User talk:TonyBallioni

Cuties

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Request for uninvolved administrative assistance

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

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

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

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

FYI

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

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

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

That Zorro guy is back again

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

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

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

Appeal

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

ARE length

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

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

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

Protection request

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

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

CheckUser request: ItsPugle and I-82-I

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cryptopia

Can you restore Cryptopia as a draft?

Here are RSs from after the liquidation announcement which weren't in the article and not considered during the AfD.[1]

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

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

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