User talk:TonyBallioni/Archive 20

Archive 15

←

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

→

Archive 25

retired

its okay, i {{retired}} wef Quek157 (talk) 01:32, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Re:

Ok first of all, if you think I’m trying to pursue A pro Palestine anti Israel agenda that is far from the truth. All I am trying to push and campaign for is to list Palestine as independent from the DFS (de facto states) either with the sovereign states or as its independent category (possibly with Kosovo and Taiwan/ROC), its THAT DAMN SIMPLE. No I am not trying to be bias over any of the DFS, I just feel, from a factual and NPOV that Palestine, although not fully independent, exceeds the conditions that make a partially recognised state, as its legal status has considerably strengthened over the years, it is recognised by the UN (as an observer state like the Vatican) and is far more subsantially recognized than the DFS, so stop antagonizing me and making me look like some absolutist libtard trying to pursue an anti Israel agenda because I just feel that it’s not accurate to include Palestine with the DFS, but not necessarily with the 194 states. If the editing community just makes this minuscule change, I promise to cease all efforts in this issue. Besides, it’s still neutral if you say palestine instead of the PA, but what’s not neutral is if i said palestine and then referring to israel as lower than country status and you don’t call Kosovo the kosov am authourity not taiwan the Taiwanese authorities ?Talatastan (talk) 01:26, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

I do my absolute best to stay out of ethnic/religious/nationalist conflicts on Wikipedia, so I don't know enough to compare the Arab-Israeli conflict to the conflict between the People's Republic of China and the Republic of China or any conflict in the Balkans. All I'm saying is that in these sorts of disputes, names tend to matter and people tend to care. Discussion is likely ideal (or linking to a discussion on the topic), rather than wholesale changes through a bunch of articles, many of which likely aren't that actively watched, all on your own. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:50, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Oy Vey, ToniBollioni. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.0.86.23 (talk) 21:11, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Quek157

Isn't WP:NOTHEREing Quek157 a bit of an insult, as he was quite clearly WP:HERE until recently? L293D (☎ • ✎) 01:39, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Not really. He was a crazy person who was being disruptive in just about everything he did. If someone wants to change it to an indef disruptive editing block I wouldn’t object: it was what I was going for but came to NOTHERE in twinkle first and it also seemed to fit the bill. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:41, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

OK. I just came across the ANI thread and understand better now. L293D (☎ • ✎) 01:49, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

You raise a fair point though, so I was happy to answer Disruptive editing probably would have been better, but I think NOTHERE also fits and it had the presets I wanted and popped up first on mobile so I went with it (half of admining often boils down to “I went with it.” ). TonyBallioni (talk) 01:53, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes; certainly an—interesting? block. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 12:42, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

All well for you folks to speculate, when I saw what was happening at [1] I was wondering ... JarrahTree 12:49, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that wasn’t the only one like that. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:15, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

That West Coast Highway is messy but is he confused or disruptive? Legacypac (talk) 13:22, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

That seems more of an example of WP:CIR, not WP:NOTHERE. Regards SoWhy 13:34, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

I’ve changed the block reason to disruptive editing. My mistake and like I said above, largely due to my being on mobile and it being easier and thinking it fit the bill. I still think it was a needed block, so I won’t be lifting it, but like I said above, I have no problem changing the reason and have done so. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:41, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

• In dissent, I think the block was misplaced.--John Cline (talk) 13:26, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
  • I concur with John Cline. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Krav Maga IKMF and other actions were perhaps mistaken but I do not believe they did anything worthy of an indefinite block (at least nothing that has been adequately shown). I have not thoroughly looked at their near 4000 edits but many seem to be good. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive984#User:Quek157 should have been allowed to continue so the community could come to a decision as opposed to rushing to a unilateral one. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 18:17, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
    • Godsy, I hadn't seen the ANI or read anything in it other than that they had placed the retired template there. My decision to block was not made based on the ANI complaint, but was based on previous observations of behavior, some of which Chrissymad had documented below. The block was made to stop immediate disruption which was ongoing (the spamming of the retired template.) As with all indefinite blocks they are free to appeal if they want to, but I will not be lifting it. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:58, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
      • Alright. Unfortunately, editors get caught in these types of situations too often when attempting to move from fixing small errors in the mainspace to participating in back-end processes. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 19:13, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, to me the editor looked both confused and disruptive, but SoWhy, Legacypac and John Cline could have good points, but I would like to see if John could expand on why... JarrahTree 13:35, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

I noticed the block soon after it was placed. My immediate curiosity was indeed the not here label. After looking deeper into it, I could see where CIR might have come in to play, but I don't think it's necessary right now.

The editor shows an interest and an ability to learn and do right, if not at an accelerated pace. Removal of the new page reviewer right was a sufficient measure to prevent the immediate concerns and it had been removed shortly before the block was placed.

We probably lost an editor that would have stuck around and done good things, for a long time. I didn't see where the block was needed at the time and came here to ask if there was something I was missing. In seeing the discussion in progress, I withheld my opinion believing it moot.

Only upon seeing the discussion continue with what I first believed to be comments in universal support of the action did I decide to voice my dissent. I appreciate that the block rationale has been updated.--John Cline (talk) 14:24, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm sure he could have improved with education—if he wanted to improve. However, several editors, gently and first and then less so, tried to inform him that he was doing incorrect work and getting involved in things he doesn't understand.. He ignored and deleted them all, often with messages to the effect of "I don't care". That's not someone who wants to learn and improve. Natureium (talk) 18:08, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

the mentioned is still editing on his talk page. Thanks John, appreciate your comments, and understand where that is coming from - there were aspects of his edit history that were sound (as you say), others so way off (good rationale for CIR and Not Here, and ultimately the block imho). Also thanks Tony, for allowing this discussion on your talk page - it feels like a bit of an imposition. I'll leave it at that, thanks. JarrahTree 14:40, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

and reading Chrissymad's comment below, I feel that Tony did the right thing, regardless of others hesitations... JarrahTree 14:48, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) CIR is indeed better, and it was my mistake to go with NOTHERE. In terms of why I thought the block was neccesary: we had a user who was clearly emotionally distraught going around to (at the point I made the block) three pages, including 2 admins, pasting {{retired}} there, which for those who don't know, adds the page to Category:Retired Wikipedians. I had no clue how many other pages he intended to do this on, it was disruptive, and I felt a block was needed to prevent him from further doing this. I went with indef because of the past CIR issues, and the NOTHERE choice was largely one of connivence: I thought it also fit at the time, but upon further reflection, I can see the points above. I still think the block is necessary as a disruptive editing block, but I appreciate the feedback. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:42, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

I have not investigated the whole situation, so have no opinion on the block. Legacypac (talk) 13:51, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

For what it's worth the CSD nonsense he was taken to ANI over wasn't even the worst of it. I'd invite admins to take a look at the deleted content on both the talk page and in article history for The Canvas Hotel. A quick summary:

• Reddogsix tags A7
• IP SPA removes it
• Reddog restores it
• Quek removes it on the basis that "sources were added" (for the record, these are the sources:)
• I restored it as there was literally no credible claim of significance
• Quek reverts me with the ES "to add G11 also"
• Quek uses Twinkle to add A7, G11
• Quek, 2 minutes later, decides that A7 again is not applicable, removes it
• Quek makes a null edit to re-add the G11, saying that A7 is not allowed
• Quek again removes all tags
• Quek then readds A7, G11

I'd say that is a combination of disruptive editing, CIR and NOTHERE as it was only an attempt to pad their CSD log. There's a lot of other issues with this specific to their poor decline but overall it's representative of why he is and should be blocked. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 14:35, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

• There was certainly plenty wrong with that(very new) editor; very little, I don't doubt, that could not have been resolved through education. Ah well; them's the breaks @en.wp... —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 15:00, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Wow if someone wants to pad your CSD log Draft and Stale userspace is that away. An i exhastable well of CSDable pages await. Legacypac (talk) 14:58, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

I would agree with Chrissymad here, I had a look at Quek's CSD log last night and my first thought was that he was manipulating CSD nominations to expand his CSD log (a genuinely loathsome feature of Twinkle, incidentally). I know many people just care about the outcome - is a page eligible for speedy deletion and was it ultimately deleted, but I believe it's important that CSD is done correctly, that a page is only deleted when it's eligible for deletion and that it's deleted under the correct criteria so that undeletions and recreations can, in turn, be correctly handled.

If Quek was to return to editing, it would need to be on the basis he's restricted to the article namespace and undertakes no administrative type chores - so no nominating material for deletion (CSD, PROD or XfD) and no getting involved with AN/ANI threads, that sort of thing. Nick (talk) 15:00, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

His message to Kudpung i gotten my npr flag revoked unilaterally and my 100 curation gone waste (nothing has gone to waste, as the article were still patrolled) shows that what he really cared about was the numbers, so padding his CSD log doesn't sound far-fetched. Natureium (talk) 18:05, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

whatever - was still chatting away in something directed to Tony, on his talk page an hour or so ago JarrahTree 15:21, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

References

• I've opened this block up for review at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Block_review_of_Quek157. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:39, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
• Well in light of this some things start to make sense, and though I am not convinced he should either be under an indef block for anything, I will refrain from opposing your block on AN. It did seem a little strange to me that an 11 year tenure editor would be asking for barnstars so blatantly. ^{cinco de} L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 23:20, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
  • 11 year tenure is misleading. He didn't edit from 2008 until a month or 2 ago. Natureium (talk) 23:36, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Compromised perhaps? ^{cinco de} L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:40, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't know what the point of that would be. It's not like his account has any special permissions that you wouldn't have just from creating a new account. Natureium (talk) 02:15, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Dream Focus and plagiarized text

[2] This "I never plagiarized text: you're just too sensitive and are looking for an excuse to undermine me" schtick is really getting old. Any idea what can be done about it short of ANI? What really bugs me is when I try to rewrite his work so as not to infringe on copyright he ignores the plagiarism issue and accuses me of OR,[3] and then when you revdel his work he just uses that as an excuse to deny other malfeasance.[4]

And then there's Margin1522 who has recently reemerged and has started making elaborate, "poetic" arguments[5][6] in favour of close paraphrase (as though it were theoretically impossible to take a factual claim and reword it without making it less factual, or to place that which can't be expressed otherwise in quotation marks) that honestly go completely over my head... arrgh, I just don't know what to do about this. I've seen editors who stubbornly refuse to stop plagiarizing get indefinitely blocked in the past, but by this point even Alex (whose second interaction with me was here) is telling me I should spend less time on ANI, and honestly I would want to avoid that even if people weren't telling me I should: the fact that I've (apparently?) got an outstanding content dispute with both of them[7] just makes it all the messier and even less ANI-friendly.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:34, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

I have never said "you're just too sensitive and are looking for an excuse to undermine me", nor anything that remotely means that. The fact that you constantly insist everyone is out to get you is ridiculous. There is no plagiarized text, there are simple changes of one or two words that needed to be done to fix things here and there. Stop blowing things out of proportion bringing this nonsense up every chance you get all over the place. And you are actually complaining that you made a mistake and I pointed it out at Talk:Immigration_Street? Dream Focus 04:46, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

[I] didn't reword certain things enough to satisfy certain people looks to me a lot like "you're just too sensitive" (as in "you are too careful and scrutineering", the sense in which I meant it above -- and as an aside You whine about stopping the personal attacks looks a lot like the other meaning of "too sensitive"), and that whole comment was about how the only reason I (pretend to) have such high standards for being "satisfied" is because you and I have some disagreements over content -- I am "looking for an excuse to undermine" you, in other words.

And I don't think anyone's "out to get me" -- my whole point is that you think I'm out to get you, keep saying as much, and this would make any attempt by me to deal with your copyvio issues extremely difficult.

I am going to choose to interpret Stop blowing things out of proportion bringing this nonsense up every chance you get all over the place as a joke, since honestly I have never encountered anyone on Wikipedia with such a lack of self-awareness as to sincerely write those two things into the same sentence.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:56, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I’d stop bringing it up unless there is an issue with close paraphrasing again. Also, just as a piece of advice to both of you: you both clearly don’t like the other, so stay away from each other. If something is really a big enough deal with the other person that the community needs to fix it, someone else will notice. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:58, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

That works, but what about Margin1522? Should I just avoid him as well? Self-imposed IBANs on all long-term contributors with copyvio problems is not a long-term or very effective solution. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:00, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

If there are any future issues with them and possible copyvio, you’re free to let me know. Justlettersandnumbers might also be interested in the poetry of close paraphrase and let me bother them if it becomes repetitive. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:10, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Hijiri. You know, I'd appreciate it if you would refrain from using the term copyvio with respect to me. As a professional editor I know what it is, take it very seriously, deal with it when necessary, and don't do it myself. What you're accusing me of is plagiarism, which is something different. To which I say, sorry if my previous explanation was a bit opaque. Let me try to put it another way. I agree that it's important to avoid the various kinds of plagiarism. But I also think that it's important to be faithful to the source and not misstate what it says. To a certain degree, these goals are in conflict. For example, the problems with the acceptable paraphrase examples in our plagiarism policy that I discussed here. It starts with a well-known paper by Mansfield and Snyder, who showed that regime change causes instability that can be exploited by demagogues. Specifically they showed that new democracies tend to become aggressive and launch wars against their neighbors. Brown, the source we want to paraphrase, footnoted this and advanced the new argument that regime change also causes internal strife. To do so he used the rather vague expression "prone to violence". The problem is that our acceptable paraphrase examples interpret that as violence against the state. This is wrong. Brown doesn't say that. Somehow we have come 180 degrees from violence by the state to violence against the state – the opposite. The main problem here is that our editor read the Harvard guide citing Brown, but didn't read Brown. The guide recommends that students digest the source, put it aside, and then paraphrase it in their own words, and of course you can't digest a source if you don't read it. But I think part of the problem also lies with Brown's vague language. He could have cited a couple of key terms from M&S, but didn't. The lesson I take from this is that I am going to continue using words used by my source. Their words, not mine. I have a right to do this, as long as it's adequately attributed and/or quoted as explained in the policy. And in the future it's going to be not just adequate but bulletproof. I am through with relying on anyone looking at a footnote. If you catch me being "lazy" in the future, please do let me know. But for now can we just let it go? Thanks. – Margin1522 (talk) 04:45, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

@Margin1522: Apologies if "copyvio" means something specific in your industry, and you don't feel that what you have been doing constitutes it, but I have been using in the sense described at WP:COPYVIO, which explicitly includes plagiarism and even close paraphrasing. I could not sympathize more with the ideal of I also think that it's important to be faithful to the source and not misstate what it says (not that you would know this, but back in 2015 I was taken before ArbCom for repeatedly getting into fights with editors who I felt were not doing this), but there isn't normally a conflict there: if something is of a quality that it cannot be accurately paraphrased (this is almost never the case with simple factual claims), that is what direct quotation is for. And this wasn't the case with any of the stuff I linked here. Since you read Japanese, it might be an idea for you to focus on Japanese-language sources, which can't be closely paraphrased in English: I do this anyway, although my reasoning is that English-language sources for my main editing areas tend to be sub-optimal. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:16, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I hope Tony doesn't mind me posting here, but as he seems neutral in the above dispute, it seems like as good a forum as any. Not being involved or familiar with the above dispute, I'd be happy to offer myself as a neutral sounding board for what may or may not be a cv/plag/too-close=paraphrase. It is often a very fine line and in my experience most who cross that line do so in complete good faith, so I'd be glad to help with added opinions if that would be useful. Also I endorse Tony's recommendation of JLAN... they've got an uncanny knack for close paraphrase issues, again in my experience. Crow^Caw 20:32, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Why have you locked the list of cryptocurrencies page?

Please revert your stupid decision [8] NOW. Demohere (talk) 22:09, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Demohere, I think I'm fine. Please also don't yell at me or call me stupid. I locked it because inexperienced users were using it for promotion or being generally disruptive. You can make requested edits on the talk page. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:17, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Blockchain/crypto discretionary sanctions

Thanks for the information you posted at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#New general discretionary sanctions on blockchain and crypto. You should consider reposting it at the WP:Teahouse, so that the hosts there can pass along the information to new users who might run afoul of the rules. Or, I can repost it for you. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 14:10, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Drm310, it might make more sense for you to do it if you are a regular there. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:56, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Disruptive User

Boldstandard is back on the Columbia University page reverting edits without consensus even when several IP editors disagree with him. He has just stated his opinion, did not wait for anyone else to agree, and reverted the edits back to his own. You already warned him about disruptive editing - I would like to request a permanent block for this user. He has been blocked twice already by other administrators and editors for this same behavior in the course of a calendar year.

Boldstandard has started arguing with another editor, "Other admins have told me to establish a consensus on the talk page and the IP editors are unresponsive on their own talk page. How am I supposed to correct the article then? Am I supposed to directly edit the article? You are leaving me without any tools to correct the article." and reverted the edits back to his own edits that he believes are correct on the main page. We have a debate ongoing on the Columbia Talk page - as appropriate by Wiki policies - and myself, other IP editors, and other registered editors have also used the same page. Personal talk pages are not meant for page specific edits anyway.

134.154.47.175 (talk) 14:45, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Bbb23 has CheckUser blocked some of the IPs on that article, so I'm going to stay out of it for now. If you are the same person, you shouldn't be editing. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:55, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

relink

There is a new article on "Religious sister" and I wish to redirect all the links that I'd made from "sister" to the section in "nun" and make them link to the Religious sister article. I could not get any help at the Help Desk; can you tell me how to change forward links or tell me where I might find help with it? Jzsj (talk) 14:42, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Primefac might know better/would know the type of consensus you would need. I'm not that good at anything involving mass edits. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:56, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

​ I'm not sure what you mean - do you mean edits you've specifically made, or just links in general? Primefac (talk) 17:12, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

I created a direct on most of the sisters' pages from the word "religious sister" to Nun#Distinction between a nun and a religious sister. I'd now like to change that to the new page Religious sister. Any help appreciated. If possible I'd also like to know how it's done, for future reference. Jzsj (talk) 17:46, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

I think you might be referring to this edit, in which I changed the redirect target of Religious sisters from nun to Religious sister. When you click on a redirect it shows a small "redirect from <page>" at the top of the target article - by clicking that link it append &redirect=no to the URL and allow you to edit the redirect directly. Using a template like {{-r}} (as I did above) also works. Primefac (talk) 17:50, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll try these things when time permits. (I'm off for now.) Jzsj (talk) 19:17, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

JLJ001

Hi Tony,

I'd just like to distance myself from JLJ001's socking. I've worked closely and collaborated with them a lot recently, so there is a fair amount of edit overlap. I just thought they were a clean-start user, but it seems I was evidently wrong.

Anyways, thank you for dealing with the sock. Kind regards, Cesdeva ^(talk) 15:11, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Cesdeva, the thought never even crossed my mind. He's a tricky LTA that often has goodhand accounts. This was one of them. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:53, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm glad we have you on the job, watching over us. Thank you. This was such a surprise, as he was so helpful. I have some questions... Where are the records on this user? Should we be concerned about him returning? Are you sure he didn't have more than one account working on the Portals WikiProject? And, what is a goodhand account?    — The Transhumanist   19:58, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) See the SPI archive, and the discussion which resulted in his ban. Bradv 20:15, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

The Transhumanist, most of the recent socks have been handled privately by CheckUsers to avoid giving him attention. This block was made in consultation with a CU (as I noted in the archive), but it was not a perfect match technically (in CU language it was possible. He was editing on the same IP range as Prince of Thieves, the last confirmed account).

Based off of this, I went ahead and made a behavioral block as a regular admin action. Since I was blocking a user with thousands of sometimes constructive edits as an LTA, I filed an SPI for the record in case anyone had any questions. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:24, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

It's too bad these people won't find better ways to spend their time. Thank you for the clarification.    — The Transhumanist   21:42, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Escalation

@Bradv, Cesdeva, and Ansh666:

Dear Tony,

He posted again at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Portals#What have we lost?, including a link to an off-site webpage where he's started a contest on developing new portal layout designs. There's even a maintenance bot for portals under construction there. With Admins resolute in deleting anything this guy contributes to Wikipedia, coupled with his determination to continue to contribute while pulling in support from abroad, this has the potential to create utter chaos. How are our admins going to deal with this? What are the underlying issues here? I'm not at all familiar with sockpuppet conflicts. I would like to see any disruptive effects upon the Portals WikiProject and the Portals kept to a minimum. The latest round of deletions have wreaked havoc on our operations, and have not kept the perpetrator at bay. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Portals#Discussions about cleanup of WP:SOCK aftermath.    — The Transhumanist   20:31, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) At the very least we should be removing those offsite links, it's his personal wiki and is not safe to be visited without a VPN enabled. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:35, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Actually I've just gone ahead and redacted those links. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:43, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

The Transhumanist, we're in rollback, block, ignore mode for this user. The only time I bother updating the SPI is if I'm told the account has new technical data, or there is a new batch of IPs he is using. He only appreciates the attention, don't give it to him. I've updated the SPI with the new IPs, but probably won't add anymore as I think they tell us enough.

Trijnstel following up on what we were talking about earlier re: the unlock appeal, stuff like this and this is basically straight from his playbook: [9]. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:03, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

@The Transhumanist: I wouldn't particularly worry. 'Don't feed the troll' is an applicable proverb here. It works.

At the end of the day, JLJ001 probably feels, or felt at some point, disaffected somehow by the Wikipedia community. He'll carry on socking until one or more of these things happens:

• He clean starts successfully and feels accepted by the community
• He gets bored.
• His outlook on life changes significantly.
• He finds another outlet for his activities.

Those are the four main ways to break the vicious cycle. Non of them involve responding to his actions. Cesdeva ^(talk) 21:07, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Just checking

Tony,

I just did my first warning at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Blockchain and cryptocurrencies to User:Mebstamebsta concerning his editing at Bitfinex. I just want to check that I did this right. Actually, I was going to do the same thing for User:Themainexchange but see that Mer-C beat me to it by most of a day. Thanks for any help. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 03:51, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Yep, did it perfectly. MER-C really has been doing the heavy lifting there. I’ve also ECP’d that article under authorization from those general sanctions.​ TonyBallioni (talk) 03:54, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Deletion of Bülow (singer)

Hi, I noticed you deleted the page Bülow (singer) because its creator was blocked. I actually created a draft page for this exact subject a few days before the article was created and ended up closing that AfC since I merged my changes into the newly created article. Now that the article has been deleted, should I re-open an AfC or can I recreate the old page directly (using my own content)? Thanks, Hickland (talk) 04:10, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Hickland, I restored your draft and moved it to mainspace. Sorry about the deletion, I made a mistake and assumed the AFC authors was the sock and you were merging content. My mistake, but this should restore all your work while getting rid of his. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:16, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much! :) Hickland (talk) 04:16, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

About my request at PERM

I commented on Joe Roe's page asking him if i could reapply and he said i could once i have read the guidelines for moving pages and also rewritten my request like the one before mine. Here's a link our conversation. I hope this doesn't cause any issues. Edidiong (talk) 14:35, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Interesting new participant...

User:Kpgjhpjm, a user with an account less than a month old, and 5 edits in the portal namespace, announced on my talk page: "Portals are very important . So I have joined THE PORTALS WikiProject."    — The Transhumanist   08:53, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

@The Transhumanist: Do you have any problems with me joining ? . You thanked me for my edit and so I left the message. Okay , I am removing my name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kpgjhpjm (talk) • contribs)

@The Transhumanist: this isn't Dysk. TonyBallioni (talk) 11:17, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni: Any questions ? Kpgjhpjm (talk) 12:47, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Kpgjhpjm: nope TonyBallioni (talk) 13:22, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni: Sorry for the first comment . I thought he was accusing me of vandalism or sockpuppetry Kpgjhpjm (talk) 03:58, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Whoops! :)

Thank you for all the work you do.

~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:04, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Madoka79

The user is genre warring already after final warning. (You can see the user's talk page archived, not the current one) 115.164.53.70 (talk) 18:50, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Not a valid reason for a block in my view. If they break 3RR, report them to ANEW. Otherwise use the talk page to deal with this. It's a content dispute, not vandalism. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:53, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments

I'm annoyed at the double standard as you can see. Legacypac (talk) 02:47, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Legacypac, I get it. I wasn’t trying to hold Primefac to a double standard, I just know that he realizes it was a mistake and tried to fix it. Re: your reply to that thread, speaking for myself, I know I am very cautious about removing people from lists and removing user rights. I think Primefac generally is as well, but in your case he made a mistake because like he said, he’d been in a bit of an echo chamber re: people complaining. He realizes that now, and has said as much.

In terms of the other issue, I don’t want to get too involved with it, but if an admin is consistently misusing the AFC script you can request they be TBAN’d from it. I’m not sure she has been though. If this had been a non-admin my approach would be to talk to them first and let them know if it continued they would be removed, not to yank immediately. I like to think I try to hold admins to the same standards, but I’m aware of the political realities of Wikipedia, and I agree to an extent that admins do often get more chances (the Super Mario problem has many different forms). Anyway, I hope this has been helpful. I don’t wade over to AfC that often, but it seems like it’s been a hectic few days, so thought it might be worth it commenting. All the best. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:01, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Talking first is not the standard at AfC as I well know. I had no idea they were an Admin until you weighed in and I went trying to figure out your comment. It's not on their userpage and I've never seen them take an Admin action. I had to check their userrights to confirm. Only thing I knew was they opposed G13 expansion, created template "promising draft" and proceeded to slap it on everything from pages they should have promoted on sight to crap that should have been deleted on sight, with no consistency. Then they wandered off and did nothing with drafts for a while. I started patrolling the "promising draft" tagged pages from the start looking for good stuff. I submitted a bunch to AfC. 6 months after they started showing up for G13 so I took a batch to MfD that were almost all deleted. When the idea this tag is a permanent bar to deletion came up I went looking at the remaining ones and have been promoting or seeking deletion as required. Legacypac (talk) 03:26, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Peer review (for any stalkers interested)

If there are any stalkers interested who have experience in the area/with FAC your comments would be appreciated at Wikipedia:Peer review/Papal conclave, March 1605/archive1, I've done all I can think of on my own for it, so additional eyes would be great (also, ping Iridescent, I know its outside of your normal area of work, but if you have a chance to look over and comment, it'd be appreciated). TonyBallioni (talk) 18:46, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	I saw your work with that assad guy. I can appreciate what you did. Vami_IV✠ 12:14, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Possible sock or Jamesreadings

Hello TonyBallioni, can you please take a look at user Safaque who recreated Draft:SerenataFlowers.com in mainspace under Serenata Flowers. The article was earlier created by Jamesreadings (talk · contribs) you blocked and Safaque creating the same kind of article on totally unconnected businesses in different countries as pointed out by KJP1 on Jamesreadings's talk page. Thank you GSS (talk|c|em) 17:19, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Blocked for spam. Prose was different at first glance. You might want to bring this to COIN for their other contribs.​ TonyBallioni (talk) 17:25, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Sure will do in a couple of days. Thank you GSS (talk|c|em) 17:59, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Notability

Can you spare some time to let me know about the notability of Bill Pledger? Sole claim to notability is first African American lawyer in a district....But, then the arguments at this Afd might be a quasi-valid counter, though the gravity of the argument ought be much less.Best,~ Winged Blades^Godric 08:39, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

For Alabama, Drmies is your guy. I suspect, given it is Alabama, that he may be notable (if you can get SNL on YouTube where you live, watch a few of the Jeff Sessions sketches and you’ll get the idea). Being the first black lawyer there I suspect is a pretty big deal, but I could be wrong. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:16, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) If you died in 1904, and people are still writing about you nearly a century later, You Bet Ya Boots Ya Notable, JW!!!  :) —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 13:32, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

There's also Alarob and AuburnPilot. Drmies (talk) 15:36, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Brief mention here and here, but this should certainly suffice and offers opportunities for expansion. Drmies (talk) 15:41, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

And here I misread Atlanta for Alabama... Thanks for looking anyway, Drmies. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:55, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

It's the capitol of the South, so no worries. Drmies (talk) 18:00, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, everybody for responding.Especially Drmies:)~ Winged Blades^Godric 07:32, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Extra safe

Hi, re this edit - although the page had been moved, it wasn't a cut-and-paste move of the RfC discussion but a proper page move with the creation of a redirect, so resetting the rfcid wasn't necessary. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:46, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Redrose64, I thought that was the case, but the user who launched the RfC asked me about it and I wasn’t sure, so figured it was better to be safe. Thanks for the note: good thing to know in the future. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:49, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Andrevan's case close at ANI

Hi Tony. Howdy! Not that it matters but maybe you could clarify in your close, who has been unblocked and who has been blocked. Just for archival clarity purposes. Like I said, doesn't matter even if you don't. Hope you're doing well and all is going good. Warmly as always, Lourdes 04:59, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Hey, I saw where you closed as "unblocked by NeilN". Was subsequently reblocked as a sock. DOn't know if it matters to the closure, but OCD.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:14, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

@Lourdes and Dlohcierekim: I think I'm just going to leave it as is for now. I was referencing the original question ask by Beebs in the thread with my close, and I'm confident ArbCom is aware of the situation, so I don't think changing the wording will do much else other than add that thread to peoples' watchlists again. Thanks to both of you for reaching out. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:17, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Your opinion on notability

I saw your work on the Papal Conclave and hope you may be able to help me a bit. In the course of writing Jbhunley/sandbox/Ignatius of Jesus (which I am still plodding through) I decided to write some associated stubs. I am confident his father and one brother are notable. The father was Governor of Turin and one brother a well covered local religious celebrity. My question relates to his eldest brother, Jbhunley/sandbox/Mutatesia Leonelli:

Mutatesia was appointed Tesoriere della Camera Pontificia, which translates as 'Treasurer of the Pontifical Chambers', by Urban VIII. I believe that is a household post, vice Apostolic Camera, but I can not find any real information on it. Are you familiar with the post? Is it sufficiently notable for an article? If not, what is your opinion of Augusto Vernarecci (1872). Dizionario biografico degli nomini illustri di Fossombrone. Monacelli. for ANYBIO#3? Fossombrone is pretty limited geographically, but we are talking 17th century Italy so…

I am not terribly concerned either way. There is not much available on him via the Internet but Lupieri mentions financial troubles and an excommunication which were not mentioned in the sources I could find. Thanks. Jbh ^Talk 16:12, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

• Hi Jbhunley. I had noticed your first draft earlier, and was going to comment on how interesting it looks! Re: clerical notability, while I would not consider them notable if they were alive today, the fact that you have enough documentation to make a stub about them almost four centuries later is in my mind a general indication of notability, and I doubt that anyone would send it to AfD.
  All clerics of the episcopal or cardinilatial rank are assumed notable, living or dead. Re: clerics in general, my rule for living Christian clerics, Catholic and otherwise, is that unless they have episcopal consecration or its equivalent in a group that does not have an episcopacy, they should be assumed non-notable and there is a stronger burden of proof to meet notability (i.e. we should be looking for evidence in sourcing that they actually are considered significant.)
  Appointments to the Roman curia that do not come with episcopal consecration are not evidence of notability, generally speaking, which has to do with the practice of promotion into obscurity (see Bernard Francis Law for the most famous recent example of this, but it happens to everyone from the deacon to the cardinal when they mess up.) In other words, a priest who works in the Roman Curia is equally as likely to be there because he is incompetent as because he's useful. If you can come up with more than a directory listing for a curial official who isn't a bishop who is from the 17th century, though, they should be notable. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:23, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for taking a look. I do not think Mutatesia's position was clerical so the post is likely not notable. There are however several shortish entries about him in various biographical directories of the time. Reading between the lines I suspect he was a bit of a wastrel from a significant family – Lawyer, failed poet, likely bankruptcy and "temporary" excommunication – there is bound to be an interesting story there! Hopefully it was preserved somewhere suitable for WP

The interesting ones in the family are Ignatius, who was my original target, and who has both an interesting and well documented, in modern sources, life; And his brother Innocenzo who seems to have been on his way to being made a saint. One work refers to him as il Venerabile but I have not found any later works saying it went further. He seems to be the one in that immediate family who was of the most interest to contemporary biographers though.

The Carmelites' time in Persia, the shenanigans with the Mandaeans and Ignatius' role in them are quite interesting. When I started on him I figured the article would be something like what Innocenzo's turned out as but scholarship on the Mandaeans has been on the rise since Iraq-I so his story got dragged out of the archives and examined by modern scholars. The challenge now will to be to keep from going down the rabbit-hole of my personal interests and finish writing the thing :) Jbh ^Talk 01:22, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Fairly obvious native advertising sock

Sheik Rey... adding references to crypto articles to boot. I've seen this abuse pattern before, which means it's a sock - but of who? Thanks for dealing with CharityEx yesterday, by the way. MER-C 20:30, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

No problem re: CharityEx. I’m of the opinion we should block spammers as quickly as we block high school boys making penis jokes. The later at least have a chance of actually becoming productive editors one day.

It behaviorally reminds me a bit of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lilianarice, though the username format is different from that family of freelancers and they were pretty consistent. Might be worth poking around the deleted contribs there though to see if there is overlap.​ TonyBallioni (talk) 20:46, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

AfC editimprove-submit-declineadvice-editimprove cycling

Hi Tony.

Apologies for the recent AfC MfD RfC WP:Drafts stuff.

Would you mind looking at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Black Scar Blues and commenting. What does the RfC result say to this, are the decline template's softness and indirectness at some fault, and does this cycling the AfC process warrant deletion? Would you please comment assuming the drafted topic is plausibly worthy even if you decide that this one is not? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:38, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

SmokeyJoe: no worries. It’s all water under the bridge. I’ll take a look tomorrow. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:35, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

GRiR

Yes. Neither a new editor nor an experienced editor but in between. Makes mistakes that take a little knowledge (but not much, and that is what the poet said is a dangerous thing) of Wikipedia. Found by CU not to be using the same IP addresses as the previous socks. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:49, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Agnus Dei

I thought of you in this discussion about the 4+ articles we have, Agnus Dei, Agnus Dei (liturgy), Agnus Dei (music), Agnus Dei (disambiguation), and Lamb of God. Thoughts? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:51, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for thinking of me, Gerda. I agree a merger is needed. I'd merge the music into the liturgy because while they can stand independently, the inspiration for the music is the liturgical prayer, and indeed, for many practicing Christians, the only time they ever think of the Agnus Dei is during their Sunday service, where it is usually sung (the low/daily masses that are unsung not being attended by the overwhelming majority of Catholics/Anglicans/Christians)

I'd probably keep the redirect target the same as it can refer to the theological concept, and the prayer/musical settings are based upon it. If you do any merging and need thoughts, ping me. I'm going to be very busy the next few months with some life changes (all good), so I won't have as much time as I have the last few months to devote to Wikipedia, but I'll try to help out with anything I can on that merger.

Also, while I have you here, if you have time, would you mind looking at Wikipedia:Peer review/Papal conclave, March 1605/archive1 whenever you get the chance. The Serial Number has made some excellent comments, but getting some from a FAC regular would also be helpful. Never done a FAC before and trying to get that article up to snuff. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:06, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Still thinking phase: I could imagine two articles (+ the dab), referring to each other by a hatnote, Agnus Dei for liturgy/music, Lamb of God for the theological background. - That has time. - I'll look at the PR, but I am not the right one to ask, my last FAC just failed, and the one before (beginning of 2017) was what we call a "schwere Geburt" - giving birth not without problems, what's that in English? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:22, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Oh, I like that idea. Yes, that would be the ideal, I think. Figuring out what to do with the existing wikilinks would be less ideal, but I think you're on to something. Like I said, ping me and I'll try to help.

Any thoughts you have would be appreciated regardless. I think the rough English would be "difficult labour". TonyBallioni (talk) 19:33, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

NPP Backlog Elimination Drive

Hello TonyBallioni, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

We can see the light at the end of the tunnel: there are currently 2900 unreviewed articles, and 4000 unreviewed redirects.

Announcing the Backlog Elimination Drive!

• As a final push, we have decided to run a backlog elimination drive from the 20th to the 30th of June.
• Reviewers who review at least 50 articles or redirects will receive a Special Edition NPP Barnstar: . Those who review 100, 250, 500, or 1000 pages will also receive tiered awards: , , , .
• Please do not be hasty, take your time and fully review each page. It is extremely important that we focus on quality reviewing.

---

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 06:57, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Dogmatic fact

Hey Tony, I'm just going through the February 2009 orphans and came across Dogmatic fact. I wondered if you had any ideas on how to de-orphan it, Catholicism isn't my speciality! Thanks, StraussInTheHouse (talk) 22:48, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Dogma in the Catholic Church would likely be a good place. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:58, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Michael Rigas

Hi why do you want Michael Rigas Delete? On the Political appointments by Donald Trump we need someone to make pages for some inportant people here are the names

Michael Rigas

Douglas Webster

Johnny Collett

Patricia G. Greene

Brock D. Bierman

and more so here is the links

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_appointments_by_Donald_Trump

https://www.opm.gov/about-us/our-people-organization/senior-staff-bios/michael-rigas/

Thanks:96.36.68.29 (talk) 15:30, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

The community has decided that the rest of the world does not think he is important enough for an article. I'm trying to delete it because having puff pieces on mid-level political appointees is not the purpose of Wikipedia. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:48, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Netoholic

Could you please take an administrative look at the recent edit history of WP:COIN, with a view to the warning you recently issued to Netoholic? Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:32, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Tryptofish has some unclean hands in this. Might want to check his recent contributions too, as his involvement seems to be retaliatory/POINTy. -- Netoholic @ 20:45, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Oh, yes, do! --Tryptofish (talk) 20:46, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Blocked for 72 hours. This type of behavior at COIN after being told it was outside the remit of that board is not appropriate, especially given his recent warning. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:04, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I've made a third {{nac}}-ed of the at-dispute COIN thread about MrX, which was continuing to go nowhere quickly. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:51, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at User:Kudpung/What do admins do?

 You are invited to join the discussion at User:Kudpung/What do admins do?. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:32, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

RAN

Given that RAN cleared his talk page before your unblock and that he may have disabled inter-wiki notifications at Wikidata, do you think it would be a good idea to leave a note on his Wikidata talk page informing him of the unblock? It probably wouldn't be great if I did it but he has been active there since the block and may not have revisited this place since the page clearing. - Sitush (talk) 08:51, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Sitush, appears sorted now. Sorry for the later than usual response. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:28, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Talatastan

Hi,

Given that the arab-israeli conflict article dispute has gone on for quite some time, and the permeable and highly observable frustration towards this issue from much of the editing community (and me included), and having time to reflect during my ban, I would like to propose a solution that will please everybody and the NPOV policy

Talatastan (talk) 23:17, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Talatastan, I have no thoughts on the content of the Arab-Israeli conflict on Wikipedia. I just neutrally enforce the ArbCom remedies. Please don't edit directly in mainspace until you hit 500 edits. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:20, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I am aware that you are neutral and i highly appreciate that stance but I was just wondering if you are among the decision makers for the arab israei articles so I can offer my proposal to this incessant dispute? if not you then could you direct me to them? thanx and happy editing.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Talatastan (talk • contribs) 15:34, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Talatastan, I am not a member of the Arbitration Committee, no. You can request an amendment to the decision at WP:ARCA, but they are highly unlikely to grant one, so I wouldn't suggest it. Also, no need to start a new thread every time you reply. Just indent by putting colons at the beggining of the thread equal to the amount you want to indent (so your next one would be :::: since I indented three times in this reply.)​ TonyBallioni (talk) 15:40, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Talatastan, you can make edit requests on the article's talk page to propose your edit and if it is deemed acceptable an experienced editor will make the edit for you. L293D (☎ • ✎) 12:21, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Just FYI that I didn't get a ping for this, probably because the edit was too complicated. (I was about to shoot you an email on something unrelated and saw this highlighted, haha) Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 05:04, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Mina Sadati article

Hi , please help for this article, help me for this article to stay in Wikipedia , they want to remove this article .She is a famous acteer in Iran, please help me, best regards Kurdistantolive (talk) 09:56, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

I tried, looks clearly notable to me. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:29, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

The article has been reviewed and passed by Winged Blades of Godric. It looks OK to me. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:09, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-wikibreak

Why are you on a semi-wikibreak ? Kpgjhpjm 09:38, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Kpgjhpjm, probably because like all of us, he's a volunteer and wants a break. He doesn't need to provide a reason. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:15, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Kpgjhpjm, because real life is going to be very busy for the next few weeks/months. Despite rumours to the contrary, I actually have a life and this is just a hobby I'll still be around (and probably more than most), but my activity will likely be decreased a fair amount, so I thought it best to let people know. TonyBallioni (talk) 12:07, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Yup, I'll be editing on and off all summer too. L293D (☎ • ✎) 12:08, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

TonyBallioni Are you retiring ? Kpgjhpjm 12:11, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

(watching) @Kpgjhpjm: a) Why do you feel the need to ask, and b) why is it any of your business? —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 12:17, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Deleted article restoration

Can you restore Lost Kashmiri History with its history to my user namespace? Lorstaking (talk) 05:46, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

 Done: User:Lorstaking/Lost Kashmiri History ​ TonyBallioni (talk) 13:07, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Can you please restore InfoTrack with history to my user namespace? I had not finished creating it yet. Thehub2017 (talk) 01:43, 25 June 2018 (AEST)

Thehub2017, I’m not the deleting admin, that’s Athaenara, you’ll need to talk to her. Also, you don’t have a right to keep spam in your user space, so she may not restore it. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:48, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

It is not spam as there is significant new information that has come to light since the creation of the article. Thank you I will contact Athaenara.Thehub2017 (talk) 01:53, 25 June 2018 (AEST)

Sheen Dass article

Hi,tonyballioni can you please restore this article. can you please help me in keeping this article.This actress is know for show Piyaa Albela and had also done two show earlier.Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asim543 (talk • contribs) 07:45, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Asim543, could you please provide the correct name of the article. Nothing, AFAICS, has ever been created or deleted under the name Sheen dass. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:13, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Asim543, I won't be restoring it because it was created twice by a sockpuppet. If you want to create a draft and submit it through WP:AFC, I'd be willing to lower the protection if a reviewer thought it should go to mainspace. TonyBallioni (talk) 12:05, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi,tonyballioni sorry for the wrong name Sheen Dass and yes I can create the draft.Please provide me draft for Sheen Dass. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asim543 (talk • contribs) 17:41, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

@tonyballioni I am creating Draft:Sheen Dass.Please do help me if made any mistakes.Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asim543 (talk • contribs) 14:11, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Moonshine and Valentine

Hi tonyballioni,

Would you be able to restore this article? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:New_user_landing_page&page=Moonshine+and+Valentine

Personally I find the Wikipedia pages for non-English shows (and movies!) like Moonshine and Valentine, very helpful because they explain both basics and details about the shows and can help people find out interesting information about actors, ratings, and the score and musicians that are often not easily accessible in English. Through my personal experience and that of many people I know who are also working on learning a foreign language, watching tv shows and movies, even relatively obscure ones, can be quite helpful. And Wikipedia pages like the one for Moonshine and Valentine can be a great resource for presentations or simply learning more information that we may not be able to understand by reading a foreign language or reading a google translated page (which can sometimes be more difficult \^o^/). Moonshine and Valentine was hardly an obscure show I'd imagine with popular stars like Victoria Song, Huang Jingyu and Li Shen and it's last episode (released on Tuesday) reaching over 2 billion views, so I'm sure this page will be getting more traction, especially since English subtitles are almost completed for the final 2 to 3 episodes. Is there any way to restore this page?

Thanks for your time! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xiaoxiurui (talk • contribs) 06:06, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

The article was created by a pretty large sock farm, so I won't be undeleting it. You are free to create it as a draft if you prefer using the WP:AFC process. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:41, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

• The socks tried to restore the article at Beautiful Life (Chinese TV series), a completely different series from over a decade ago. I have since undone their edit [10], as well as similar attempts [11] [12]. BTW Boyhoodjams and her a million socks = Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Xdeluna. Timmyshin (talk) 05:07, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank You!!!

Thank you for the range block for 32.218.0.0/16. This IP hopper has been annoying me for years now. -- Dolotta (talk) 19:26, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Pro Wrestling sanctions

Correct me if I'm wrong, but should we report anyone in violation of the sanctions to WP:AE after they've received a warning?LM2000 (talk) 04:42, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

No. These are authorized by the community, not the Arbitration Committee. ANI or an individual admin who is familiar with the area would be where to report. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:53, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks

Many thanks for drawing to our attention that there has been a proposal to close the Simple English Wikipedia at Wikipedia: Village pump (proposals). Vorbee (talk) 16:30, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Articles created by Loveo2ofan/Boyhoodjams

Hi TonyBallioni, I'm a new page patroller and regularly write and patrol China-related articles. Today I approved the article Li Xirui and felt that I'd done it before. Checking the logs, I found out that the original version, created by Loveo2ofan, was deleted for G5. And I remember patrolling a number of articles created by that user, which are mostly decently referenced articles about notable Chinese actors. It's a shame that the user turns out to be a sockpuppet of Boyhoodjams, but I feel it's a loss to Wikipedia to delete all their articles. Could you restore them to draft space or my user space so I can vet them again and make sure they're ok for publishing? Thanks a lot! -Zanhe (talk) 18:57, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

No, I have no intent of restoring them, and I am of a mind to delete that article too as it looks to be by the same person. Bbb23, you may be interested in this, also Chrissymad as you filed the last SPI. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:59, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni: I almost said something at the SPI about G5ing the articles. I'm glad you took it upon yourself to take care of it.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:30, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

That's a shame, because there are very few regular contributors in WikiProject China, and there are huge gaps in coverage of China on English Wikipedia. It would take substantial effort to recreate those articles, and they would most likely remain unwritten for years to come if not restored. -Zanhe (talk) 19:11, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

My concern is with the credibility of the English Wikipedia. Industrial scale socking for what appears to be native advertising undermines that. It’s better that we not have the articles than have them this way. You can obviously recreate them. My deletion log should make it clear which ones were there’s. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:33, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

I already have thousands of articles on my to-do list that are far more important than pop stars. If I remember correctly, the articles the user created are pretty neutral, mostly basic bio and filmography, and hardly promotional. But if you've made up your mind, I'm not going to waste more time arguing about this. Cheers, -Zanhe (talk) 19:46, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

@Zanhe: I could not agree more with the statement that there are huge gaps in coverage of China on English Wikipedia, but were I to say it I would not be referring to BLPs about popular media figures. If literally no details of Li's biography beyond her having been listed in the credits of such-and-such TV show or film can be verified in reliable secondary sources, then the article should be deleted. (Note that I'll admit upfront that I don't read Chinese and can't attest to the reliability or verifiability of any of the current citations, but it wouldn't matter because none of them are used for significant biographical information.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:05, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: Interesting bumping into you here! I believe the deleted version had more details than the current one. And I've checked the sources, they're in-depth coverage from mainstream media. She is a really popular actress who's had major roles in multiple hit TV shows, even though I don't watch TV myself (too busy with Wikipedia :-). If I were so inclined I could turn it into a full-fledged article, but that would take time away from things more important to me. -Zanhe (talk) 00:35, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

I technically have this page on my watchlist, but mostly show up when I have a specific request or I have been mentioned; I got an email notification about one of the above posts because I had recently looked at this page and that's how my watchlist works. Thing is, if the sources do provide in-depth coverage of her biography, then they need to be cited for that stuff. The way the article is now, it looks like a WP:COATRACK, which is not appropriate for any article, least of all a BLP; and I hardly think WP:CHINA needs to pump its limited resources into protecting unsourced BLPs (the "BLP stuff" in the article, which is minimal, is currently all unreferenced) when nine of the 300 Tang Poems poets are still red links. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:48, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia is for both high-brow and low-brow content. Li Xirui's Chinese wikipedia page gets 300 views a day despite it being blocked in China. The thing with pop culture figures is that once you create a stub, lots of casual editors who don't bother with accounts will contribute to them, so people like us can focus on more important topics. -Zanhe (talk) 00:59, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

• I'm pretty sure Yang Shuo (actor) and Jeremy Tsui are also recent additions by Boyhoodjams. Timmyshin (talk) 05:09, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Hijiri88 violated your instructions

Hijiri88 violated your instructions. [13] Please comment on this. Dream Focus 23:45, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Tony, please either block DF for his continued close monitoring of my edits while claiming I am hounding him, or tell him politely but firmly to drop this whole charade, or just close this thread and tell us both to buzz off. I don't care which. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:56, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I'd recommend blocking them both for 31 hours, "let God sort it out" and all. Perhaps they should be thankful I'm not an admin. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:03, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

I do not post where he does unless he is talking about me, something he refuses to stop doing. I don't spend all day pouring through other people's edits just to find something to complain about. He was told specifically by an administrator to stop doing this to me, and he refuses to stop. Dream Focus 00:06, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

@Power~enwiki: The IBAN proposal didn't pass; nothing I did (ask a legitimate question about whether revdel was the best solution for a case where a nine-year-old article has included plagiarized text for its entire history, request DF remove claims about other editors' mental states from his user page, request a "friend" of DF's explain to him what the word "novel" means) was blockable. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:10, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

I feel it should be a common notion that if there's significant support for a TBANIBAN but not consensus to enact one, the editors involved should refrain from tickling the dragon's tail immediately after the thread is closed. I also would have liked a clearer close to that thread, but you can't always get what you want). power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:18, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

There was not significant support, though. The kind of punitive IBAN (not TBAN) you seem to be proposing had no explicit support, including from its proposer, and the majority of people who commented said that it would be a bad idea as it would be easily gamed. There was a clear enough close that the already-blanked final warning regarding personal attacks would be enforceable with blocks, and the fact that the personal attacks have continued (including the bogus "hounding" accusations) immediately after the close ... well, it's not me who's been stepping on the tiger's tail. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:38, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Where did I accuse you of hounding since the ANI close? You keep commenting on everything I do, and posting about me on talk pages, so you are clearly following my contributions, then complaining when I look at yours so I can respond to wherever my name is mentioned. I never bother speaking to you unless you mention me first. You clearly violated what the administrator told you, but he decided not to enforce it, you two seem rather close so I must unfortunately assume that's the real reason you can get away with anything. Dream Focus 00:47, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Don't play these word games: you've accused me a bunch of times of talking about you, and right here at the top of this thread you complained about me going back through your contribs to find plagiarism; that you didn't use the word "hound" is irrelevant. And it should probably be noted that I went, in good faith, to a friend of yours to request that they tell you that some of your edits honestly are pretty bad and need work; said friend essentially responded "Yeah, you're right, but Dream Focus is awesome so I won't be helping you on this matter", so you really shouldn't be talking about "the real reason [I] can get away with anything". And I never bother speaking to you unless you mention me first is patently false.[14] Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:30, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Do you deny going around talking about me after the ANI ended? User_talk:Curly_Turkey#"Children's_picture_book"_=_"novel"_=_"popular_history_(nonfiction)_book"? User_talk:Curly_Turkey#Citing_a_source_whose_title_is_apparently_"You_Have_Reached_a_404_Page" [15] Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions#Rape_in_the_United_States_has_included_copyvio_for_nine_years;_is_revdel_still_the_solution? [16] and of course here. Dream Focus 01:38, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

As for your added bit [17] I responded to something in Administrators' noticeboard while our open case was at Administrators' noticeboard Incidents, you arguing with Andrew D, who I interact with regularly over the years through the Article Rescue Squadron. Other than that, can you find a single example? Not counting arguments at the ARS or in an AFD? Dream Focus 01:44, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

• The community rejected a two-way IBAN that I proposed. I still believe this to be the best way forward but I won’t be sanctioning anyone when the community just rejected that. I don’t have any other comments. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:19, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
  • If they won't find some way to get along, I will bring this back to ANI (though I'm disappearing on vacation early next week). power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:20, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Tony, I could email you with a more detailed explanation as to why that was not a good solution under the circumstances (another user relatively familiar with the background was more explicit than me in their oppose !vote, mind you), but I honestly don't think you'd be interested in reading it. Anyway, can you just close or speedy-archive this now? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:41, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

For the record DreamFocus is no longer welcome on my talk page so Hijiri can say whatever the hell he wants about him there. I don't care. --Tarage (talk) 00:51, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Dream Focus I don't know anything about your dispute with User:Hijiri88 except for the review of the ANi I closed. Charging him with stalking here is pretty lame. Based on what was presented in the ANi I strongly suggest you stop what appears to be harassment of the other user and find something productive to do. The 2 way IBAN failed largely because other users found you, Dream Focus was disproporionately at fault. Pretend there is an IBAN and ignore accordingly. There are a few users that will take you to ANi for sanctions if you don't cut this nonsense out. Legacypac (talk) 04:59, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Personal Attack

Is it a personal attack? See this comment of yours, plz. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:58, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

If you have concerns about Yaniv’s behavior in the ARBPIA topic area, please file a report at WP:AE. I don’t have the time to sort through stuff currently. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:13, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

It's just a personal attack issue. Tnx--Mhhossein ^talk 14:28, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

To me it seems like an appropriate response to the accusation of stalking. I have no idea if stalking is occurimg of course. Legacypac (talk) 04:09, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

2nd Opinion

Hi Tony. When you get a minute can you take a look at Gil Cisneros? I have some concerns. First it looks like a pretty clear case of WP:BLP1E and secondly the community has a longstanding consensus that barring something unusual we rarely do articles for candidates for political offices other than the Presidency. The reason being that such articles almost always end up being COATRACKS for political advertising. And this one looks like a text book example. I am however reluctant to tag it or send it to AfD as it is currently being promoted on the main page under DYK. Am I off base here? -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:29, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Disregard the above. I just saw you are on a break. Enjoy your down time. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:38, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

RS check

Since I cannot safely post this concern on a noticeboard, perhaps you can answer this question. Beyond My Ken recently said "SPLC is a reliable source on hate groups and does not require an additional source". Is this an accurate viewpoint based on our WP:Reliable sources policy? Can SPLC's description (self-published, primary source) of a group from their website be quoted directly? Or should their opinion only be mentioned if it received coverage in a secondary source? -- Netoholic @ 14:08, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

I would encourage you to go to WP:NPOVN or WP:RSN. You are free to use noticeboards for their intended purposes, just like any other Wikipedian. Just like any other editor, you can also be sanctioned for abusing them. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:36, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Nope, I was blocked for discussing someone on a noticeboard, and you considered that to be "furthering a dispute" because he reverted an edit of mine about 24 hours earlier. In this case, the person in question recently reverted me and so I cannot take the risk that you or someone else will do the same thing if I post about this issue. Feel free to do so yourself if you don't know/don't have an opinion on it. I think its a valid question, but I can't be the one to follow up on it. -- Netoholic @ 15:05, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

I am not your personal noticeboard, and I’m not going to put myself in a position to be cited as making policy outside of consensus. If you don’t feel that you are able to follow community norms of behavior at noticeboards, that is something you need to work on personally, not me. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:08, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

You put yourself in the position of making policy with regards to me. "Community norms" aren't my top worry, its 'your' expectations. The community didn't word that warning, you did. The community didn't block me, you did. The community wouldn't likely say my posting this on RSN is abusive use, but you might. I'm not asking you to make policy on this issue I brought up, only that, if you agree it is an issue and deserves to be discussed, you open the thread about it if you think I've brought up a valid concern. Our handling of a source related to an article shouldn't suffer just because I am the one that noticed the concern. -- Netoholic @ 15:19, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

• (talk page stalker) Netoholic I have had serious doubts about the SPLC going back years and recently their reputation has taken a ding. (see here and here) But I seriously doubt that the community is prepared to go there. All of which said, Tony is correct. This is an issue that can only be addressed by the community. If you want to pursue this then WP:RSN is <<< that way. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:41, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Thank you for staying with me and advising me on my wrongs during my brief time of activity under this account. I am currently planning a clean start in a few months, and hope that we cross paths again soon. This one's on me. :) jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 19:15, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I can be gruff sometimes, but I’m always happy to see people back on Wikipedia being productive TonyBallioni (talk) 20:53, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

PM requests

I'm glad you're watchdogging that. That's the kind of examination that needs to be done.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:57, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, SMcCandlish, @Amakuru and Primefac: are also helping a lot and deserve a lot of the credit for helping there. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:25, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I've backpatted them before for it, I think. :-) If not, good job all 'round.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:27, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Aww, thanks! Primefac (talk) 23:40, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Psalm 100

Could you - when you return - please check out (and hopefully source) Catholic use of Psalm 100, 99 for the Vulgate? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:19, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

I’ll have a look this weekend, I should have more time TonyBallioni (talk) 00:41, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Good Friday last fell on March 25 in 2016. I checked the Divine Office for that date as well as the readings for the Good Friday service, and I don't see it. I had a friend check the 1911 rubrics for Lauds and Vespers and it doesn't appear in either of those either. Absent a secondary source, I suggest removing that line.

Also, fun fact for you and any watchers who are interested, the Church Fathers were of the belief that the original Good Friday was on March 25, because there was a tradition in the early first millennium that great people died on the date that they were conceived. See Augustine below:

For He is believed to have been conceived on the 25th of March, upon which day also He suffered; so the womb of the Virgin, in which He was conceived, where no one of mortals was begotten, corresponds to the new grave in which He was buried, wherein was never man laid, neither before nor since. [18]

TonyBallioni (talk) 17:43, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Excessive personal vandalism

Hello Tony please can you hide this, this and this. Thanks --Alaa :)..! 03:08, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

علاء, done. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:12, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Deleted article

I wrote an article on Kevin wendell Jones you deleted. I came across his interview and thought it'll be a good because of his history with the military band and what he's been doing since then. I'm not a COI but being called a sockpuppet is kinda rough. I know people may not like what I wrote about I get it. If I didn't care about what I wrote I wouldn't have tried so hard to fight to keep it. Livinginthepink (talk) 17:22, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Livinginthepink, I didn't call you a sockpuppet: I was referencing Seafox289 who pretty clearly is one of someone (likely trying to sway another AfD so they picked this one at random to comment in.) If you want me to email you the text of the article, I can. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:39, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, thank you for the clarification. I asked an admin if everything was ok from the start and they told me they didn't see an issue with the article. I worked hard to put it together. What do I need to do or add to get it restored? Livinginthepink (talk)

Livinginthepink, I've restored it to your userspace as User:Livinginthepink/Kevin Wendell Jones. I would suggest using the WP:AFC process to submit it in the future. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:08, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

User:Livinginthepink - I don't think that User:TonyBallioni meant that you should just go ahead and submit it right back to AFC. That makes me wonder whether to tag it for G4. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:10, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Deleted

Hi Tony, you closed as delete Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/BitShares with a total of votes as 2 delete vs 1 keep, with one of the editors Smallbones being a POV (anti-crypto) pushing editor. Seems a bit light on voting. I don't care too much about the article, other than the effort I put to to TNT it, but I thought I would mention that I hope that 2:1 is not the standard of 'consenus' on wikipedia AfD these days. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:01, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

3:1, you forgot the nominating statement by MER-C that also counts as a !vote. 2:1 in the comments outside the nom is about the numeric standard anyway all else being equal with the policy rationale (i.e. if we assume everyone has an equally strong policy argument.) One of the people who thought you did a good job had subsequently been CheckUser blocked, and after removing that, consensus existed to delete. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:09, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Ah, i didnt know that a user had been checkuser blocked and didnt know that the nominator's vote counted as one. Thanks for the explanation of both. Still, I think that an article that has basic RS in place (I think 5-10 if i recall), even if borderline passing mention, should have a decent amount of discussion before it is closed as delete and if that doesn't material the article should be left for a future nomination. However, I am more loose on my keep votes than others, that I admit :-) Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:01, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

@Jtbobwaysf: I don't appreciate being called "a POV (anti-crypto) pushing editor." That's a type of personal attack. You've been doing similar things on Talk:Bitcoin. If you want to complain about my editing there are several ways to do it, e.g. ArbCom, but I'll suggest that have some sort of evidence wherever you go take and ping me so that I can respond. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:08, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Solmetric

Hi Tony, can you provide your rationale on why Solmetric AfD was closed as "No Consensus" please? It is clear that the Keep !votes failed to address the criteria for establishing notability and none provided and references that met the criteria. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:46, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

HighKing, I work off of the assumption that experienced editors know what they are talking about when they give policy-based rationales even if they are not the rationale I would choose myself (I tend to agree with you more than not as an AfD participant.) There was not a consensus in that AfD to delete the article. I tend to agree that the keep !votes have a starry-eyed view of NCORP and products, and while I don't personally have that view, it is not my place as the closer to replace the views of the participants with my views. It had already been relisted twice, and the last time didn't draw any further comments. I'd suggest nominating it for deletion again in a month or two. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:02, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Cool, thanks. I'm still getting my head around the logic used to close an AfD. Different strokes for different folks I suppose. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:18, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Question

Moved from Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Sro23 ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 03:34, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni: Hello and thanks for your comment. Can you specify why you think players of Huggle the video game are "disruptive"? Huggle is designed as a anti-vandalism tool and every time I use it seriously. I know some (automatic) reports are false positives from time to time but as far as I know most of them aren't. ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 03:31, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

I don’t think that’s relevant to this RfA and think you should remove these comments and ask me on my talk. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:33, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Sure: I view the ability to vandalize some random page once that will be reverted instantly by a bot as a feature of Wikipedia rather than a negative: it’s how we get future admins (and for those watching at home, in addition to his reputation as one of the most active vandal fighters, the admin I just pinged is one of the most collegial I know and will ALWAYS ask for a second opinion before doing even the most minor action he is unsure of.)

In terms of Huggle, it’s a tool that can be used well, but I was using it as a metaphor for people who play Wikipedia as an MMORPG. A large amount of the stuff at AIV these days goes unanswered because most admins realize Wikipedia isn’t a blood sport and that the person who makes a joke in their high school computer lab isn’t going to hell for it. I’m not by any means pro-vandalism: AIV is one of the few areas I patrol of late because it’s quick to deal with and needs doing, but a good amount of the reports from self-proclaimed vandal fighters can’t tell the difference between a high school kid making jokes with his friends over 2 edits and the LTA who is harassing people in real life. The former has the potential to be an ArbCom member in 18 months. The latter needs WMF intervention. My point at the RfA is that Sro23 is one of the few people who works in anti-vandal work who in my experience can always tell the difference. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:49, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

I think identifying LTAs is a matter of experience and participation in SPI. I have been 'vandal fighting' using Huggle for two months, during this time I spotted about 3 LTAs which is quite obvious, but they're blocked before I do anything. However, Sro23 is a SPI clerk, which means (s)he has much time in touch with SPs and LTAs and is familiar with them. You can't blame the 'self-proclaimed vandal fighters who can't tell the difference between a high school kid making jokes with his friends over 2 edits and the LTA who is harassing people in real life' that much. ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 05:14, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

As an additional note, edits of LTAs and vandals will be reverted and they'll be warned anyway. ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 05:19, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Meh, I’m far from the only admin who feels this way re: the MMORPG and blood sport aspect, though I’m probably the most vocal on it because being vocal is a bad habit of mine. I can blame the people who report IPs to AIV for MOS changes (142, are you around? I’d love for you to weigh in...) or who try to get one edit accounts who made one poop joke blocked for wasting my time. I consider that to be far more harmful to Wikipedia than one poop joke. A series of dumb high school kid crap will lead to a block, but the petty shit that stops after one or two edits is easily dealt with without resorting to blocks.

I also think you missed my point at the RfA: I have extreme respect for vandal fighters like Sro23 and Oshwah who do the work I don’t want to do while remembering why we exist. I’ll gladly support anyone who i think won’t block blindly who’s main use of the tools would be using it to block vandals. My point was that Sro23 is one of the few who work in this area who I don’t think will be too quick to block. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:41, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

That's the problem of Huggle. You can choose reason for your revert (such as unsourced, biased content, fringe theories, PA, MOS, edit tests), but after four warnings (any) the user is reported to WP:AIV, despite (s)he is not vandalizing. I agree with what you said about Sro23, but sometimes I DO see admins blocking IPs after one or two edits. All WP:AIV reports aren't just after one or two edits (I suppose), so I think they're generally trusty except being given a reason like "username violation" and Huggle automatic reports. ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 05:51, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

I was using Huggle as a metaphor. I appreciate the work of people who get why we’re here and also focus on anti-vandal work. I just also think a lot of people don’t get why we’re here and that disconnect has a larger negative impact over time than the IP who did something that isn’t vandalism but doesn’t make sense at first glance. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:57, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Ok. I finally understand what you're main point is... First sentence of no. 3 of User:Antandrus/observations on Wikipedia behavior is what you're talking about? ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 06:03, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

I'll chip in here since I have now supported Sro23's adminship having found solid evidence he has done things that the serial MMORPG Huggler can't and / or won't do - in this case, rescue an article from deletion (or at least death by G13) and demonstrate notability. I know a couple of people have said "well he's not got much content experience" - meh, if he can do that, that's good enough to demonstrate he's not going to be playing World of Wikipediacraft. (If you want a counter-example, here is the first one that comes to mind). Point 3 of OWB is (IMHO) geared more towards people who can churn out FAs like clockwork, but when somebody raises a dispute with them over said FA, the response is usually something approaching "why don't you pull your head out of your ass and fuck off?" (I'm naming no names but search the Arbcom archives and you'll find people that fit). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:07, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Yeah — OWB3 isn't really at play here. More to the point, AE, you can turn that function off I believe, in the "warnings" tab. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:08, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

@Amorymeltzer: I turned off the automatic report just now. Thanks for your suggestion, but I have to do that manually everytime @_@ ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 06:55, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm okay with that; besides, it's not four warnings, it's after a level four warning. I see plenty of reports at AIV where someone got a level 3 or level 4 warning right away or improperly for their first or second edit, and then they get reported for the next edit. Manual reporting is good. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 10:36, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

• AIV is one of the few areas I patrol of late because it’s quick to deal with and needs doing, but a good amount of the reports from self-proclaimed vandal fighters can’t tell the difference between a high school kid making jokes with his friends over 2 edits and the LTA who is harassing people in real life. The former has the potential to be an ArbCom member in 18 months. The latter needs WMF intervention. I applaud you for your common sense. If you ever have ideas of running for ArbCom, you have my vote. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 14:37, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Barnstar of Diligence

Finally someone who "gets it." In reply to: I can blame the people who report IPs to AIV for MOS changes (142, are you around? I’d love for you to weigh in...) or who try to get one edit accounts who made one poop joke blocked for wasting my time. I consider that to be far more harmful to Wikipedia than one poop joke. A series of dumb high school kid crap will lead to a block, but the petty shit that stops after one or two edits is easily dealt with without resorting to blocks. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages)Have a blessed day. 14:42, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Papal conclave, 1769

Hi. I was wondering if Talk:Papal conclave, 1769/GA2 is ready to be closed. AIRcorn (talk) 10:04, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Aircorn, I haven't had the time to properly try to fix the article, but I don't think it meets current GA standards. Not sure what that means in terms of the reassessment. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:45, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

As it is an individual reassessment it is really up to you. If you think you can get it up to standard soon you might want to keep it open until you do. If you can't do it soon it would probably be better to close it as delist and then you can renominate it when you are ready. You can even keep it if you want. The process is supposed to be lightweight and it is not a big deal to be delisted. It has been 3 months since you opened it and 10 weeks since the last meaningful edit to that article so personally I would be leaning to delisting it. If you need help with the technical side let me know. AIRcorn (talk) 01:04, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Seems incredibly silly

That one non-admin can have me "logged" on some sanctions list because he decided to answer my question with a warning template. Just saying. :/ GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 21:58, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

GhostOfDanGurney: it just shows you are aware the sanctions exist. Nothing more. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:59, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Alright. I really just need to keep my word and stay away from editing the topic, though. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 22:08, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

WTPS (AM) logo

Just to update, I think the logo issue has been sorted out per User talk:JJMC89#User talk:Neutralhomer#July 2018, so hopefully that will be the end of this dispute. FWIW, I think this probably might've been resolved without anybody being blocked if I'd just posted this and this a few minutes earlier. Then again, my subsequent attempts to try and explain what appears to have been an avoidable misunderstanding weren't received very well, so perhaps it wouldn't have made any difference. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:31, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Plagiarism at Akbar II; revdel needed

Hey Tony, would you mind revdelling these 57 edits? The first of them plagiarized a large volume of text from this source, and it remained largely intact until I removed it just now.

On a side note, I find it really weird that that much time could pass, with that many people editing the page, without noting the large amount of text that was haphazardly inserted into the article (we described his death and burial site, then suddenly jump back 25 years for a lengthy essay that didn't read at all like it was originally written for a Wikipedia article). Someone even removed the citation of the blog because "blogs are unreliable", without apparently clicking the link to see whether it was written by a reputable expert on the topic, which would have immediately revealed that the text was plagiarized and needed removal regardless of whether the source was reliable.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:28, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

 Done yeah, in some less heavily edited areas you unfortunately see stuff like this. From an area I'm more familiar with: pick a random papal conclave and the odds are likely it cites a polemic that academics consider little better than fiction. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:32, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! As a bigger aside, do you mind if I ask you a hypothetical about this stuff? (I thought about it a little while back, but the timing wasn't right.)

A few years ago, I noticed an article on Wikipedia was almost identical to a piece that had been published elsewhere. When I asked about it, the page was revdelled accordingly. But I'm actually fairly certain the text was published on Wikipedia first, despite the author not actually intending to release the text under a free license.

I don't want to reveal on here what the page was, because pointing out that another editor inadvertently outed themselves would still be me outing them in my book, and since nothing could be gained by un-revdelling there isn't really any point. (I could email you if that was what I was asking for, and honestly I could email you if you were just really curious.)

Do we treat these cases as copyvio anyway?

I ask partly because I'm curious, and partly because it would seem to be a similar problem to something that's been bugging me for a while, that Wikipedia text is plagiarized elsewhere and might get cut from Wikipedia as a result of false positives like this one (where I was lucky and happened to have a clear paper trail demonstrating how I couldn't possibly have plagiarized the text in question).

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:41, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

On a completely unrelated note, could you take a look at this? An indeffed editor using their talk page to gather "dirt" on the editor they blame for getting them blocked seems highly inappropriate. I'd ask the blocking admin, but said admin actually opposed the block, enforcing it only reluctantly, and last time something similar happened they seemed to agree with the blocked editor that I was responsible for "getting them blocked" (do I need to dig up the diff? if I recall correctly it was on your page, but it hardly seems relevant either way).

I know you're probably too "involved" to unilaterally withdraw talk page access at this point, but maybe (hopefully) someone other than me removing the questionable material and telling him that his talk page access will be revoked the next time he does something like that will be enough.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:56, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Stricken per this. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:25, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Hijiri88, see my note at AN. Sorry I didn't get back to you in time (here or by email). I've been focusing on simple things on-wiki of late, and haven't been keeping up with my talk page or email as much as I normally do. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:19, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

No, it's cool. The main reason I went to AN, as I said, was that I realized (too late, else I wouldn't have messaged you at all) you probably wouldn't be in a position to deal with it. NinjaRobotPirate already told him to knock it off, so we might be done here, unless someone shows up at the AN thread and tells me to stop watching his talk page, regardless of how much of it is about me -- the way my luck has been with the drahma boards recently, I honestly wouldn't be surprised. ;-) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:36, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

User:LLarson's editing of Commissioner's Plan of 1811

Could you please look at this editor's contributions to the article above, one for which I am the primary author [19]? His editing seems to me to be verging on WP:HARASSMENT of me. I have warned him about this on his talk page before, but his efforts appear to have picked up. I have absolutely no objections to improvements to the article, or the fixing of problems -- in fact I welcome it -- but his tagging is blatantly wrong, as you can see on the talk page. I believe that a suggestion that he back off and edit elsewhere would be appropriate. Thanks, Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:09, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken, full protected for two weeks as this is a slow raging content dispute over what appears at first glance to be multiple topics over the last month. If they follow you elsewhere after this, let me know. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:15, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Could you fix a typo and make "organizally" into "organically", or would it be better if I made a formal edit request? Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:18, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Non-controversial, so  Done TonyBallioni (talk) 02:19, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:20, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

• LLarson just followed me to Bir Tawil, an article I had just edited a little over an hour before, and which I've edited heavily in the past. [20]. It's true that he has edited the article in the past, but his last edit was 3 years ago. [21] (And his edit, which altered mine, stunk, too.) Beyond My Ken (talk)

• Thanks, I hope that will be sufficient. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:34, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Major Major?

[22] EEng 04:16, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

God. I’d ctrl+f’d on my iPhone to look at something Majora said. No clue why it does that. I’ll see if I can undo and repost. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:19, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

More like an unctrld f'd. EEng 04:20, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Heh. Fixed now. Always good to cross paths with you. I think I’m twice featured in the museums now as a testimonial. We really should have [[:Category:Wikipedians featured in User:EEng’s museums]]. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:25, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Too personally dangerous for people with Trump in office. Might be used as a basis for The Big Roundup when it comes. EEng 05:57, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for changing my user name back, Tony. nagualdesign 16:17, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

No problem. nagualdesign. If you want your upage back let me know and I can restore it. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:18, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

I'll bear that in mind. Cheers. By the way, you've got a contender for the most beautiful name award; BatteryIncluded has changed his user name to Rowan Forest, which I assume is his real name. nagualdesign 16:23, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

I know his brother, Nottingham Forest and his cousin Leicester Forest East Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 00:19, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Follow up question; Is there a time limit on how long you can wait before restoring deleted pages? nagualdesign 13:53, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Nagualdesign, it can be restored at any time. Deleted revisions don't go away, they are just hidden from public view. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:23, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I'll just leave it as is for now then. Cheers, Tony Ballioni. (Mamma mia! It does roll off the tongue rather nicely.) nagualdesign 20:34, 12 July 2018 (UTC)