User talk:TonyBallioni

Deleted article restoration

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

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

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

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

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

Sheen Dass article

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

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

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

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

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

Moonshine and Valentine

Hi tonyballioni,

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

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

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

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

• The socks tried to restore the article at Beautiful Life (Chinese TV series), a completely different series from over a decade ago. I have since undone their edit [1], as well as similar attempts [2] [3]. BTW Boyhoodjams and her a million socks = Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Xdeluna. Timmyshin (talk) 05:07, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank You!!!

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

Pro Wrestling sanctions

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

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

Many thanks

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

Articles created by Loveo2ofan/Boyhoodjams

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hijiri88 violated your instructions

Hijiri88 violated your instructions. [4] Please comment on this. Dream Focus 23:45, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Don't play these word games: you've accused me a bunch of times of talking about you, and right here at the top of this thread you complained about me going back through your contribs to find plagiarism; that you didn't use the word "hound" is irrelevant. And it should probably be noted that I went, in good faith, to a friend of yours to request that they tell you that some of your edits honestly are pretty bad and need work; said friend essentially responded "Yeah, you're right, but Dream Focus is awesome so I won't be helping you on this matter", so you really shouldn't be talking about "the real reason [I] can get away with anything". And I never bother speaking to you unless you mention me first is patently false.[5] Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:30, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Do you deny going around talking about me after the ANI ended? User_talk:Curly_Turkey#"Children's_picture_book"_=_"novel"_=_"popular_history_(nonfiction)_book"? User_talk:Curly_Turkey#Citing_a_source_whose_title_is_apparently_"You_Have_Reached_a_404_Page" [6] Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions#Rape_in_the_United_States_has_included_copyvio_for_nine_years;_is_revdel_still_the_solution? [7] and of course here. Dream Focus 01:38, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

As for your added bit [8] I responded to something in Administrators' noticeboard while our open case was at Administrators' noticeboard Incidents, you arguing with Andrew D, who I interact with regularly over the years through the Article Rescue Squadron. Other than that, can you find a single example? Not counting arguments at the ARS or in an AFD? Dream Focus 01:44, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Personal Attack

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

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

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

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

2nd Opinion

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

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

RS check

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

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

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

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

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

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

A beer for you!

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

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

PM requests

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

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

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

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

Psalm 100

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

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

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

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

For He is believed to have been conceived on the 25th of March, upon which day also He suffered; so the womb of the Virgin, in which He was conceived, where no one of mortals was begotten, corresponds to the new grave in which He was buried, wherein was never man laid, neither before nor since. [9]

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

Excessive personal vandalism

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

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

Deleted article

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

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

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

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

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

Deleted

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

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

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

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

Solmetric

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

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

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

Question

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A barnstar for you!

The Barnstar of Diligence

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

Papal conclave, 1769

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

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

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

Seems incredibly silly

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

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

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

WTPS (AM) logo

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

Plagiarism at Akbar II; revdel needed

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Do we treat these cases as copyvio anyway?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• LLarson just followed me to Bir Tawil, an article I had just edited a little over an hour before, and which I've edited heavily in the past. [11]. It's true that he has edited the article in the past, but his last edit was 3 years ago. [12] (And his edit, which altered mine, stunk, too.) Beyond My Ken (talk)

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

Major Major?

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 about deleted articles

Thought this would interest you. [[14]]. 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)

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)

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)