User talk:TonyBallioni

Event Coordinator Permissions

Hi TonyBallioni! I've now updated the GLAM/SLIC page for my residency with all the events planned in the coming month. You can find them at Wikipedia:GLAM/SLIC/Events. As you can see, I have a number of training events and editathons planned in the next month, so I would appreciate if my event coordinator permissions could please be extended. Thanks! Delphine Dallison (talk) 15:29, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Delphine Dallison, done for 6 months, by which time we should be able to give it permanently TonyBallioni (talk) 15:49, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, TonyBallioni! Delphine Dallison (talk) 16:54, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

template

Hi Tony, I noticed you templated Bitcoin and Blockchain with the implementation of the 1RR rule. I was wondering if you were also going to do Bitcoin Cash, and the rest of the articles. I was going to add the template for that article, then thought I had better ask you first. It would be great if you could please ping me in your response. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:49, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Jtbobwaysf, you're free to add the template to the talk page (anyone can). Adding an edit-notice requires an admin or template editor, but that is not required under the general sanctions if the individual is aware (I think I am understanding that correctly. Primefac can clarify if I am not.) TonyBallioni (talk) 18:51, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, only TPEs and admins can add edit notices, but a {{TPER}} can be used on the edit notice's talk page and someone will handle it. Primefac (talk) 18:58, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you both of you. I have gone ahead now added the notice in this edit [1]. Was I allowed to add this edit notice? I was a little confused in both of your answers as I couldn't quite figure out if it was ok to add or not (Tony said it was ok for any user to add it who was aware of it, and i am aware of it) and it seemed that Primefac (talk · contribs) was also agreeing with Tony, but saying "yes." But then Primefac went on to state I should add a template {{TPER}}, which when i clicked on it I didnt understand at all, and it seemed that TPER was more about editing a template (which was not my goal). If I have done something wrong, please let me know and feel free to revert my mistake. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:14, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Jtbobwaysf, Primefac was saying the edit notice needed template editor or admin status. The talk page notice anyone can place. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:19, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

OK, thank you. If we see a violation of this 1RR, are we allowed to place a notice on a specific user's talk page? Or does this require admin or template editor status. Sorry so many questions, I am a bit confused about all this. Is there a specific notice or should we just wikilink to the notice? Thank you! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:23, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Jtbobwaysf, anyone may give a notice and log it at Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Blockchain_and_cryptocurrencies#2018_notices TonyBallioni (talk) 19:27, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Jtbobwaysf, if you see a violation of a 1RR notice after you have given someone a warning (and logged the action), then you should go to WP:AN3 and report them. Primefac (talk) 19:49, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:35, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Blockchain notification - "notified of the case."

Hello TonyBallioni,

Your "Blockchain Notification" was received, along with your note: "notified of the case".

As per your template suggestions, I have read:

Edit warring

Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions

Administrators' noticeboard (Next cryptocurrency topicban)

General sanctions/Blockchain and cryptocurrencies

General sanctions

User talk:TonyBallioni

Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

Editing policy

Sanctions (essay)

General sanctions proposal

Blockchain notification

LauraRoman

Some questions for you, if you don't mind:

RE: Log of notifications

List here editors who have been placed on notice of the remedies in place (including the diff of the notification). ......

2018 notices

Anoop Bungay (talk · contribs) notified of the case. [1]. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:17, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Question 1 - I notice that my name appears on this notice and no other name; would you help me understand "why"?

Question 2 - Are you the "sanctioning administrator"?

Question 3 - Am I free to contribute the talk page; there is a "person or persons" (an editor using a pseudonym) whom I would like to provide information to. Your answer is probably "yes", but just making sure.

Question 4 - The only issue "at hand" is making changes to the "main article" page.

Looks like I picked a wild week (week of May 15, 2018) to introduce myself to the blockchain article page!!!

Best,

Anoop Bungay (talk) 22:21, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Sure

1. You were the first person notified under a new sanctions system.
2. You are not currently sanctioned, so no. I just notified you.
3. Yes.
4. The general sanctions rules apply to any page related to block chain or cryptocurrency.

Hope that was helpful. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:30, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Tony, very helpful.

Some followup questions please:

Question 1 - Someone said "no" to my request for COI permission to edit (ie: A requested edit by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. A reviewer felt that this edit would not improve the article.)

(1.1) The person or persons who "declined" my request did not respond to my arguments in accordance with WP:TPG. My goal is to add a differing point of view to help earn FA article class status, in accordance to the WP:PG. In fact, the person - when the responded to me - admitted that they were not certain that they were right or wrong yet they continued to "Decline my Request for Edit" even BEFORE I was able to respond to them.

(1.2) Frankly speaking, I was planning on going straight to arbitration but the fella by "immediately declining my request for edit" appears to have stifled the conversation - which means that arbitration may be premature because the arbitration committee first wants "extensive talk". So, my next option was to enter the Disputed template for the article.

(1.3) Finally, I wonder; maybe I should "re-copy-paste the request edit and let a different editor make a comment. Afterall, in this page of question (Blockchain) there are over 568 editors (or watchers) and only one person seems concerned about my addition - enough to refuse my request. As you know, 1 person is not a consensus. Further, the person did not "counter argue" my claims in accordance with WP:PG; they appear to have used a "strawman" argument, or worse, they seemed to have relied upon a brief written "opinion" and used this "opinion" as the basis of "Declining my Edit Request". In fact, this person is relying on information that is sourced from unverified sources and using these unverified claims as a basis of his opinion. This should be wrong, by any one's standards, shouldn't it?

(1.3.1) For example, how do I get a consensus rather than a unilateral "no" to my request for edit. Much like the consensus questionnaire you had in the General Sanctions page where a number of editor's piped in with their decision. In anycase, Wikipedia is not the only source of public information but it is one of the more freely accessed mediums so I feel it is important to address this issue because as of now, the world's understanding of the history of application of blockchain principles in finance is not consistent with the intellectual property offices of most countries. (Feel free to see my contributions to get a sense of what I am a talking about").

(1.4) One final concern, is that the Blockchain article is ignoring ontology and normal academic naming and definition convention. This is why we are at a "c" grade article.

You are a Wikipedia Administrator (from what I understand) so you have the ability to checkusers and I hope - provide guidance. So, what do you think of my concerns? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anoop Bungay (talk • contribs) 23:06, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Okay, Anoop Bungay, this is a lot but I'll try to explain.

1.1:If someone declines your request, you can make it again and ask for another person to review it, but you have no right to have a COI edit request implemented. A large part of the reasons for these sanctions is that the English Wikipedia is in a particularly anti-COI editor mood right now.

1.2: The Arbitration Committee would decline your case request. I promise you this.

1.3: You can make the request again. I haven't read it, so I'm unable to tell you of the liklihood of it being successful. Keep in mind that repeating the same request over and over may be viewed as disruptive editing, however.

1.3.1: Consensus is achieved through discussion on the talk page. You can also raise concerns at noticeboards such as WP:NPOVN

1.4: I try to avoid discussions of ontology on Wikipedia. We're an encyclopedia, not a philosophy journal.

I am an administrator, but I am not a CheckUser, so I cannot run a check on accounts. I hope this has been helpful. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:04, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

More revdel at Mottainai Grandma

[2] closely paraphrases this source. It is an illustration book which brings Japanese parenting culture to India. This book's aim is to help parents to teach their kids good habits like cleaning hands before having food, not to leave leftovers or not to waste and litter. is much too close to the source's The book brings the essence of Japanese parenting culture to India. [...] Shinju traces the importance of inculcating good habits like cleaning hands before having food, not to leave leftovers or how even a single grain is too precious to be wasted.

I'm pretty sure it can't be appropriately paraphrased because the content itself is in error (the source was apparently written by someone who hadn't read the book, as they treat it like an adult-targeted parenting guide rather than a picture book that is meant to be read to children), so might as well just revdel the two edits between that and my revert.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:12, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Shit. My mistake. The source is a press release that is more likely to be deliberately promotional and misleading than written by someone who had no idea what the book was about. I need more sleep. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:15, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

 Done TonyBallioni (talk) 15:40, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Perm declined in January at WP:PERM

Hello Tony. Do you recall this? An editor just complained about admins being unwilling to hand out page mover rights so I reviewed it. Back in January, you said that a reconsideration in 3 months might be considered. The person involved has no edit warring blocks. Here are all their appearances at AN3 (seven filings or mentions for an account dating from April 2016). Would you review the recent history and see if your view would change at all? I can see that prior diplomacy can avoid the need to appear at AN3 at all, and that might be a factor in the filing of some of the reports. Here is one example where negotiation might have been more vigorous, but by AN3 standards this is not very warlike. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 21:17, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

EdJohnston, I trust your judgement. If you’re comfortable handing it out, so am I. They’ve also become much more active at NPP since then, and the permission is quite useful there. I’d grant it now, but am on mobile, so if you can, it’d be great. Natureium, please remember to use WP:RM over a round-robin for anything that might be controversial. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:22, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Appeal of warning issued by TonyBallioni

@Sandstein, Masem, NeilN, JzG, and MastCell: - I'm sorry to ping you all here, but my reasons are explained below.

I have no intention of "wiki-lawyering" the warning TonyBallioni issued. I understand its intent, but the ramifications to my ability to operate on Wikipedia are at stake. As worded it says that I am " warned not to use administrative boards to further disputes on Wikipedia". Here are my concerns:

• No consensus for a warning: Only 3 of the 6 admins (Tony was one) advocated for any type of warning.
• No consensus on scope: 2 of those advised a warning not to abuse (not "use" as he implemented). Only 1 of the admins mentioned "administrative processes", the others directed it at AE specifically.
• The warning, rather than being about a specific past issue (as most warnings on Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log/2018 are done) is worded as a sanction against future actions.
• Unintended chilling effect: As worded, the warning is essentially a ban on my use of admin boards completely, out of fear someone will point to this warning and claim I am "using" the board to "further" any dispute - even if my participation is 100% valid:
  • I am prevented opening any requests for behavior I see as inappropriate.
  • I am prevented from appealing admin decisions. (which is why I had to ping you here)
  • I am prevented even from defending myself it reports made about me.

Tony has tried to allay these concerns and expanded on it, and I completely understand the intent behind it, but I do not feel future admins will understand. Anytime I ever participate in any admin board, someone may bring this warning up and a less generous read of it will at a minimum lead to lot of sidebar drama, or at worst lead to blocks or bans not intended here by Tony. I ask that the warning be removed (either because no admin consensus was reached or as "message received" by me since its done its job) or at a minimum reworded to eliminate this chilling effect. -- Netoholic @ 21:23, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

I’m not inclined to remove it: AE actions are unilateral admin actions not requiring consensus, there was support for it at AE (and no opposition), and another admin suggested an IBAN against you instead. A logged warning is literally the lowest “sanction” out there. Wording it for admin boards was intentional: just AE would likely shift disruption elsewhere, which shouldn’t be the point of an AE sanction. MastCell used that wording, I saw the advantage of it, and went with it. Also, all warnings are about future behavior, otherwise they wouldn’t be warnings. If others support lifting or changing this, I won’t make you go to AN to have it lifted, but I’m currently not seeing any reason to. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:31, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't think you've addressed the chilling effect part, which is the most damaging. I'm sure you're aware how easy it is for things to go off the rails, and essentially I would be "guilty until proven innocent" every time I ever set foot in an admin board. I would have to prove I am not "furthering a dispute" even if my justification is being there is 100% valid. I hope you can see fit to see how this warning could be misused or misinterpreted. -- Netoholic @ 22:10, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

The point of a warning is to discourage disruptive behavior. If this makes you think twice before submitting reports that the rest of the community would think should not be resolved through admin boards, that is a good thing and the intent of any warning. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:14, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Do you disagree that, as worded, even posting to a board to defend myself in a report someone else created would be a violation of the warning? -- Netoholic @ 22:19, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

I do disagree with that reading, and I don’t think any admin would read it that way. If you’re being disruptive on a noticeboard, it might be factored in, but if you’re acting within community norms it won’t be a factor at all. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:23, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) The way tony presents it is the way I read it as well. SQL^{Query me!} 22:30, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Then I'm sorry I don't understand why it can't be reworded to make this more clear. If it stands (and still waiting for the other AE admins to weigh in) hope I can expect you to weigh in if someone ever tries to apply it incorrectly. -- Netoholic @ 22:54, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

It is absolutely clear to me - another admin. I'm not sure what an "AE Admin" is, but I did close an AE discussion just a couple days ago as well. SQL^{Query me!} 22:58, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Even a recent topic ban proposal from Admin boards allowed the exemption for replying to filings. I can't imagine replying would be a problem but then some Admins are beyond understanding and may require ArbComm scrutiny. Anyway I would not sweat this one. Legacypac (talk) 23:42, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Netoholic, you say you understand the warning's intent. So perhaps propose wording that you think would make the warning's intent clearer. You might also want to consider that admins have little patience for game-playing and will apply boomerangs if your restriction is frivolously brought up by other editors. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:02, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

@NeilN: - The boomerang I worry about is the one swiveling back to be on the basis of the loose wording of this warning. Just today, I am petrified to report something I've observed to ANI just because of this warning. Perhaps I'm not a good judge of appropriate timing for making a report, so instead it if were something like "Netoholic is advised to seek a 2nd opinion prior to making a request at AE" or something to that effect? -- Netoholic @ 18:51, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

No. That isn’t the intent of the warning, which was intended to be broad and include all administrative processes, and would only make the battleground mentality in AP2 worse (I can see the threads based upon that wording in my head right now.)

Since no one else seems to share your concerns, and you haven’t provided an alternate wording that is acceptable, I’m not going to change anything. Feel free to appeal at AN if you think it’s really that big a deal. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:05, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

"I don’t think any admin would read it that way" - its already being used that way, see JzG's opening comments at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Off-wiki personal attacks in articles. I didn't even start the thread and he's bringing it up. -- Netoholic @ 21:18, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

JzG (courtesy ping), is noting recent AE actions that you’ve seen. He isn’t raising it saying that you’ve violated it by bringing someone to an admin board, which is wha you were afraid of. Any AE sanction can be noted in this manner, even the ones you suggested above. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:31, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

I think we both know how and why he's using it. This isn't even about an AP2 topic. He's using it exactly as I predicted it would be misused, to poison the well, to disparage, to cast WP:ASPERSIONS, and to advance his dispute with me. -- Netoholic @ 21:42, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

I am fairly confident Tony knows why I did it, and equally confident that you don't. Sometimes the only motive is the one actually stated, this is one of those times. Guy (Help!) 21:54, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) As I’ve said above, you are free to appeal this to AN. What it sounds like is that you want nothing on the AE logs, which isn’t happening as there was consensus the report you brought didn’t have merit and you’d just been there earlier on the same person and had a recent report to ANEW classified by a siting arbitrator as using ANEW purely [as] an attempt to get an editor that he disagrees with politically blocked. with that context, the warning makes sense, was valid, is within administrator discretion, and followed every procedural check box for DS. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:57, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

@Sandstein, Masem, and MastCell: - pinging the others for input. -- Netoholic @ 22:23, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

You received an answer from Tony here. Why are you re-pinging others to his talkpage? SQL^{Query me!} 22:25, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

If this is an appeal to TonyBallioni, it‘s none of my business. If it‘s an appeal to the community, it‘s in the wrong forum. Sandstein 03:59, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Peace offering

Theredproject (talk) has given you a dove! Doves promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day happier. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a dove, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past (this fits perfectly) or a good friend. Cheers!

---

Spread the peace of doves by adding {{subst:Peace dove}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

Hi TonyBallioni, I'm sorry if any of my comments have hurt you. They were not meant to be hurtful. I appreciate your effort. --Theredproject (talk) 21:59, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Theredproject! Thank you so much. I normally don’t get very personal but I was frustrated this morning as I thought we had finally finished with the initial implementation. Thank you for all the work that you do. It really is appreciated more than you know . TonyBallioni (talk) 22:01, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Srishti Kaur

Hey Tony! I see you're online doing admin tasks and there seems to be a backlog at AIV. I am dealing with what is either a good faith adoring fan or a COI who is repeatedly adding resume type edits and removing categories and reference lists despite personalized and templated warnings. Would you mind sprinkling your admin fairy dust over this and helping me? HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 05:26, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Arab israeli conflict

It has come to my surprise that I have been accused of violating the terms of Wikipedia in regards to this issue, and I regret the threat issued to me of a temporary ban. I have almost always appealed to the editing community before I make any edits and I have treaded carefully ever since I have been informed of the guidelines of Wikipedia. When I list palestine, I ALWAYS make the distinction of it as an observer compared to the 194 other states and I have stated my respect for this platforms guidelines on many occasions. Talatastan (talk) 01:04, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Talatastan, changing the name of Palestine in the article about Israel-Saudi Arabia relations is clearly in the restrictions. Just be more careful. Additionally, while I'm not sure if the mass name changes are covered by the A-I conflict rules, I suspect they are likely to be controversial and you're making them on pages not many people are likely to be watching. From a cursory overview of your edits, you seem to be here to push a pro-Palestinian POV. I have no problem with that POV IRL, nor do I have a problem with the pro-Israeli POV IRL. I just care about keeping the peace on Wikipedia and making sure we have a neutral encyclopedia.

In regards to 500/30 restrictions, here is a good rule: it you think it could at all be reasonably construed to be part of the Arab-Israeli conflict, don't edit the page. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:09, 26 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)

retired

its okay, i {{retired}} wef Quek157 (talk) 01:32, 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 [3] 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

[4] 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,[5] and then when you revdel his work he just uses that as an excuse to deny other malfeasance.[6]

And then there's Margin1522 who has recently reemerged and has started making elaborate, "poetic" arguments[7][8] 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[9] 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 [10] 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)

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)

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)

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: [11]. 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)

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)

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) ignoring your

You stated 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)

Hijiri 88 followed my contributions, again, and decided to start his usual nonsense. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wife and Wife Dream Focus 12:51, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Dream Focus: It's a Japanese AfD where you commented on the other person's talk page about it. Hijiri88 is one of our most prolific editors on Japanese topics, so it's not unexpected that he would comment on the AfD. I do think that mentioning you by name was a bad idea, however, but I wouldn't call it following you around. ​TonyBallioni (talk) 13:21, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

He has already admitted in the past to following my contributions. Pops up all over the place. Check his edit history, he doesn't go to that many places lately, so you can see a pattern. I doubt he'd deny that's how he found his way there. And the editor who created that article whose talk page I posted on has been on Wikipedia for only a month, he having no reason to notice that talk page other than following my contributions there. Dream Focus 13:25, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

If he does, he should stop (and this is not an invitation to either of you to debate whether or not he does actually follow you here on my talk page.) Like I said: the two of you very clearly don't like each other. When two people don't like each other, the best thing for everyone is just to go about their own business.

Also, the simple explanation was that it was on an AfD list I highly suspect he follows and he checked the talk page of the creator before !voting. I do that frequently. Always try to find the less malicious explanation. It is usually true. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:27, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the ping. FWIW, the context in which you gave that advice was me continuing to monitor DF's contribs for plagiarism, since he had all but promised to continue plagiarizing when he denied that he had plagiarized, and attacked me for insinuating that he had. You also advised me not to bring the plagiarism up again unless it happened again; now, less than a week later, he has copied a plagiarized article onto another wiki in order to "save" it from our deletion policy. Granted, he didn't know it had been plagiarized, but while that might demonstrate good faith it also indicates carelessness (I took one look at the article and knew it had probably been plagiarized). DF's recent activities at AFD are careless to the point of being disruptive, and that's the good-faith diagnosis.

I really wish this had ended with my pinging DF to notify him of the problem so he could, perhaps, go to the manga wikia and request his recent addition be deleted; I have no earthly idea why he would decide to bring this here, unless it was his intent to cause more drahma. His refusal to click the links and acknowledge that the text was plagiarized (instead wanting to wait until the site from which the text was copied is live again) indicates that this is more about having fun with Hijiri than actually fixing the problem he caused by copying plagiarized text from here onto another wiki.

Anyway, Tony, unless you're going to speedy the article yourself, or block DF for this clearly tendentious behaviour, would you mind just closing/archiving this section so I don't have to put up with this drahma for at least another few hours?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:05, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Can you please clarify your instructions and just tell him to stop following my contributions please? Dream Focus 14:16, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

If he notices plagiarism naturally, then he should point it out, but he should try to avoid your contributions and shouldn't seek them out. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:17, 1 June 2018 (UTC)