Jump to content

User talk:TonyBallioni/Archive 19

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15←Archive 17Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20Archive 21→Archive 25

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)

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)

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)

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 Ponyobons 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 Ponyobons 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)
Commented and disclosed this. I was planning on commenting on it anyway if it went there. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:45, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

German war effort arbitration case opened

You were recently listed as a party to or recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/German war effort. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/German war effort/Evidence. Please add your evidence by May 30, 2018, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/German war effort/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:01, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

TonyBallioni, you are awesome!

Thank you for adding the event coordinator permission to my account! I will use this power well. :-) DrX (talk) 01:42, 17 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)

Thank YOU for the kind words, Amakuru. It is always good to see you around and get your views, even when we disagree TonyBallioni (talk) 18:55, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Referenced DOY is a bad idea?

Dear Tony. I would really appreciate if you can give your point of view on this discussion about referencing the 366 DOY articles. Thanks and keep being awesome :) --Rochelimit (talk) 17:05, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words, Rochelimit. I'm not overly familiar with those pages, so think it'd be better to let others comment. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:54, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

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)
Thanks a lot Tony, I opened this request on commons also. Best --Alaa :)..! 14:19, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
No problem. We haven't done anything here yet, as none of the accounts have edited at the same time, which is technically allowed (you can call it serial editing rather than socking). If there is an original account with a local block on en.wiki that you know about, we can block the other accounts as well. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:24, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
Tony there's highly relation with User:أليكس and User:Jnaga with confirmed behavioral --Alaa :)..! 15:01, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
Perfect, that helps a lot. Thanks. I'm about to get off my computer, but I'll look at it later this weekend. Anyway, hope you're having a great weekend, Alaa, and that everything is going well for you :) TonyBallioni (talk) 15:04, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
Alaa, I filed the paperwork at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/أليكس. Clear behavioral connection on the most recent one. We have a sock here that isn't stale, so hopefully we can confirm to that and also flesh out any sleepers. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:35, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Accidental vandalism

Hi,

Due to my inexperience I have accidentally slightly messed up this Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement page. I was trying to add a statement, i.e. "statement by reissgo" by editing a chunk called "statement by (username)" but after I added my 2 cents I noticed there there was no new "statement by (username)" ready for the next editor. I have no idea how to untangle the mess I made. Sorry. Reissgo (talk) 12:08, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I fixed it for you. Next time please read the instructions, which tell you to copy and paste the section before writing your statement. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:18, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Hi Reissgo. That was a minor flub. It happens now and then. No big deal. Vandalism is deliberate and malicious editing which this was certainly not. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:36, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
Reissgo, my initial response was unnecessarily snotty. I shouldn't have written it like that. Ad Orientem is right, it's nothing but a minor mistake and I was a dick about it. I apologize. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:13, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
No worries. Thanks for fixing it for me. Reissgo (talk) 16:27, 19 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)
Thanks for the block, I am glad to be back. I just needed to take a break from the project for a week. Pkbwcgs (talk) 19:59, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Your thoughts...

You were pinged, but I'm uncertain if it went through. – Conservatrix (talk) 13:29, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

It went through. I'll look at it in a bit :) TonyBallioni (talk) 13:29, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

On your Italian problem...

Not a clue. I'd have suggested Miranda and CH... so... do they not cite any sources? Ealdgyth - Talk 13:47, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

CH may or may not be citing Miranda, the bibliography there on this entry isn't great. Miranda is better, actually, and thank you for reminding me to check his bibliography to see if I can find any of those books online. I've been using him as a basis for an initial list off-wiki and then confirm using Pastor and Eubel. This cardinal nephew is obnoxious in that he is in the volume of Eubel before he starts listing their nationality explicitly. Pretty easy to confirm for someone who is Ep. or Aep. [Italian city here], but for people who just have general curial roles, I've been having to find other sources.
Also, if you have any general comments on Papal conclave, March 1605 and Cardinal electors for the papal conclave, March 1605, I'd appreciate it. Trying to take the former to FAC and the latter to FLC, both because they're interesting, but also per my belief that those of us who work a lot behind the scenes should also try to contribute quality content. Never done anything featured before, so advice is appreciated :)​ TonyBallioni (talk) 14:04, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
I'll try to remember to have a look tomorrow evening when I'm in a meeting being bored out of my mind. Yeah, the "check the bibliography" trick is very useful for places like Miranda/CH or Medieval Lands where the site itself isn't really reliable, but they often have pointers to the useful stuff. I'm really surprised there aren't Italian printed works on the cardinals - you'd think that the Curia would at least have something like that ... something like Fasti Ecclesiae would seem to be basic scholarship... Ealdgyth - Talk 14:09, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
There are printed works: Eubel is the authoritative source according to the academic I reached out to about my conclave cleanup project: [1]. The issue with this particular cardinal is twofold: first, Eubel starts listing nationality directly rather than by office held in volume IV. Innocent IX's creations are in volume III. The second issue is the one that is making sourcing difficult to find in either language without doing a manual search of the print editions/their scans: he shares the exact same name as his uncle, Pope Innocent IX, and for obvious reasons, most of the sourcing talks about Innocent IX. I reached out to one of the stewards who was Italian to see if there was any more accessible sourcing in Italian, and he came up with the same problem. Just parsing through Miranda, there seems to be some 18th century Italian works that might list something like "of Bologna". Just trying to find the right volume in Google and Archive.org is the trick. Thanks again for the reminder there :) TonyBallioni (talk) 14:18, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
And Miranda pointed to the right source. He was off by 10 pages, though as to what he was citing... Page 324 and not 314. Thanks for your help again! TonyBallioni (talk) 14:37, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Tony, I'm not sure what you need here, but if it's about this chap, a search such as "Giovanni Antonio Facchinetti" 1606 gets a few results specifically about him – not that they say much. Which is probably why he doesn't have an entry in Treccani ... Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 15:12, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

All comments are welcome here! Unless of course, they are from guests talking to my valued talk page watchers like children (see above before it is archived.)
Yes, I’d been trying strings with birth year and “Bologna” and none said the painfully obvious that he was in fact Italian, something semi-important to have cited on a list of electors. Maybe I’ll do a biographical stub on him now that we have some decent sourcing. Seems like an okay fellow as 16th century Italian clerics go. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:21, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Why would Cluebot archive a recent thread that was posted to three hours earlier?

Damnit, Tony! I was going to post the following

Extended content
  • @Huggums537: I smelled something fishy about your proposal longtime editors backing each other up regardless of what seems make sense, be reasonable, or even be right/wrong I've never seen an editor "lose their cool" over being reverted only one time before so it's kind of hard to comprehend. I'm sorry if I offended you over the one reversion. should also be stricken. The first two are obvious, and I'm somewhat surprised they didn't go in your first batch of strikings; the last is obvious baiting, since you already had a lot of people angry at you before Legacypac reverted you, so writing as though the only thing LP had to be angry at was that you reverted the same edit again looks disingenuous. be upfront and honest with the man when nobody else is, then I guess there's not much else I can say about that is also not great.
For that matter, I would frankly feel a lot better if you'd strike your still-live assertions that you couldn't help but notice how Hijiri 88 likes to do his own wikilawyering by piping in links to guidelines while trying to accuse me of doing the same thing simply because I also choose to back up my position with actual specific guidelines. I bet you didn't think I would see that did you? and Anyway, the same user has taken an opportunity to take a jab at me and I got sucked in so I expect the same old tired back and forth unless somebody steps in. You have, simply put, made commenting at WT:FILM and WT:MOSFILM a very unpleasant experience for me over the last ten months or so. You need to stop attacking and abusing other editors in this way, not simply strike some parts of your offending comments and hope you seem contrite enough so that next time the same thing happens no one notices that it is a pattern.
Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:46, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
Hijiri 88, The stick has been dropped on this discussion and it has been archived. You have missed your opportunity to "kick me while I'm down". If you think you can take advantage of the situation to open up the old wounds between us after you have already claimed you were not holding the past against me in the archived discussion, then you can take the drama somewhere else like my talk page or to ANI, because I'm sure Tony doesn't appreciate it on his talk page, which is probably why he archived it to begin with. I will NOT be striking anything else unless Tony or Legacypac specifically request me to, or unless I think it is needed myself. Thanks. Huggums537 (talk) 08:09, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
P.S. I've already learned my lesson VERY well through this ordeal, and it's been taxing [for everyone], to say the least. STOP punishing a dead animal. Find something more constructive to do. Perhaps you should take a look at your own advice in the archived discussion about editing priorities. Thanks. Huggums537 (talk) 10:04, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

and started drafting it off-wiki (since collecting the quotes was going to take more time than I had in any straight block today), only to come here with the completed reply and find that the thread had been archived. I can understand if you don't want your talk page to play host to any more of this drahma (frankly I was just happy that an issue that had been troubling me for some time had found its way here without me having to bring it to ANI, but it's still your talk page), but unless Cluebot has an anti-drahma algorithm that causes it to prematurely archive those particular threads it looks like it might have just been an error ... ? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:46, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

See this, Tony requested immediate archival; an anti-drahma alogrithm would be nice.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:51, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
Huh, I missed that. Thanks! Anyway, an anti-drahma Al Gore-ism sounds nice in theory, but who decides what's drahma? Would we then be leaving that decision up to the machines? The real world robot apocalypse ("robocalypse"?) is likely coming soon but I'd rather not have the Wikipedia robot apocalypse (wikeschatron) precede it if possible. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:00, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
Leaving it up to the machines does sound relaxing. Then again, convenience is how the robocalypse starts. Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:04, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict)x2 I set it to archive using the archive now parameter (you should see it in template notation if you look at the archives). I’m pretty patient, but I’d grown tired of explaining how Wikipedia worked to someone who knew more about policy than I did. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:02, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
I'm going to use that one - grown tired or explaining how wikipedia works to someone who knows more about policy then I do. Very nice. Legacypac (talk) 11:05, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
@Legacypac: Indeed! You understand, I know—unlike others, perhaps—that there's a great deal of difference in knowing policy...and understanding it  :)  ;) —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 11:09, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
This principle also applies to knowing women and understanding them. These concepts intersect as well [2] Legacypac (talk) 12:20, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
Classic :D —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 12:22, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
Well, this is now at ANI. Sad, but not really unexpected. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:08, 21 May 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)
What about the article rescue squadron? He hates it, wants to delete it, said that multiple times, but keeps going there to argue with me and others regularly, at the Rescue List Wikipedia:Article_Rescue_Squadron_–_Rescue_list and in the AFDs listed there. Isn't that disruptive? There are other wikiprojects he could follow, instead of one he hates and wants to destroy. Dream Focus 14:30, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
DF, I voluntarily decided to refrain from bring up your copyvio history unless it's relevant -- can you stop accusing me of "hating" and "wanting to destroy"? This battleground hyperbole is really inappropriate. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:35, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) FWIW, that's not policy: it's friendly advice that I'd really like to be allowed abide by (the one thing stopping me is that DF keeps showing up on a certain page I'm watching and certain pages linked to from that page, sometimes even mentioning me). Technically speaking, if one notices a serious, recurring content problem associated with a particular contributor, it is a perfectly appropriate use of the public logs to monitor it.
Anyway, that's not why I'm here: Tony, would you mind reverting this so the off-topic side-show can stop distracting from the "Hey, this AFD shouldn't even have been opened: the article is unambiguous plagiarism and should have been speedied". It's not even like DF wants to have the last word and I'm not letting him: if he wanted it I'd let him, he let me have the last word and is just insisting on keeping it visible apparently for the hell of it.
Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:32, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}}

Do you deny you want to destroy the ARS? Have you not stated multiple times in various places you want it deleted? That's not hyperbole, that's fact. Also why would anyone possible care who has the last word? What difference does that make? Dream Focus 15:27, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

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 [3]. 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

[4] 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)

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)

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. SQLQuery 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. SQLQuery 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? SQLQuery 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)

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)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TonyBallioni/Archive_19&oldid=1145689972"