User talk:TonyBallioni

Special:CentralAuth/Sameer Reddy

Hello, Sameer Reddy confirmed as a sock for INNAjm. Best --Alaa :)..! 13:53, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Alaa, I'll keep an eye on the accounts. They haven't techincally violated our policies here yet as the accounts haven't been used at the same time. I'll leave them a note letting them know what are policies are. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:00, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Tony, I sent this notification only to let you know about this accounts. Also, note that Sameer Reddy put "This user lives in Morocco" and INNAjm put "This user lives in Romania.". Best --Alaa :)..! 21:28, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

• New one وهبي --Alaa :)..! 19:06, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Another RfC on Net Neutrality

A month ago you participated in an RfC at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 147#Net neutrality. The same proposal has been posted again at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Proposal: A US-only CentralNotice in support of Net Neutrality. (This notice has been sent to all who participated in the prior RfC, regardless of which side they supported). --Guy Macon (talk) 20:50, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Unscintillating SPI

Since you were active in the last SPI, I wanted to make you aware that I opened a new one for Unscintillating, but this time I believe the proof is indisputable. see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/UnscintillatingThanks. --Rusf10 (talk) 03:04, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll let another administrator review this one as I closed the last one. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:30, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Request on Talk:American Nazi Party

Could you take a look at this and this? I'm concerned that I may have gone overboard out of frustration. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:01, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken, replied there. I think you were correct on policy. I would never cite a historical FBI memo in an article unevaluated by a secondary source. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:36, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for intercedinig. The last source they cited, Black Sun is a reliable secondary source, so I've altered the text and added an information note about the unclear date of the name change. (It's actually possible that both sources are right, that the change was approved internally in 1966, but papers weren't filed until 1/1/67. The internal decision might or might not leave a paper trail, whereas any official change in name -- say for tax purposes -- would have one. Of course that's entirely speculation on my part, so it's not in the note.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:40, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Can you please return to the page in question and moderate the discussion between myself and BMK? BMK is making unsubstantiated personal attacks against me and engaging in multiple behaviors found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Tendentious_editing#Characteristics_of_problem_editors 2602:306:30D2:40D0:2839:B635:775C:F019 (talk) 18:55, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

March 2018

Fine we'll talk this out...Mcelite (talk) 21:46, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

User talk page access for banned editors

Hi Tony. While I don't have any concerns about your close of the community ban discussion regarding DanaUllman, I was wondering if there was a reason why you chose to prevent him from editing his own talk page (or if you ticked that box inadvertently): [1].

Usually we don't block talk page access unless a blocked/banned editor has shown an inclination to misuse/abuse their talk page. (See also the notes at WP:OPTIONS, Wikipedia:Protection policy#Blocked users.) Is there a history of such abuse in this case? I don't expect DanaUllman to offer a particularly compelling appeal of his ban any timme in the near future, but we don't generally preemptively close off lines of communication. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:16, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi TenOfAllTrades. See WP:BANBLOCKDIFF. The two main differences between a ban and an indefinite block are that bans need to be lifted by the community, while a block can be lifted by an individual admin, and that we usually revoke talk page access for banned editors. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:19, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Huh. I'm surprised, frankly. Yes, I'm aware of the difference between a block and a ban (I've been an admin since – good God, I've wasted my life – 2005), but I hadn't noticed that the policy specifies that we "usually" pull their talk page access. Still not sure it's necessary in this instance, or that that "usually" really reflects real-world practice and expectations...but it's definitely not worth arguing. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:31, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Not a problem. I was sure you knew there was a technical difference, but wanted to explain the policy reason why I had the box checked. ​ TonyBallioni (talk) 20:35, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	sorry...heres this barnstar. Thewinrat (OS of this day: Ubuntu 4.10 (Warty Warhog) (talk) 15:53, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

UTRS appeal #21460

A user you have blocked has opened UTRS appeal #21460 on the Unblock Ticket Request System. The reviewing administrator, Just Chilling (talk · contribs), has requested your input:

Kim Jong-Un's Whirling Aluminium Tubes (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Time: May 10, 2018 19:53:19

Message: Hi, please see my question on this appeal. Thanks.

Notes:

• If you do not have an account on UTRS, you may create one at the administrator registration interface.
• Alternatively, you can respond here and indicate whether you are supportive or opposed to an unblock for this user and your rationale, if applicable.

--UTRSBot (talk) 19:53, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Just Chilling, let a note there. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:07, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Joker

"no firm consensus as to whether or not this article is about the character as a whole or the comics character"—actually, there is a firm consensus on this, demonstrated in both the article content and talk page archives. Could you please strike this? It was not up for debate. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:45, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Curly Turkey: I've tweaked it a bit, which hopefully addresses some of your concerns. I didn't see a firm consensus for it in that discussion, and it was raised. Regardless, the move didn't go through because there were reasons under the naming policy to not move it at this time. My close only affects the title and discussions relating to it, not article content. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:53, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

That doesn't address it at all. There was a single editor—who showed no evidence he had even read the lead of the article—who insisted it was about the comics character. What the article was about was not the subject of the discussion. What the article should be about has been the subject of exhaustive discussion on the article's talk page, as well as several other talk pages, such as at WP:COMICS. There has been talk of having a comics-specific article, and there even was one for a time (since deleted). The subject is long settled, and no impression should be given that it's not. Note that the editor in question has not suggested the article should be rewritten with a comics focus—they simply can't be bothered to peak at the actual article to even find out what it's about. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:32, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

In the RM itself there was discussion on the topic but no clear consensus on that point, which is why I felt the need to mention it. If there is existing consensus elsewhere that everyone who opposed agrees with, then it’s already the consensus for the content in the article and any attempts to change the content won’t happen. I was only addressing the arguments in the RM discussion, and felt the need to mention it as it was raised.

The RM closed as not moved because of the strength of the other arguments based on the article title policy and conventions. That consensus was clear in the discussion, which is why it closed the way it did. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:53, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

• Hi Tony. I wish that closers in general would dispense with the bold “not moved” in favour or either “no consensus to move” or “consensus to not move”. This goes directly to moratoria, which I also think you should address in that close. I think it is a “no consensus” which usually means two months before the next RM. I think you declaring a defined moratoria is a good idea, because another RM will come, and better for it to come prepared than to come unilaterally by the most excited proponent. Even two weeks would be better than zero or undefined. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:56, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

(←) @SmokeyJoe and Curly Turkey: I've expanded based on both of your comments here, and hopefully this addresses it.

SmokeyJoe: normally "not moved" is a stronger close than "no consensus to move", which tends to be somewhere in between the two options. I get your point though, and I've clarified that there was a consensus against a move in general at this time. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:14, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks Tony. On "not moved", it sounds like it is becoming on Wikipedia, or has become in the RM Wikipedian subcommunity, a term of art. I think that sort of thing needs to be consciously avoided, as a matter of Wikipedia:Accessibility. The page was "not moved" last week, and is "not moved" today, so nothing has changed? If a literal reading of the words doesn't convey the meaning, jargon is being used. Are these terms based on RMCI? I don't look there often, I have a particular dislike of important things being recorded there beyond the technical, as it is titled as a page not for the general editor. Closing statements, if a defined set, should be defined on the main WP:RM page, wouldn't you agree? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:03, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

  The "not moved" terminology is lifted directly from WP:THREEOUTCOMES, and is the standard wording when there is a consensus not to move the article. You do make a good point though, SmokeyJoe, it is confusing and could definitely benefit from clearer wording. There's probably a case for bringing that up at WT:RM and getting the wording clarified as you suggest. I'm interested by Tony's suggestion there may be a fourth outcome lying somewhere between no consensus and not moved... that's probably overkill to be honest. Some people even dispute whether there is a difference between no consensus and not moved at all, given that there are usually no fixed rules on proposing the move again. (In the case of the Joker, it's clear to me that the subject should be left well alone for the foreseeable future, even had the outcome been no consensus).  — Amakuru (talk) 09:58, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

  Yes, the not moved terminology is directly found in THREEOUTCOMES.

  Amakuru re: a fourth outcome, I'd never suggest adding no consensus to move to RMCI (unless it was to combine no consensus and not moved, which I don't think I'd support now.) I was more making the point that it is a close you will see on occasion, usually when there is no consensus but the closer wants to emphasize that it has the same impact as not moved (or when it should be a not moved outcome, but one wants to hedge bets on a likely move review...) The Joker RM in my decision was firmly in the not moved camp, and since SmokeyJoe had brought up the no consensus to move wording here, I also mentioned it.

  I really like your point about two outcomes, and I think in some ways it is more accurate if not for the outcome of consensus to move, no consensus as to title, which I think having no consensus around as an outcome can help people understand better than if it were just two options. TonyBallioni (talk) 11:05, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

  Right, plus the occasional case where the article was already boldly moved, and the move proposal is to go back to the long-term stable title. In that situation, "no consensus" means default-to-moved rather than default-to-not-moved.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:53, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

  Oh, those ones are always fun... Honestly, in those cases it's best to go to RM/TR, have an admin move it back to the stable title (and move protect if need be) and then have the RM from the stable title. That isn't how it works in the real world, though, so yeah, keeping NC around to restore to a stable title is needed. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:22, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

  Added by User:Red Slash here. RMCI doesn't receive a lot of attention. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:23, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

OTRS question

After a ticket is handled satisfactorily, shouldn't it be closed? I've noticed many pages in Open Tickets Need to be answered, but the English ones have been answered and are still showing up. ^{Atsme📞📧} 14:47, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, tickets that have been answered should typically be closed. @AntiCompositeNumber and Primefac: handle a lot more tickets than me and could probably give more insight. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:55, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

👍🏻 ^{Atsme📞📧} 15:00, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, basically. otrswiki:Help:FAQ#close elaborates more on the different states, but tickets that require no further action on our end should be closed. Only exception is spam, which is usually left open and moved to Junk. The Dashboard can take a minute or two to update after taking action on a ticket. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 15:06, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

More on my talk. Primefac (talk) 15:13, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Block request

I had a very bad experience and a very bad dispute and an accidental misunderstanding on Test2 Wikipedia. The problem was that User:MechQuester was indeffed on enwiki and three other Wikis for abusing multiple accounts so I reported for their account to be globally locked and the same user, MechQuester, removed my sysop privileges on Test2 Wikipedia. Due to this, it is making me upset and therefore, I would like to be blocked for a day to two until the dispute is sorted out. I would like to be able to edit my talk page as well. Thanks. Pkbwcgs (talk) 19:23, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi Pkbwcgs, I’m not willing to place a one day self-requested block, as that’s something that you should be able to control yourself. If you want to be blocked, I will block you for a minimum of one week with no talk page access and the agreement that another admin will not unblock you until the block expires. A self-requested block is not something you should do lightly, so I don’t want to make one lightly. If you still want me to block you under these conditions, you can let me know here. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:29, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

In that case, can you please do indef so that I can go off for some time and request unblock when I want to come back. Can you please do an indefinite block with talk page access. I do not have a figure in mind for how much time I want to be blocked for. Pkbwcgs (talk) 19:35, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Pkbwcgs, see User:Beeblebrox/Self-blocking requirements. My requirements are roughly the same as these. If you want a self-requested block to force a timeout from Wikipedia, I will do it, but you will need to give me a specific time period (1 week or more) and it will be a block without talk page access. If you do not give me a clear answer such as "I want to be blocked for X weeks/months and I understand I will not have talk page access." I will not block you. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:41, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

I would like to be blocked here for a week without the ability to edit my talk page so that I can have some time off and I hope the dispute will be sorted out on that Wiki for a week and then only I can resume with editing Wikipedia. Editing just got too stressful so there had to be something in place to calm me down and this probably could be solution I can only hope for while it gets sorted out. Pkbwcgs (talk) 19:53, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

 Done TonyBallioni (talk) 20:08, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

So... um... I know this is a stupid question, but I don't do much xwiki stuff so if anyone asks me a similar question in the future I'll know... blocking on enwiki does nothing to affect the block status on other projects, yes? Primefac (talk) 20:30, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

No. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:41, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

That's... kinda what I thought. Thanks. Primefac (talk) 21:41, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Add Health

I recently revisited the article on the study Add Health and in doing so also stumbled back upon the user Add Health who added a bunch of stuff copied and pasted from the study's website to the article. As you may remember (not sure if you do since admins block a gajillion people a day), after this user had been softblocked for an inappropriate username, and had then made several unsuccessful appeals of the block on their talk page, you made their block a hard block so they couldn't edit their own talk page anymore or create a new account. I suspect that this was a much too hostile way to deal with a clearly good-faith editor who wanted to improve an article, and that they should not have been blocked at all. Clearly they were confused by the huge amount of information presented to them and couldn't find the right page that had the relevant info on it. I think you should unblock them and more clearly explain how to disclose their editing so they can edit without violating WP:PAID or WP:COI. Every morning (there's a halo...) 21:28, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

They had ~5 rejected unblock requests, and no admin had decided to unblock them. Revoking TPA around the 3rd or later request is pretty normal. UTRS is available to them if they wish to make an appeal and it was linked to. I see no reason to unblock until they decide they want to comply with our policies and guidelines. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:38, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Alright, I guess that's fine. Every morning (there's a halo...) 01:11, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Regarding Luigi

As I'm known to drop off the face of the wiki-earth for days at a time, if you can figure something out that seems to work for an unblock of Luigi Laitinen then please go ahead without worrying about further input from me as the blocking admin. Whatever the solution they'll need some monitoring as there seems to be a bit of a language/comprehension issue.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:07, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I'll see what they say, but agree with everything you've said there. Regardless, I'll give them a DS alert for BLP at the end of it to make anything in the future more flexible than block/appeal/conditions/whatever. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:13, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I could have sworn I already dropped a BLP DS warning on their talk, but I had them mixed up with another editor. --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:23, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

I just declined their unblock asking them to answer your questions. I hope that was OK.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 23:33, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

The number of editors appealing blocks who could also use a BLP DS notice is unfortunately high right now, so that's forgivable...

Yeah, no problem declining until they answer the question. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:34, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Request for deletion

Hello Tony, please delete this and this page, so I can complete the global rename here --Alaa :)..! 03:24, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Alaa, I got one and Oshwah got another. You should be good to go. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:55, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks I should wait ruwiki sysops now --Alaa :)..! 03:58, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Event coordinator permission

It doesn't seem like there is any systematic qualification for receiving this permission. I regularly run events, and don't really understand why I have been refused. Can you explain to me why you decided I need to apply for this permission for every event I help to run, when some people have been given it without this qualification? --Jwslubbock (talk) 12:15, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

You've never had accountcreator, so there is no reason to switch it for security reasons, and you aren't that active on this wiki, so you don't fall in the guidelines for granting it permanently. You also in your request seemed to indicate that you don't actually run events that often either. TonyBallioni (talk) 12:18, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Requesting 2nd opinion

Hi Tony. If you have a minute could you take a look at the close here. I opened a discussion on the talk page but I'd let to get another opinion in case I'm missing something. Thanks... -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:46, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

I'd vote to overturn if it went to a DRV per WP:not counting heads, which, ironically given the name, says If the discussion shows that some people think one policy is controlling, and some another, the closer is expected to close by judging which view has the predominant number of responsible Wikipedians supporting it, not personally select which is the better policy. You have a valid policy disagreement where different editors disagree on what is controlling. One side had a clear numerical majority and the other side didn't have any particularly strong arguments to overcome that in my view. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:54, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Steve is a solid admin and I hate 2nd guessing another admins judgement calls. A lot of what we deal with is not black or white and judgement calls sometimes can go either way depending on who is looking at it. But this one really does look like maybe he didn't see how lopsided the discussion was. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:58, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, agreed there on all counts. I can also see why he might have closed that way because a lot of the "keeps" were at the end, and that does tend to make them look larger than they actually are. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:03, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Looks like this is going to be settled at DRV. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:16, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

P.S. Since we discussed this outside of the AfD talk page I would gently suggest that you refrain from commenting at the DRV in case you were thinking about it. I don't want anyone wondering if I was canvassing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:34, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for making this comment about me, Tony. It means a lot to me to have my judgement appreciated. And I would certainly say the same about you, you have a lot of experience right across the Wiki and I always value your opinion in any discussions.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:57, 16 May 2018 (UTC)