some of the difficulties with managing mostly unmoderated online discussions in a large group across many time zones. I'm not under any illusion that these are magic bullets, but we need to make uncollaborative behaviour a losing strategy, thereby reducing frustration and establishing an environment that selects for more co-operative editors. isaacl (talk) 22:33, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Well, I’ll also go ahead and point out that open-source projects tend to have a fair share of left-libertarians or at least individuals sympathetic to those ideals. Anyone who has any familiarity with Jimmy Wales early history on this project knows the Sole Founder is a libertarian. The strand runs deep.

I think you’re right in describing it as speaking up for people you think aren’t being treated fairly; I’d just add an addendum that the user base of Wikipedia is going to contain more individuals who are naturally inclined to find issue with any form of intervention from authority, real or imagined, than the general population. That makes your problem of consensus harder since every discussion is going to start with a sizable minority who are skeptical of the concept of doing anything. I don’t think it’s a majority, but it’s enough to derail a lot of discussions. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:12, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, using consensus decision-making gives a veto to very small groups of people, so they have an interest in preserving it. The selective pressure is thus against editors who genuinely look for consensus approaches that satisfy as many people as possible (or dissatisfy as few as possible). isaacl (talk) 01:11, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Resistance to change is why I decided to devise a toolbox of techniques rather than make broad proposals. I hope that introducing new approaches as possible options might reduce the barrier to people trying them out. (I'm not under any illusions that it would happen any time soon, but maybe one day somebody's new techniques will be given a chance.) isaacl (talk) 05:47, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

The vast majority of your contributions over at least the past 5 years, Isaacl, have been comment rather than content. I'm not criticising, but in that time you will certainly have noticed how slow it is to get any changes made on Wikipedia. So if you are going to try to make changes to the way we make those changes, you certainly have my blessing, and if he has the time, Tony would be a very good ally because those of us who have tried for years to make changes are either fed up and giving up, or like me, deserting the ship. It will take time, a long time, since every discussion is going to start with a sizable minority who are skeptical of the concept of doing anything, and I won't be around to see those changes even if indeed Wikipedia itself lasts that long. But good luck! Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:48, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

I'd prefer to write articles, but for reasons I've listed at the editor retention project and on my community page (amidst other reasons), I have difficulty getting energized for it. What I said above serves as a nutshell: the environment selects for poor behaviour. Life is too short for me to want to deal with it. isaacl (talk) 16:06, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!

Happy First Edit Day, TonyBallioni, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:05, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Regarding the deletion of Abhas Mitra page.

As everyone knows about the prominent physicist Dr. Abhas Mitra , but as far as we make his Wiki biography, the page gets deleted. Why does it always happen? Vimlesh Kumar Kanaujiya (talk) 05:43, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – November 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2020).

Administrator changes

John M Wolfson

Bduke • Nilfanion • Philosopher • Rspeer • Yunshui

Interface administrator changes

Ragesoss

TonyBallioni

CheckUser changes

EdJohnston • Oshwah • Yamla

Yunshui

Oversight changes

Anarchyte

Yunshui

Guideline and policy news

• Community sanctions now authorize administrators to place under indefinite semiprotection any article on a beauty pageant, or biography of a person known as a beauty pageant contestant, which has been edited by a sockpuppet account or logged-out sockpuppet, to be logged at WP:GS/PAGEANT.

Technical news

• Sysops will once again be able to view the deleted history of JS/CSS pages; this was restricted to interface administrators when that group was introduced.
• Twinkle's block module now includes the ability to note the specific case when applying a discretionary sanctions block and/or template.
• Sysops will be able to use Special:CreateLocalAccount to create a local account for a global user that is prevented from auto-creation locally (such as by a filter or range block). Administrators that are not sure if such a creation is appropriate should contact a checkuser.

Arbitration

• The 2020 Arbitration Committee Elections process has begun. Eligible editors will be able to nominate themselves as candidates from November 8 through November 17. The voting period will run from November 23 through December 6.
• The Anti-harassment RfC has concluded with a summary of the feedback provided.

Miscellaneous

• A reminder that standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. (American Politics 2 Arbitration case).

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:53, 1 November 2020 (UTC)