Jump to content

User talk:TonyBallioni/Archive 21

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15←Archive 19Archive 20Archive 21Archive 22Archive 23→Archive 25

WP:BOOMERANGs at WP:AIV

Thanks for the vote of confidence - I've done one or two boomerang blocks at AIV recently, and numerous other declines. I don't like doing them as blocking a good-faith contributor always runs the risk of them retiring and you looking like a total chump, but provided I do them "by the book" with the full weight of the blocking and edit-warring policies behind me, it can be a good learning exercise. People tend to remember why they were blocked, and if they understand it (which gets them unblocked), it probably sticks in their mind. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:11, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Ritchie333, not a problem. I think something a lot of people don't realize is how many admins actually do view every AIV report and decline to block without noting it. I think your doing so helps show the *actual* state of the backlog at AIV. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:24, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

A year ago ...
papal conclaves
... you were recipient
no. 1682 of Precious,
a prize of QAI!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:45, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Gerda, thank you so much (and thanks for your peer review comments as well, even though I haven't acted on them yet... I will, once I get more time.) TonyBallioni (talk) 04:20, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Huggums using email to recruit meatpuppets?

That ANI thread got me suspicious.

It turns out Huggums attempted to email at least one editor who didn't have email activated, and so messaged them on a sister project instead. The message specifically complained about the procedural issues behind the close. This fact makes me strongly suspect North8000 (talk · contribs) received the same email that couldn't be sent to that user. IMO the actual action they took in Huggums's stead was not a problem on its face, and I don't for a second doubt North8000's good faith, but I'm really wondering if email access should be revoked since the editor has now all but admitted (on a sister project, so it's not WP:OUT) to using email to contact people to act in his stead.

Messaging you despite knowing that you're busy since this is probably more about you than me at this point (you were the "ANI nominator" being talked about); if you don't want to pursue it I'll probably follow suit.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:20, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

He's free to appeal at WP:UTRS, and en.wiki doesn't generally accept 3rd party appeals, so his emailing isn't going to be of much use. I don't think its a technical sock violation (banned users contact admins on meta frequently.) Bbb23 closed the thread recent, so he might be interested. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:25, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Well, I'm a little concerned that he seems to be contacting not only editors he has had positive interactions with in the past (such as North8000) but editors he has never interacted with and who are only interested because they have had negative interactions with me. James500's showing up on Huggums's talk page in order to request he be unblocked in response to my opening the ANI thread on Dream Focus was super-creepy, "enemy-of-my-enemy" behaviour, and Huggums's contacting him within the last few days is just as worrisome; if he's emailing other editors I conflict with that means that even if he can't get unblocked user behaviour any problems I encounter will automatically be aggravated, and honestly I'd prefer an unblocked Huggums who harasses me directly than a blocked Huggums who emails random editors about me. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 20:34, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
I received your ping above. I'm not going to engage in any big discussion, but other than the May general request at their talk page which I was pinged to, I can tell you absolutely that nobody asked me to do anything. If you want my take (just from looking at the ANI) Huggums did something wrong against Tony which they were genuinely apologetic and contrite over. And Huggums and Hijiri88 seem to have been engaged in a long term slugfest and from the little that I saw at the ANI it appears to be 2-way. A 2 way disengagement is in order, (if not the ideal of shaking hands) and then move on to enjoy Wikipedia. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:59, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Article was deleted

I am trying to get help with a deleted article. I was going to add some references to the article but found out that it was deleted. the article is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Scott_(choreographer) So based on all of the standards that I am aware of and all of the similar articles, this article seems to meet the standard. This choreographer has just been nominated for his third Emmy award. That is why I was going to add this information. Is there a way for the article to be available for improvement? I really don't understand the deletion. ANy help you can give me will be appreciated. Thanks. 2606:6000:6783:4C00:F995:298F:69AB:BBC2 (talk) 22:03, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

See Draft:Christopher Scott (choreographer) you can work on it there and submit it for review through our articles for creation process. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:53, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you.2606:6000:6783:4C00:F995:298F:69AB:BBC2 (talk) 23:58, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

DF and "illlegal Latinos"

DF is still making disruptive edits, but per Cullen's warning I can't revert them or ask him about them without fear of being blocked solely for the action of interacting with him (even though the ANI close specifically stated that we are not subject to an IBAN). Would you mind taking a look at, for example, this edit? The source has "US citizens" but he changed it to "US-born legal residents" (or "counterparts"), which strikes me as incredibly inappropriate/offensive. The insistence on always referring to undocumented immigrants as "illegal immigrants" despite the sources, and extending this to ugly turns of phrase like "illegal Mexicans", "illegal Latinos" and "illegal groups", apparently by means of a find-and-replace function without looking at the context, also seems questionable. A number of editors said at the end of the first ANI that more eyes would be on him, but since Cullen's block expired it doesn't look like anyone's been making sure he doesn't make the same kind of problematic edits that were my original concern with him. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:27, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

I would agree, but that appears to be the status quo of the article and they were just undoing an edit by an IP, and I also don't know what the MOS says about this terminology (I could give you AP style, but that isn't that helpful on Wikipedia. Also, I'd note that they moved that article to its current title apparently without an RM in September. I see EEng now is involved, and I'm sure he'll look at the article as a whole. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:37, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
Just clarifying that I'm neutral on "illegal immigrant" vs. "undocumented immigrant", but a number of other things the IP changed were clearly problematic before the IP's edit, and DF's edit restored them: any style guide that recommends describing natural-born citizens as "legal residents", for example, definitely should not be used, as doing so would be clearly racist (no one outright rejects the notion of citizenship and refers to all citizens as "legal residents"), and "illegal groups" sounds like it refers officially proscribed criminal gangs and terrorist cells, not groups of people who happen to be undocumented. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:29, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
Hijiri88, I did not threaten to block you "solely for the action of interacting with him" but rather for engaging in disruptive behavior in your interactions with him (or anyone else). You need to do one of two things: learn how to interact with the other editor without excessive combativeness, or ignore the other editor. I do not know how many times I need to tell you the same thing phrased in different words, but I guess that you have your own learning style. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:09, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
I'd go back and check if I didn't really want to disengage at this point, but I'm pretty sure one of your messages to me or to DF, or a comment on the ANI thread or something, said we should not be looking at each other's contribs and you would block either one of us the next time that happens. My only two interactions with the other editor in the last two weeks were this comment, which was not "excessively combative", and my response to his request on your talk page that I be blocked (and that was clearly what it was) for the mere action of interacting with him in a non-combative manner was ... well, I would probably be happier had I not done it, and I don't intend to do it again now that you have clarified that your previous statements were not meant to indicate that you would block me for the act of interacting with him in a non-combative manner. Thank you for clarifying that that was not what it meant. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:21, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
Let me be crystal clear on this point, Hijiri88. Read the beginning of that thread on my talk page again: Dream Focus did not request that you be blocked, and did not hint or imply that. If by some miracle, the two of you learned to interact in a collegial fashion, then I would have no problem with that and neither would any other productive editor. Barnstars and cheers all around. My concern as an administrator is ongoing, disruptive, combative behavior indicative of a battleground mentality. I gave you friendly advice yesterday when you came to my talk page in a friendly way. Now I need to be more direct. Stop this behavior now. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:52, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
Fine. I don't acknowledge that there was anything combative about the message he requested you do something about in your capacity as an admin, but I don't care enough to argue over that any further. My responding in a combative manner by wikilawyering over how you are not allowed block me for violating an IBAN I'm not subject to, etc. was motivated purely by a fear of a block. Now that you have clarified that you are not going to block me for that, I am happy to apologize for the tone of my two responses on your talk page. I am sorry for that. Thank you for clarifying. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:14, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Hijiri88, I'm glad that you and Cullen328 have worked on clarifying this out. Hijiri: you and I get along well, and I know that you only have the best interest of the encyclopedia at heart with whatever you do, but I also understand a lot of Cullen's exasperation with the dispute between you and Dream Focus (it is part of the reason I suggested an IBAN.)

I've told you several times to just ignore Dream Focus: if his behavior is so problematic that it needs to be taken up to noticeboards, someone else will do it. Cullen has already shown that he is willing to make blocks here if the need arises, and I trust his judgement in difficult situations like these. @EEng and John from Idegon: have also commented at Cullen's talk, which means that other experienced and respected users are aware of the situation.

At this point, given the previous number of ANI threads, I do think that there is a possibility of an ArbCom case about this in the future, which is not something that I think anyone wants. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:51, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

It's true that John from Idegon and I have commented as you say, but who are these experienced and respected users to whom you refer? EEng 03:56, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
One advocates for the merger of Idaho and Oregon, and the other plasters funny images in walls of text. Fine fellows, both of them. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:13, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

2.100.107.216

Hi Tony, I notice that you were online. Do you mind doing something about this vandal: Special:Contributions/2.100.107.216? Cheers. nagualdesign 04:02, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Blocked for 31 hours. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:12, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Admin's Barnstar
You are an excellent admin so that you can find my mistakes although you has been an admin since 2017 Hhkohh (talk) 05:48, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Suspicious editing

I was reading the archive of the BurritoSlayer paid sockpuppets investigation, and I noticed that you that suspected that the recreator of Bruce Flatt was a paid sockpuppet, which was confirmed. I followed the Bruce Flatt link which now redirects to Brookfield Asset Management. I checked the history and it looks to me like experienced, paid IP editors are running rampant there, and have been since at least March. They might match the BurritoSlayer group. Could you check it out?  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  02:33, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Mr. Guye, please see here already. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:35, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
@Kudpung: This is mostly about the target, not the redirect. The Brookfield Asset Management article is now an advertisement. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  17:35, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
I know, Mr. Guye, I just don't have time to deal with it at the moment. Anyone willing to do some reasearch, I'll help by using my tools to look at any deleted material. I'm sure Tony will too if he's around. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:42, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
My goodness.The article has been turned into a full-fledged brochure! Good catch,anyways:) But,it's sad that (courtesy a malfunctioning PC),I can't launch a draconian cleanup session,myself:(∯WBGconverse 18:43, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks all, busy this week, but will try to look on the weekend. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:46, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Post ACTRIAL analysis and better tools

Possibly now would be a good time to start thinking about filing for an allocation of WMF resources to analyse the effects of not only ACPERM, but of the performance of the recent NPR backlog drive at which IMO some users may have been patrolling too quickly. The backlog is also sadly growing again rapidly already, and will probably reach 12,000 again by the end of the year. Let's hope that at the NPR coord election some leadership qualities will emerge that can not only encourage Reviewers to keep up the good work, but also to lobby the WMF in their best way possible for continued support of the critical core function that NPR is, and address the requirements here - giving the reviewers some sexy tools will retain their interest in the job. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:30, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Kudpung, worth thinking about. I think the best way forward would be to find a top few of them and make a reasonable pitch either at the community wishlist or to support and safety/community health for any of the ones that might interact with anti-harassment stuff (the latter tends to work well with finding socks.) I'll have a look over them in the next week or so and see if we can get something prepared in the next few months that might get community support. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:48, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Article about deleted articles

Thought this would interest you. [[1]]. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 21:22, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Interesting, though I’m hardly sympathetic. VC investors rarely get the coverage needed to meet our inclusion standards, and most of the coverage they do get is hardly independent. Though, maybe HighKing is worthy of an article now that the Telegraph is covering his work? This article is much more substantial independent coverage of him (even if not mentioned directly) than most of the subjects he sends to AfD receive. Obviously joking on that, but I consider the article a sign that our efforts as a community to crackdown on promotion are working. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:45, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
TonyBallioni Just a small thing but how did you make the connection to me seeing as how The Telegraph article doesn't mention me but the article comment mention K.e.coffman??? HighKing++ 10:02, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
True - and ironically, like the Streisand effect, if this gets more coverage for the folks deleted, that gives them more notability. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 00:40, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
Yes. I also thought of that: notable for not being notable! TonyBallioni (talk) 00:49, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
If they actually knew the system that would be genius! If Koffman had been added in the main article rather than a comment, a somewhat mental stretching exercise might be able to suggest a COI regarding any company/entrepreneur mentioned in the article. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:46, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Undelete request

Hi Tony, could you please undelete my user pages when you have the time. Cheers. nagualdesign 16:44, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Nagualdesign restored. Phone is being dumb and not letting me undo the U1 placement so you’ll want to remove those before someone else deletes (I normally would, but technology...) You can check my logs to find the pages. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:53, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Thank you. I don't understand what you mean by "U1 placement" though, or what I need to remove. nagualdesign 16:59, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
When I restored the revision history of your subpages, the {{db-u1}} tags were still there and rollback/undo is causing my phone to crash RN for some reason. You’ll want to remove them. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:01, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Nevermind. Did it manually . All good now. You can restore whatever you want from the history. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:05, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I worked out what was going on. Could you also restore my archives and common.js/common.css please? nagualdesign 17:08, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Archives and css still exist, but are blanked by you. I unblanked the css. Archives I’ll let you do at your leisure TonyBallioni (talk) 17:15, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Much obliged. All the best, nagualdesign 17:16, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

copyvios (train articles)

Reported by web site owner at OTRS ticket:2018051410010063 Ronhjones  (Talk) 20:26, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Ronhjones, yeah, I misread the time stamps on the edit histories between the two wikis. Deleted as G12 when I did a second check before sending to CP. Sorry for the confusion. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:28, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
She said data added by User talk:PAKHIGHWAY - I see it's a blocked sock account. Ronhjones  (Talk) 20:29, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, oddly not your standard South Asian sock farm, but rather an angry “I didn’t sock” account. I have them on my WL which is how I saw it. They had some decent content work, but if theyve imported from a non-compatible license that’s an issue. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:35, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
Definitely non-compatible. The web site owner says some of the data on wiki.fibis.org (thankfully not copied, she said), is there from elsewhere by permission, and obviously she was worried that if we didn't stop it, that might also get on Wikipedia. Ronhjones  (Talk) 21:15, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, I saw the NC license there. Just added a 1 in front of the 8 in 2008 . I haven’t looked at the ticket yet, but if I have a chance when I get home, I can handle the G12s if someone else hasn’t. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:19, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi there. Thank you for the welcome message! I look forward to working with you on Catholicism-related articles in the future. --Matthew Benson (talk) 22:39, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Matthew Benson, not a problem. I’m pretty busy IRL currently so unfortunately I haven’t had as much time to work on content here as I like. If you have any questions at all though or need any help from an admin, feel free to ask me here. Either myself or one of the people who have this page on their watchlist will try to help :) TonyBallioni (talk) 22:42, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Psalm 139

Could you please check the Catholic use? All offline French sources ... --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:11, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

I’ll try to check this week and if I can’t find anything, I’ll email a friend who can. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:29, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

ROTH Capital Partners article

Hi TonyBallioni, Grayfell. I recently tried to work on the ROTH Capital Partners article. I respect your decision to semi-protect the page, but would like to draw your attention to the fact that User:Cypresscross is now using the protection as a means to turn it into an attack page without being reined in by consensus. It is evident from his edit history that Cypresscross is acting on behalf of specific companies or agendas and should not be editing these topics, if at all.

I would request that a neutral editor review the article/s and restore some semblance of NPOV, and that Cypresscross be prevented from editing on topics for which he has a COI, at the very least. Thank you.76.76.37.35 (talk) 07:56, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

If you think there is a COI, you can raise it at WP:COIN. I semi-protected because there was edit warring going on and at least some of the stuff that had previously been added was a copyright violation. TonyBallioni (talk) 10:55, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Request

I wanted to ask you first since you denied my request last time. If you would rather I request at PERM I will. You denied last time due to edit warring falling within 6 months which violated granting guidelines. At this time I was wondering if you could reconsider the request? TheDoctorWho (talk) 03:02, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

TheDoctorWho:  Done TonyBallioni (talk) 03:06, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
Thank you so much! TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:01, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Closing SPI

Hello Tony, I have seen your edit closing Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BurritoSlayer and I am not sure what does it mean. Is action pending or will it be closed with no action? Thanks. --MarioGom (talk) 18:52, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

MarioGom, sorry. I thought Kudpung had blocked the non-stale account. Blocked and tagged now. The other accounts haven't edited in almost a year, so we usually don't block those. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:55, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks! --MarioGom (talk) 18:57, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

TfD

My reason for deletion was that the community didn't like it and that there was no clear policy-based rationale for its existence. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  20:54, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

It's meant for user subpages and a good portion of the community prefers it to MfD for stale user space drafts. Not understanding how it is supposed to be used is not a valid reason for deletion. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:55, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
Thank you. Finally an explanation. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  20:56, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

The quote you were looking for

I believe this is the diff Hijiri was referring to -- though I could be wrong : [[2]] ... And there's no academic freedom in US when it comes to challenging the narrative of powerful interests there. Example Robert Faurisson an skilled academic who got fire for challenging the dominant Zionist narrative in US... -- go to Robert Faurison's page, linked in the original, he is indeed a Holocaust denier. EoL said he meant Norman Finklestein after Hijiri's comment. To be honest I might stop short of Hijiri's proposal of a community wide indefinite ban, if he wants to contribute on non-controversial material, why not -- but I cannot see this as some sort of symmetrical "both sides wrong" issue that just reduces to Israel versus some neighbors-- as far as I observed (mostly from the 2017-2018 protests pages) most people did try to get along (before ANI). One didn't.--Calthinus (talk) 04:24, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Calthinus, thanks. Hijiri provided it and I indef'd. I personally don't buy the explanation and given the total context of the account, I felt that blocking an an individual admin action was appropriate. I've noted it at the ANI, here. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:27, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Oh whoops-- I didn't see that. My bad. --Calthinus (talk) 04:29, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Bruce D. Jette

Like it or not I can remove a Prod tag for any reason or even no reason if I feel like it. The whole purpose of Prod is for non-controversial deletions, and Jette certainly is more notable than some run of the mill band or actor for instance. Do you have any evidence that there was undisclosed paid editing? While I am not a fan of it by any means, if I'm not mistaken there are situations when it is acceptable. Also, it seems kinda unlikely considering the article was created and then some person tried to blank it a few days later. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 14:14, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

PROD's can be removed for any reason you like, but providing an actually valid reason is expected as a courtesy, especially if you are an established editor. Simply removing "just because I think it may be notable, but I can't be bothered to check" isn't really helpful to anyone and just wastes time. Also, yes, the editor created a series of clearly commissioned works of mediocre political figures and civil servants, I blocked, and another admin upheld. The IP blanking this and replacing it with an official bio (not the user who created it) actually is further evidence of COI editing and UPE on the article: they created an initial biography, weren't happy with it, and then had internal employees change it. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:19, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
Just wondering, would you prefer the article be deleted and then I write my own version? ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 00:19, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
Yes. I don't think the history should be there, and to be frank, I don't think he is notable anyway. If he is, I'd prefer you recreate it from scratch so its harder for people to go through the history to restore stuff. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:31, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Regarding restoration of Dr. Abhas Mitra's Page

Respected Tonyballioni, I am JackPhy and I have written to you with a humble request. Sir, recently you had deleted a page of "Abhas Mitra" who is an Astrophysicist from India. Sir here I am requesting you to kindly restore his page and will provide arguments on why it should be restored. Dr. Abhas Mitra is a very famous Astrophysicist who was the Head of the Theoretical Astrophysics department of BARC (an eminent Research institution in India). He has made seminal contributions to Astrophysics and he is famous for his theories regarding MECO an alternative model for the Black hole. His research articles have been published in international peer reviewed journals. He has also provided a solution of the famous Black hole information paradox and a famous American Physicist, Richard Muller agrees with his proof and his exact words were (on Quora), "Mitra has solved the paradox 13 years before Hawking himself and did it in a way which is superior". There was even a "Harvard Press Release" regarding observations by NASA, that supported the MECO model of Dr. Mitra. He has been awarded the "Young Physicist prize" by the Indian Physics Society, years back.

Sir, I have gone through all the nominations and discussions against him, and want to tell you that he is being defamed. He is an extraordinary physicist and deserves a page of his own.

It's my humble request to you to kindly restore his page once again. Kind regards, JackPhy. JackPhy (talk) 18:39, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, won’t be able to do that because it was discussed by the community. If you want, I can email you a copy of the text, though. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:22, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Abhas Mitra's Page

Respected Tonyballioni, Yes please send me a copy of Dr. Abhas Mitra's Page on my email. (Redacted)

Sir, you said it was deleted after discussion by the community. Sir can be restored again in the future?

Regards, JackPhy JackPhy (talk) 10:17, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

I’ve sent you an email with the text. It can be recreated when more sources discuss him. I would recommend creating it through WP:AFC, however. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:37, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Respected Tonyballioni, You said that Dr. Abhas Mitra's Page can be created again if more sources are provided. I am attaching here a link, which has so many information about his research and contributions including recognition. I request you to kindly go through it, and then I believe, it should convince you to restore the page. abhasmitra.wordpress.com

Kind regards, JackPhy — Preceding unsigned comment added by JackPhy (talk • contribs) 13:45, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

That is a blog. It is not a reliable source. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:06, 17 August 2018 (UTC)


Sir, I request you that kindly go through it at once. I guarantee that all the information there is correct 100%. Kind request to your humble self. If there is any doubt you can check through Google. Dr. Abhas Mitra has been invited at various TEDX talks too which is available on YouTube and also in his blog. Regards, JackPhy — Preceding unsigned comment added by JackPhy (talk • contribs) 17:11, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Approving request

Hey Tony can you please approve our request on the event coordinator, I know it's short notice, thanks. Bobbyshabangu talk 10:37, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

 Done TonyBallioni (talk) 18:44, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

LLarson

Well, this is annoying.

In regard to this, Llarson just followed me to MTA Bridges and Tunnels, editing there 8 minutes after I did. [3], [4]. LLarson last edited the article in November 2006, his only other edit to it. I, on the other hand, have regularly edited the article since November of last year.

The edit LLarson made wasn't by itself terribly objectionable -- he added an (fairly unnecessary) CN tag -- but I am loathe to allow him to think that he can follow me wherever and whenever he wants to.

I'd like you to consider imposing a one-way interaction ban on LLarson, specifically to prevent him from editing immediately after, or in close proximity to, my edit(s) on an article-- I don't think that the contrib list is public to allow one editor to follow another around. I'd be fine with a two-way ban, since I never follow him, but I'm afraid that he would game it to edit some of the articles I've contributed considerably to, and I would then be prohibited from reverting his edit.

If you don't think that the evidence is sufficient to do anything, thanks anyway for considering it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:38, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi Beyond My Ken, unfortunately, individual admins can't impose IBANs unilaterally (and NYC is not an area under DS). I think your best bet here is to open a thread at AN or ANI. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:43, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
OK, thanks. I probably won't do that at this time, since the edit itself was relatively innocuous, but will wait for another instance, which I hope won't occur. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:33, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Curator tool

Hi Tony, Greetings. Notice that curator tool does not display on my NPP page today to work on NPP reviewing. Kindly advice. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 12:53, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi CASSIOPEIA, have you tried looking at your side toolbar for a link that says "Curate this page"? If that doesn't fix it, I'd suggest asking at WT:NPR and giving a specific example. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:45, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi Tony, Found it and click on it. It works. Thank you. Cheers! CASSIOPEIA(talk) 19:07, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

WP:WIR

Can I ask some advice? I'm getting rather fed up with the constant failure to assume good faith with members of WP:WIR, not to mention the antagonistic misandry that seems to permeate all their discussions. I'm seriously thinking of taking this to WP:ANI. WCMemail 19:11, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

WiR is a good project, and I support it and its efforts. I think the case with Elisa is that she's a very productive editor who also causes a lot of disruption and drama whenever people disagree with her. I blocked because this was previously contained to copyright issues, but now she has started the same pattern of behavior with regards to edit warring, and, quite frankly, after three indefinite blocks there isn't anywhere else left to go. These type of things can get emotional, especially when it comes to issues surrounding the representation of women and gender on Wikipedia, so its something I don't personally hold against anyone. My advice at this point is for you to disengage from the discussions on that talk page. I don't think ANI would be much help because as a whole, the project does a lot of good work, and the limited assumptions of bad faith here certainly aren't going to rise to anything above ANI. Sorry if it isn't that helpful. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:21, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
No worries, I'll take your advice, a chilled glass awaits. You have a pleasant evening. WCMemail 19:30, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
I've got Elisa on email (I have previously helped get her unblocked), and I am trying to work something out. I think Tony has given a well-reasoned justification for the block which adequately covers WP:ADMINACCT in my view. In general, I think WIR is a good project and most participants there treat each other respectfully, and are unlikely to close ranks if one of their number is a bit disruptive. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:26, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
I'm really astonished, WCM, that you talk of "the constant failure to assume good faith with members of WIR, not to mention the antagonistic misandry that seems to permeate all their discussions". I think your understanding of "good faith" must differ from mine. In the discussions I had with you in connection with María Sáez de Vernet, I simply tried to raise another point of view, which was in fact shared by several others. If you are ready to attack editors for friendly, constructive suggestions along these lines, it is hardly surprising some take offence. I am also surprised at the stand you have taken on the María Sáez de Vernet talk page towards David Eppstein, who has always been a most constructive contributor, both in mainspace and on talk pages. In any case, I'm glad to see you have been persuaded by Tony not to take Women in Red to ANI. (cc: Rosiestep, Victuallers).--Ipigott (talk) 08:05, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
I don't recognise the project that WCM describes. I suppose I should reply assuming bad faith, but I think most would realise that this just isn't the theme here.... and I'm very proud of that. Victuallers (talk)
  • I said this at David’s talk when Ipigott pinged me there, but at this time, I believe the best thing for Wikipedia is for Elisa to follow the standard offer procedures. Everything she has done since getting blocked has suggested that it is her intent to continue belng disruptive, and I can’t in good conscience unblock her or support another administrator unblocking her anytime soon. TonyBallioni (talk) 12:24, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
A couple of coincidences: WIR is a good project but there may be some partial truth in WCM's claims - on a unconnected incident I withdrew my support for WIR earlier today. Also, looking at the Elisa issue somewhere else, I wasn't going to bother chiming in, but I do concur with Tony. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:41, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
I am a proud member of WP:WIR, and helped Elisa in the beginning. It's rather sad. AGF has been mentioned, and could be applied more, on all sides. I am busy, so didn't follow the last outburst, but began missing Elisa when she "retired" (again). I can get upset over a detail of an article, remember A Boy was Born, so understand to a certain point. I usually don't go to ANI, - the last time I did was to fight for a friend's talk page access. Among adults, isn't that a minimum courtsey? - Psalm 138, help wanted. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:00, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
Gerda, like I said, I do support WiR as well, and I think a lot of the frustration expressed here at it is misplaced and is not something I share.
I don’t make blocks of productive content contributors lightly. The issue here is that talk before block goes both ways: if an editor will only talk to people who they disagree with when they are blocked and won’t engage in dialogue when people raise issues, there isn’t much else to be done when they start a fast paced edit war or start editing against consensus. Re: TPA, a mass ping to like minded editors pointing them to the content dispute she was just blocked for was in my view misusing the talk page while blocked. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:10, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
You said nothing I didn't hear before, and I understand even. You could still restore tpa, explaining to use it with caution, just to make the process more transparent. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:18, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
Sorry if I offended you by repeating things you already knew, I just wanted to respond directly in part to make it clear that I have no issues with WiR despite this heading. On TPA and transparency, I’d prefer that call be made by an another admin in UTRS. Unblocks are rarely handled directly there a somewhat normal practice is for reviewing admins to restore TPA when they think a non-disruptive appeal with a chance of succeeding will be made. Also, for the sake of transparency, I haven’t commented on the UTRS appeal, and it was reviewed by 5 albert square (whom I don’t think will mind my letting people know that.) TonyBallioni (talk) 13:27, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
You didn't offend me, sorry if you felt you did. I never want to be an admin, and this reminds me again why ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:06, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
I have tried very hard to remain out of this discussion which began with the original poster's behavior at AfD. I am sorry, Tony that your initial review of the situation was to block Elisa, but not WCM. WCM took the article to AfD, consensus went against them. Unhappy with that, they began disparaging WiR. WCM's characterization is completely off base. Ironically, most of those who have engaged with them both at the AfD and talk page have been men. The edit war resulted from a continued attempt to control the content of an article WCM disapproved of. Elisa is nowhere near "one of the most chronically disruptive editors", IMO. Aggression is far more disruptive in the development of the encyclopedia. In this case, it allowed WCM continue controlling the content of the article, caused Elisa to react defensively and earn another ban, and created numerous discussions on multiple talk pages taking away from building the encyclopedia. Not to mention, driving editors away who wanted to avoid the conflict (me included). Disparaging and mischaracterizing the membership of an entire project has far broader damage range than a mere content dispute.
Bad behavior on both sides should not result in uneven application of controls. I understand you were simply trying to control a bad situation, but surely there is a way to deescalate the situation by keeping both from editing a particular article, while thorough investigation is carried out. WCM's behavior, which you characterized as one of an "editor (who) recognized it was edit warring and said they were going to stop" is a pattern. When mildly chastised by an admin, they stopped their baiting behavior at the AfD momentarily only to resume it within a few minutes. Same situation here. WCM stated they were going to stop, but they did not. Elisa pinged people on her page, while WCM jumped around posting on various pages. How is that different? Same behavior, though one was aggressive and the other defensive. One was rewarded for their poor choices, the other was barred for theirs. I don't envy you your job, would never, ever, ever want to be an admin, but possibly this situation gives food for thought on future disputes. SusunW (talk) 15:38, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

I’m sorry you feel that way, but I stand behind my block: if I hadn’t made it, someone else would have had to make it soon enough: she refuses to communicate with people and thinks she’s always right. That’s incompatible with a collaborative project. Until the underlying issue there is resolved, the block is preventing disruption to the project. I think an unblock now would only result in a new block by a new admin in a few months, so I’m not comfortable pushing that responsibility down the road to someone else and possibly chasing off other productive contributors from areas of the project where there efforts are needed because of Elisa’s behavior. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:28, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

I am not weighing on Elisa's block one way or the other, nor advocating for you to remove it. In fact, I concur with your assessment that Elisa will most likely continue to experience blocks, for whatever reasons they can be justified. Rather, your words (thinks ... always right. ...incompatible with a collaborative project...) could just as easily apply to WCM's behavior in this situation. My comment was directed at the broader picture of all of the behavior which created the situation. There are always far more than two sides to an issue. All the gray area in between must be weighed. When one looks at this particular situation in total, the outcome rewarded the very person who began the conflict. SusunW (talk) 16:54, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
Blocks are not meant as punishment, but to prevent disruption. I dealt with the editor who was being the most clearly disruptive and have spent the last 24 hours of my time on this project trying to explain to Elisa and her friends why she was blocked, so I haven’t had the chance to look at what WCM has done beyond one revert that was pointed out to me. Regardless, this has nothing to do with Elisa who is blocked for her own behavior, not anyone else’s. If you have an issue with another editor who is being actively disruptive, WP:ANI is a better place to raise it than my talk page. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:15, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
It's a shame when people prefer to keep arguing and battling, rather than taking stock of the issues and listening to the reasons why people think they're being disruptive. If people are prepared to listen then they will find the Wikipedia community listens to them as well. That's what collaboration is all about. Well done for keeping a level head and doing your best to defuse the situation here, Tony.  — Amakuru (talk) 19:39, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
My stepson got married yesterday so I'm just getting around to being back on the internet and seeing all of this. I've decided it will have to wait for another day as I want to enjoy family time. --Rosiestep (talk) 20:31, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
Clearly we are not communicating and I am sorry for that. I am not remotely interested in involving myself in an ANI (I didn't even know what that was until I clicked on your link). No one save you mentioned "punishment". I called your block a control to deescalate the situation and asked if you might want to explore how this situation could enlighten future choices that were more balanced. This solution didn't control disruption. WCM's aggression has continued. Elisa will continue to become defensive if approached aggressively. Multiple hours on multiple talk pages have thwarted the building of the encyclopedia. There are lessons to be learned from this, as even when one thinks their actions are helping, they may not be. I am not calling you on the carpet, simply asking you to think about what happened and explore other options. SusunW (talk) 14:14, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Corbyn

Hi Tony. Regarding this content, as it was being edit warred in and the offending user has now been blocked are we at libery to revert him now and remove the disputed content for talkpage discussion and consensus forming ? Govindaharihari (talk) 03:44, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Just note it on the talk page and I'm sure someone else will deal with it if it needs to be reverted (or one of my TPS who is more familiar with British politics than I am might have a view.) The point of 1RR is for people to stop and talk. Someone else violating it isn't a reason for you to do so, even if it is in good faith TonyBallioni (talk) 03:45, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks much Tony, regards Govindaharihari (talk) 03:47, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

NPP/ARBPIA

What is the usual practice for a conflict-related article created by a new editor who isn't extended-confirmed? (The article is Breaking the Impasse). Seraphim System (talk) 05:42, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

A beer for you!

The sun's over the yard arm, I think 🍻 cheers! —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 11:29, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

revert

Apologies Tony for my recent reverts, it was in error. Cheers, Mahveotm (talk) 12:34, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Happens to the best of us. No worries. TonyBallioni (talk) 12:38, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Admin's Barnstar
For calmly dealing with this mess. Nihlus 19:26, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree with the praise for "calmly", clapping hands. Two thoughts, one related, one not. - Some people - like myself - are too proud to appeal. I was sentenced to restrictions for wanting an infobox for Beethoven (short version), found that unfair but didnt's appeal until two years later when AE became unbearable. I added Elisa to those in the desert, note that was before unblock conditions which somewhat change it but I am also lazy ;) - Psalm 47, O clap your hands, next in a series: anything about Catholic usage? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:17, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Lazy or not, I change the desert part after progress. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:20, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, Gerda. I appreciate the kind words, and yes, one of the most important things on Wikipedia is to keep in mind the human aspects. Sometimes that can be hard because different people can have different legitimate reactions to the same thing. I try to thread the needle there, but I don't always get it right. I hope this works, and I think it will.
I'll try to get to you on that Psalm: I have 5 things going on this week, but I can always use a break (I'll be logging off for most of the rest of the day after this.)
In an unrelated aside, do we have a musical DYK for Wednesday? TonyBallioni (talk) 12:31, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
Gerda, I think you need a companion box to this - "talk after you block", which Tony has done here admirably. As for a musical DYK, I believe Template:Did you know nominations/Serge Blanc (violinist) is good to go for prep / queue Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:44, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
(ec) Thank you, Tony, for the psalm offer, - will nominate it for DYK in a week the latest (and probably), take your time. Sigh, too late for 15 August, that prep is set, - it takes about 2 weeks for something to go through DYK smoothly for a specific date, because - and it's good and new - preps are currently filled well in advance. I had to push for Marie today (they had to postpone something already scheduled for the day), and hate pushing ;) - With some good luck, we'll have OTD, but only if the article is decent, whether it's a holiday observed around the world or not. - Good wishes for the 5 things! (I managed today to archive my talk, translate Marie to German, add some to the Psalm, and will have to nominate Leininger for DYK or too late, and make more links for Marie. If you have some spare time some day, the diary of those Bayreuth rehearsals and the memoirs of Lilli - her sister, one of the most famous sopranos of all times - are good and funny reading.)
(After ec, no idea how to indent:) You make that box, Ritchie, and I think Tony meant not anything musical, but something dealing with Assumption of Mary, - not by Bach who wrote cantatas for Annunciation and Purification, and Magnificat and another cantata for Visitation, but Assumption wasn't yet invented ;) (Tony, forgive me, please!) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:54, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
Ha! You're good Gerda, though, the Eastern Orthodox might quibble with you on the timing there (the Roman dogma did come a bit late, but I think the assumptionist traditions have existed since at least the 7th century in various Dormition naratives...) TonyBallioni (talk) 16:13, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
I was too short, - I meant as a festivity celebrated in music. - There will be music on Wednesday, Chopin's Second Piano Sonata. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:40, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
Ah, lovely! I'll have a listen to it on YouTube TonyBallioni (talk) 16:52, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
You should also look out for it on tomorrow's DYK where Gerda continues to do make an astonishing number of excellent musical contributions.--Ipigott (talk) 17:31, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
I nominated that one, all praise for the making of a GA goes to Zingarese who did Schubert before. - Tony, here's Mary speaking, quite influential and by a woman, - thank goodness she wasn't blocked for closely paraphrasing psalms ;) - written OTD to honour her, more to come ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:40, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, Gerda! —Zingarese talk · contribs 16:34, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Brilliant Idea Barnstar
For your genius RfA criteria (which I stole). — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 15:54, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Some advice please

Hi, sorry to approach you like this, but what is the procedure to make a complaint against an administrator (not you!). Thanks --John B123 (talk) 22:46, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi, John B123! The first step is to talk with them on their talk page. If that doesn’t resolve the issue, you can take it to WP:AN for review by the community. If this is a pattern of misconduct and the community is unable to resolve the matter, you can file a case request with the Arbitration Committee as an absolute last resort. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:54, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your prompt reply. I have tried to resolve it on their talk page, but I found him unresponsive, evasive and insulting. I got the impression of 'I'm an admin, you have no right to question me". I don't really want to bring this up publicly as a relative newcomer against an established administrator could well have negative consequences. Thanks anyway for the taking the time to reply, Cheers --John B123 (talk) 23:13, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
If it's nothing more serious than CITEVAR, best give in and turn to more useful stuff, things that a reader sees, such as: don't send an article off without a reference. Look above, I created a stub, but it has inline citations and two external links, one to be a citation later when I have time. - I have my citation style, and hate when someone changes it but came to shrug when it happens. (Seems to have to do with power and religion, - I honestly don't see why all refs have to look uniform which only editors see.) Takes a few years of patience, admittedly. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:49, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
@Gerda Arendt: Hi, thanks for your input. I don't have a problem about WP:CITEVAR. I haven't seem eye to eye with other editors on a few occasions previously. We have talked about it and either agreed a compromise or agreed to disagree, but it has generally been carried out amicably. What has got to me in this case is the attitude involved. Initially there was a reluctance to discuss, then when pushed he responded that my comments were too "Ignorant, absurd and hypocritical" to warrant a reply. I find that insulting, inflammatory and contrary to the WP ethos of resolving differences between editors. If we only replied to comments we liked then discussions to resolve differences of opinion would rapidly come to a halt with no hope of resolution. His attitude came across strongly as "I've spoken - matter closed". Whilst admins sometimes have to take that sort of stance when resolving 3rd party disputes, that doesn't give them carte blanche to take that stance at all times. Indeed, quoting from WP:ADMINCOND: "Administrators are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others" - the opposite is the case here imho. Having taken a step back from it for 24 hours and then trying to look at it again objectively, I feel no less incensed by his attitude. However looking through the page history tonight and seeing the number of reversions he has made of other peoples edits to that page, I think the root of the problem is he thinks he owns the article and nobody should made edits that he doesn't approve of.
I agree with you that what the reader sees is the most important thing. Whilst it's desirable for the edit page to be understandable and easy to edit, that shouldn't take precedence over the 'finished product', after all, the ultimate objective of WP is to produce the best encyclopedia. The technical finesse behind what the reader see does nothing to enhance the reader's experience. --John B123 (talk) 21:16, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) I'll give you my thoughts. Firstly, I agree with you that using the {{sfn}} template is a better idea for articles - errors are easier to spot, text is cluttered less with reference code making editing easier, and an automated link to the footnote is generated. It's generally an all-round better solution. However, if you're going to refactor an existing page, it's best to try and do all the citations in one hit if you can, and if you encounter resistance, calmly put your explanations on the article talk page so it has a wider audience. Just because one editor declares the matter closed, it doesn't necessarily mean it is!
Additionally, without wishing to excuse the editor in question, established editors often have spent a great deal of time and effort researching and building the article into its existing state. I know this particular editor is something of an expert in the Whitechapel Murders and related topics; consequently I tend not to edit articles he's worked on, not because I'm scared to or thinking I'll get into an angry dispute, but simply that I feel if somebody is keeping an eye on an article, my time is better spend tending to articles that nobody is really looking at, and there are plenty of those. Also, despite WP:OWN suggesting otherwise, when you have put a lot of work into something, it's almost human nature to take some sort of "ownership". To give you an example from my own history, I sometimes see people make large changes to an article I've worked on heavily and is now at good article status, that either removes well-sourced content, or adds a large amount of unsourced content. While to some extend it's technically right to think "OMG - you can't make edits that stop the article from meeting the GA criteria" and reaching for the "revert" button is a justifiable good-faith action. But in fact, if the change is that bad, another editor will revert it anyway, and good / featured content won't be delisted the minute there's one problematic editor. It does mean the reader momentarily gets a version of the article whose quality has dipped a bit, but exactly how much of a problem it is is kind of an open question, in my view. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:21, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
@Ritchie333: - Hi, thanks for your thoughts. My intent when first editing the page, was not to "update" it to sfn but to resolve the issues with the references. When started to look further I thought it would be advantageous to use sfn and make the citations more consistent. I appreciate your comment about one big edit and the advantages, but I generally like to work in small chunks so any errors that occur can be identified and resolved more easily.
I can understand editors being protective about articles they have put a lot of effort into, and have reverted obviously bad edits on articles I have spent a lot of time on. However not every edit by another editor is a bad edit. WP is supposed to a collaborative effort between editors not an anthology of articles written by individuals. No matter how much effort you have put into an article that gives you no excuse to treat other editors as a total muppet who is not worthy of talking to. This is especially so for an admin who is supposed to set a good example. Dealings I've had with other admins have never been problematic, which makes this incident stand out even more. --John B123 (talk) 23:33, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
I just had a quick look at my watchlist, which is limited to articles I have done all or most of the editing and writing on, and of eight changes made by other editors in the last 24 hours, six were fine and two needed reverting (one was a POV pushing sock adding unsourced content, one was a breaking formatting change to a template). Make of that what you will. One point that was being made that I think was missed in the noise is this : edit Special:MyPage/common.js and add importScript('User:Ucucha/HarvErrors.js'); window.checkLinksToCitations = true; - then, if you make mistakes in your Harvard referencing templates, you'll get huge red errors all over the place telling you.
Anyway, while the admin in question was blunt and dismissive, and should have at least punted the issue to a third party to look at, I don't think it's sufficiently serious to involve any sort of sanctions and reprimand. I can have a word telling them to not just shut out discussion if the other party doesn't understand, but I'm not sure what value that would have. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 23:50, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
@Ritchie333: - My remark "every edit by another editor is a bad edit", was certainly not aimed at you, apologies if it came across that way. Thanks for the link to the js. It looks a really useful tool. I agree this incident isn't a hanging offence, but equally such behaviour shouldn't go unchecked. If you could 'have a word' it would be apriciated. Thanks for taking the time to try and resolve this, and apologies to TonyBallioni for hijacking his talk page. --John B123 (talk) 17:35, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

ANI

What statement are you talking about here [5]? I certainly have no such intention and am proposing to do no such thing. A diff would help. Newimpartial (talk) 01:13, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

The comment you made above Jorm’s support. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:16, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
The sense of that was, "If I am topic~banned, though, it will just be another example where those being trolled" (e.g., Newimpartial) "are punished while the trolls" (e.g., Chetsford) "are free to troll on, which seems to be a pattern at WP as long as the troll appears "civil". Newimpartial (talk) 00:55, 17 August 2018 (UTC)"
I certainly was not saying anything untoward, there, I hope, and I am far from the first to make similar observations.
Do I need to add those clarifying phrases at ANI? Newimpartial (talk) 01:24, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
Your intent was perfectly clear. I don't think you need to clarify. That attitude isn't compatible with working in a high-passion area like AfD. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:26, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
So let me get this straight. You don't think that sending an article to AfD because I referenced it in a different AfD, and in the nomination comparing the created work to concrete, is trolling? Or you just think trolling is inevitable at AfD so participants there need to have skins of, well, concrete? Newimpartial (talk) 01:47, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
I don’t think it is trolling, no. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:52, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
Well then, I bow to your expertise in WP:CIVILity, and await judgement. This experience is a very quick disillusionment for me, in the sophistication about internet discourse I had hoped to see at WP. Newimpartial (talk) 01:57, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
And by the way, so don't see everyone I disagree with as a troll (which would be ridiculous). In the recent RPG AfDs, for example, I did not see the other editors with whom so disagreed, such as HighKing, as trolls. Even in the very strenuous Trans woman RfC I did not detect actual trolling, though there was certainly some civil pushing of POV.
My point is, there are people in the internet and on WP who call people trolls, or feel people are trolls, because they disagree. I don't. I am referring to Chetsford's behaviour as trolling because he is being deliberately provocative in order to produce drama, AKA trolling. Newimpartial (talk) 03:04, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
That's fine. I don't think this discussion is going to be much more productive, and I also don't think your posting on everyone's talk page who is supporting a TBAN is making a good case for yourself. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:06, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TonyBallioni/Archive_21&oldid=1258127440"