Jump to content

User talk:TonyBallioni/Archive 26

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20←Archive 24Archive 25Archive 26Archive 27Archive 28→Archive 30

Gregory Maxwell

Hi. Would you please do me a favor and email me the wikitext for the subject article?   — Jeff G. ツ 08:56, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Jeff G., sent. Sorry for missing this. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:16, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks.   — Jeff G. ツ 13:44, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Do articles like Beautiful Reborn Flower qualify for WP:G5?

As you probably remember the sockpuppet NJHSKA (talk · contribs) created a gazillion redirects which have all been converted into full-size articles by these IPs from Africa. I suppose the TV shows that have aired can stay, but there are still a few dozen shows that remain unaired and unquestionably fail WP:NTV. Instead of taking them to AFD one by one, I'm wondering if they can be speedied to save us some time. Please advise. Timmyshin (talk) 14:56, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

​Given that it fits that sockmaster’s MO, yes. If you create a subpage (like User:Timmyshin/G5) that lists all the articles on a separate line, I can batch delete them so you don’t have to manually tag them all/I don’t have to manually delete them. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:51, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks for taking immediate actions; I have created a list at User:Timmyshin/G5. I excluded Queen Dugu (TV series), whose scheduling seems to have been confirmed (though on the web and not on TV as the title suggests), but if you think it's better to delete it that's fine with me as well. Also feel free to edit that subpage if it makes your job easier. Thanks, Timmyshin (talk) 16:48, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Why did the page The Love of Hypnosis meet WP:G5?

The page had some substantial edits by other users. It should not meet the criteria. Thyang1990 (talk) 18:08, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Thyang1990, see the above discussion. Your contributions looked relatively minor when I was going through, but I have no problem restoring the article at your request, and have done so. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:13, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

I sent you mail!

Hello, TonyBallioni. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

A barnstar for you!

The Admin's Barnstar
Hi Tony, here's an Admin Barnstar for all-around smarts and good adminning. Every time I see your name I know I am about to read something sensible! Thanks. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 04:50, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Awww, Diannaa, that's so kind of you! I miss running into you around copyright and new articles (speaks to my changing focus and IRL stuff than you). Hope all is well with you :) TonyBallioni (talk) 04:52, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at User talk:DannyS712 test/chance.js

 You are invited to join the discussion at User talk:DannyS712 test/chance.js. DannyS712 (talk) 08:30, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Nice

closing statement; though given the obviousness from the numerical strength:-) ∯WBGconverse 08:07, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, but anything that long, with some of the Wikimedia movement’s strongest personalities on both sides that is also featured in a current case request needed to be explained, imo. Anyway, bed :) TonyBallioni (talk) 08:10, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
I also wanted to say this was a first class closing statement. Thank you. GoldenRing (talk) 10:22, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
And here's your courtesy link to the inevitable DRV. —Cryptic 14:56, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Yep. Knew that was coming. Thanks, Cryptic. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:38, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Question

Here is someone edit warring through an IP proxy server. Where this should be reported? Thank you, My very best wishes (talk) 18:54, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

My very best wishes, yeah, it’s a proxy. I’ve hard blocked it for a year. I’ll look later tonight to see if we can block the range or the entire ISP. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:05, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Thank you! I also think the info IP wanted to remove was really important. My very best wishes (talk) 20:26, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
P.S. There is another user who plainly refuses to talk. I started a discussion 6 days ago [1], because I do not see that cited sources support the statement. However, instead of talking, they just revert (edit summary), revert (edit summary), and revert even minor changes. He did say before that he is not going to talk with me [2]. I am not sure how to resolve this. I would rather not report this to WP:AE, but maybe that's the case.My very best wishes (talk) 22:37, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Book recommendation

Hi Tony. On the off chance that you have not come across this book yet, I wanted to give a mention to The Deaths Of The Popes by Wendy J. Reardon. I picked up a used copy recently and found it full of interesting details surrounding the deaths, funerals and burials of many of the Popes. All are covered though some have scant information because there is not much surviving. But all in all I was pretty impressed. I hope all is well. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:13, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Restore my Extended-Confirmed user

My user has been autoconfirmed user, so you can have the PERM restoration. --Banana19208 (talk) 23:52, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Banana19208, So, would you be able to address the concerns brought up on your talkpage, that first you were asking for EC on perm, then appearing to game the system in order to get it? SQLQuery me! 00:00, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Banana19208, autoconfirmed is not equal to extended-confirmed, I personally hope you should stay some days before requesting. Hhkohh (talk) 11:28, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

close of CP

Good fair close, and the way you went about I would have accepted it as fair had you reached the opposite conclusion. DGG ( talk ) 08:29, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Not clever

This [[3]] does no one any favors.Slatersteven (talk) 14:27, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

There were three edit conflicts. I just pasted my my reply in the window thst looked to be the latest version. Accidentally removing comments based on edit conflicts happens all the time. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:29, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
I figured something of the kind, but no need to give them ammunition.Slatersteven (talk) 15:04, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, I only realized it after he reverted me. Oh well. Hopefully it won’t happen again. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:24, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Mail

Hello, TonyBallioni. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

--SamHolt6 (talk) 17:28, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

SamHolt6, seen. Very busy IRL right now and may wait until tomorrow or Saturday to look into it. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:26, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
@TonyBallioni: understood; please don't let me hold you up for any reason.--SamHolt6 (talk) 18:30, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Look! I'm famous!

And so is Ian! @Ian.thomson: you get your name repeated in a picture and I get my explanations repeated in the Washington Times! TonyBallioni (talk) 23:31, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

I saw one of your posts on that Dice youtube video. Came to congratulate you. Legacypac (talk) 23:32, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
  • You've made it my friend, feel free to put this at the top of your userpage :P
SITH (talk) 00:04, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

You can only post that if you consider the Washington Times a media organization. Legacypac (talk) 00:20, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Ouch, right in under the belt :P ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:27, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

The conservative pundit thanked Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales for taking part in the discussion, but said: “It appears that he has created a monster and Wikipedia is not under his control.” Some would argue that Wikipedia being under Jimbo's control is not such a good thing. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 00:51, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, on that note, see User_talk:Iridescent#For_ye_fellow_lovers_of_Jimmy_Wales. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:54, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
I had forgotten that thread was about this guy. Jeez. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 01:05, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Recently?! I have been editing wiki for years and years

Please look at my history before making allegations like I’m new. Qwerty786 (talk) 02:21, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Qwerty786, those are standardized templates. I don't control the wording. All they do is alert you that discretionary sanctions are in place, nothing more. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:24, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Why’d you put in on my page. It’s extremely offensive. You know it says recent. Qwerty786 (talk) 02:25, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Let's keep the discussion in one place. We cross posted at your talk, but my reply there is longer, so lets stay there. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:28, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

User:Timelesskeys

Why did you set the block is autoblock disabled instead of ACB? Sock usually did not set autoblock disabled. Instead, should set ACB. Please fix the block settings, thanks Hhkohh (talk) 05:57, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Because I knew what the main account was and I wanted to allow it to continue editing. It was an intentional choice. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:05, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Ha, just note that the main account Banana19208 (talk · contribs) was blocked by another admin today. Hhkohh (talk) 06:17, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
I’m aware. The block settings of one account aren’t that big a deal. If they sock, well catch them. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:20, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Discrimination against Mark Dice

Did you actually say that The Washington Times is a fringe publication that doesn't count as a journalistic source in regards to Mark Dice's Wikipedia page?

You are clearly a biased liberal who discriminates against conservative thought.

You have no place editing these pages because of your horrible political bias. You should be removed from Wikipedia. Cougarrcsnva (talk) 16:02, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes. The Washington Times is a fringe source. Also, depending on who you talk to around here I hate a bunch of things that have no relation about how I actually feel on the topic. My only care is to support Wikipedia's policies on the Dice page. I'm responding to you and leaving your post as a reply to the others I'm sure to receive today so they can all read this one. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:24, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
It's owned and run by a cult actually. Legacypac (talk) 23:46, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
I know! It blows my mind that there are so many people unaware of this. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:54, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
I hadn't heard of the Washington Times until I started editing Wikipedia, so the cult status is another surprise. Natureium (talk) 14:54, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Ditto, I hadn't heard of it until yesterday. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:55, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
To quote my very Christian father: "Never trust a man who calls himself the Messiah. Especially if he's published." ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:13, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
You really should add to the article about that cult. After reading it, I had to look at articles off-wiki because I couldn't tell from the article why it was supposed to be a cult rather than just an unusual religion. Natureium (talk) 15:21, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
The lede of Unification movement already says "The Unification movement has received strong criticism and has attracted numerous controversies, including that of being a dangerous cult." ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:35, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

As a slight change in topic, I’m a bit concerned so many Wikipedians don’t appear to understand the difference between a book published by a reputable publishing house and a self-published book and why we wouldn’t talk about the latter. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:41, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

It's been my experience that relatively few people even know that self-publishing is a thing. I'm not surprised, though it is certainly concerning, given what we do here. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:54, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you with this

Maybe you could suggest a better place to take care of these things.

User:Alexandrovi and User:Alexandrov have made a couple of adolescent vandal edits at Lemoyne, Pennsylvania. Obvious sockpuppet and vandalism problem.

Anything you can do would be appreciated.

Smallbones(smalltalk) 23:02, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Soft blocked one of them. We were all in high school once. If it happens again, let me know and I'll block the main account and any others that show up. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:28, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Rename inquiry

Can you take a look at m:Special:GlobalRenameQueue/request/50240? I am pointing it out to you since you are the most recent unblocking admin, so I want to get your opinion on it. Nihlus 00:32, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Nihlus, Swarm was the unblocking Admin (cf. UpsandDowns1234, who has requested a rename). Without commenting on specifics, CheckUser does indicate that the account that was their name backwards yesterday and was blocked for vandalism could be a different user (bunch of accounts on the IP, all with different devices, and it wasn’t a proxy, suggesting a shared connection.) I’d be inclined to rename if Swarm consented and there is a clear link on their userpage to the old account and any sanctions record is updated with the new name. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:47, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Swarm: fix ping. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:48, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Ah, well, I was mainly referring to the autoblock but will await Swarm's response. Nihlus 00:52, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Ala'a renamed him, which is fine. Swarm might want to make the connection on the talks though. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:36, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
These unresearched renames are really getting old. It's now a moot point on my end though, so thanks anyway. Nihlus 03:42, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
I can’t access that page and I have no idea what’s going on. What’s the deal? ~Swarm~ {talk} 09:33, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

user:Hp joker1

Hello user:Hp joker1 now blocked in arwiki (I'll lock his account soon), and I deleted all of his articles in arwiki, so hope if you can do so in enwiki. Probably there's a relation with (user:IamIRAQI)! --Alaa :)..! 19:39, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

@علاء: hope you're doing well and getting some rest! How confident are you that he is a sock of IamIRAQI? If he is, I can go ahead and delete the articles under CSD G5. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:17, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
Yes I try to take a rest, Hope I can! umm you can take a look on CUwiki (+ see this). Also, I see that all of his articles being under G11 + A7! --Alaa :)..! 20:22, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
@علاء: I deleted all of the articles under G5 per them likely being associated with IamIRAQI. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:56, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. His account locked globally --Alaa :)..! 10:18, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Hello, hope you are well and happy. Finally, it's confirmed that Hp joker1 = IamIRAQI (please see special:diff/30154 on Cuwiki). Best --Alaa :)..! 10:24, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Charles Harper (priest)

Hello, Tony! I thought I would give you a heads up and tell you that the draft above is stale. -- Dolotta (talk) 21:54, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Userfied. Thanks! TonyBallioni (talk) 22:12, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Size of WP:CENT

Hey Tony!

So, I noticed that you posted this. Would you mind mopping up some of the items listed there now?

Kindest Regards, ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-☖ 08:05, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, TonyBallioni. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Doug Weller talk 13:55, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

If A non_administrator reverted . . .

That's easy-- he'd be a Catcher In the Rye. Dlohcierekim (talk) 06:34, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Ben Shapiro

What I have learned today is to stay away as much as possible. If people tag team on you, you are the one in trouble. Sad to see. And what warning did the other two get? Nothing. So much toxicity. So basically the one who said that admin's block was "dumb" and encourages the blocked one to carry on the action gets no warnings? And then me who's trying to clarify gets warning. No words either to the other one was just "watching" the talk page and decided to degrade me? This is so disappointing. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 22:39, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

ImmortalWizard, you got warned by two admins because it’s frankly none of your business how other users react to a block. Admins are used to taking heat for blocks, especially of high profile users, which BMK certainly is. It comes with the territory. What most people are not used to is having an editor with less than 5,000 edits who only recently became active again lecturing some of our most experienced editors (one of whom has approximately 40x more edits than you and has been here over a decade.) edit counts are a generally unhelpful statistic, but in this case it demonstrates that there’s a relatively inexperienced user basically lecturing on the talk page of a highly experienced user who was just edit warring blocked. That looks a lot like grace dancing or baiting, even if that wasn’t the intent. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:52, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
I never knew experience mattered ever. In that case they should be shameful edit warring for this kind of stuff. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 22:56, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
I did not tag team, never even edited the page with the edit war. Yes, experience matters or so the girls have told me. Please learn to think about what other editors are trying to do before judging, especially when they are highly experienced editors that obviously have a WP:CLUE Legacypac (talk) 07:26, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Yep, what's sad is so-called "experienced editors" get themselves blocked temporarily because of such disruptions, whereas, the newbies get indefinite block. Certainly I see favoritism. They say Wikipedia lacks diversity and claims it to be a troll place. Of course, how are you gonna encourage new editors who has knowledge and experience over underdeveloped topics such as African continent and women BLPs, with such experienced editor priviledge? Also, admins are supposed to be like janitors, no real authority. Nowhere it is written that new editors cannot "lecture" old ones. And if you consider these editors as "valuable assets" just because they have 40,000+ or so edits but still disrupts, so should 4,000+ editors be treated the same. Yes, there is certain experience required for certain actions specifically (such as AFDs and rollback rights) but it is not always the case in the hindsight. Generally, there is not much difference between an admin's comment and a normal one. And there is no prove that I don't have WP:CLUE. Yes, it is "none of my business" to advice anyone, but it is none of anyone's business to edit Wikipedia in the first place. What I said there, was clearly logical and being threatened by two admins was simply wrong. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 21:07, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

MPants

I was still in the process of putting back what should be there and leaving out what should not. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:49, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

​Heh, that page history was a mess. I just figured you misread it and clicked the wrong link. My edit summary wasn’t meant as snarky or aimed at you, so sorry if it came off that way :) TonyBallioni (talk) 20:52, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
No, didn't see it as snarky - just frustrated by multiple edit conflicts, coupled with people who didn't see the oversighted edits trying to guess who did what ;-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:57, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Section wherein CheckUsers hate on Duke University

May the best Duke win
Enjoy being ahead for as long as it lasts. It's all part of the plan. And man, the president looks fit. I don't know if he can run the floor like the young kids, but I know he's watching a great show. Drmies (talk) 02:28, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
@Berean Hunter and MusikAnimal: tonight might be the time to implement my plan to hard block the Duke network... TonyBallioni (talk) 02:34, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
Grr. And now I see why I hadn't seen Williamson yet. Go ahead hardblock: I got a million proxies bwuhaha. Now stop wearing sneakers or I swear I will blah blah blah. Drmies (talk) 02:37, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
Jump! Jump! Jump!.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 02:46, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
Duke sucks. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:48, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
All has gone quiet in Cameron.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 02:53, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
They know who Obama is cheering for. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:55, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Wardrobe malfunction?

Nike stock tumbled over $1.1 Billion because of the blowout but ironically that pair of destroyed shoes are probably worth $10K - $20K now. It will be interesting to see if they issue a recall.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:21, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

COI socking

This is pretty obvious so hopefully doesn't require the bureaucracy of a case. However, I don't want to take action myself – I created the article. Unlucky Plaza is a film directed by Ken Kwek. Last week, an editor named Ken.kwek showed up and removed a bunch of negative reviews (one review went from calling the film "slick and amateurish" to just "slick") and edited his own BLP. After I warned Ken.kwek for non-neutral editing and an obvious COI, Hallas Seborn appeared. Seborn removed the negative reviews and said that Kwek's BLP is A-OK, presumably in response to the {{COI}} template I added. This has got to be a sock. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:00, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: Based on something Tony posted yesterday, I figured he might not be available for a while, so I stepped in:  Confirmed, blocked and tagged.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:39, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for cleaning that up. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:40, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Advice for Autopatrolled

Hi, I'd like to apply for Autopatrolled but wanted to ensure that I would have a good application before I put in the request and was hoping you might be able to make suggestions/advice as to where I should improve etc? I had some issues in my earliest work but I've since read up on the projects and think I'm now more proficient... JamesMatthews01 (talk) 20:22, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Your work will need to be checked for the foreseeable future, because of the copyright issues. You posted here only two days after I spent several hours checking all your edits and cleaning them of multiple violations of the copyright policy. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 00:52, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Query

Per WP:ADMINACCT, I request an explanation how this AE request which also involved the following stmts:

  1. [4] - "You are allowing some of the most extreme pro-Israel/anti-Palestinian editors on Wikipedia ... But because the more extreme pro-Israel editors dislike this article it isnt NPOV?"
  2. [5] - ""I am saying is that you, and for that matter Shrike, E.M.Gregory and Icewhiz, all have a history of editing on one end of a POV spectrum. Extremely pro-Zionist and anti-Palestinian..."
  3. [6] - "Now this may be impolite to say, but the number of users with a history of extremely Zionist and anti-Palestinian editing..."

Was closed by you as no-action ("I would close this with no action: I see nothing approaching sanctionable here, only frustration about a very sensitive topic, which is understandable if not perfect behavior. I would oppose closing it with any formal logged reminder, but sure, I agree with GoldenRing that everyone should get along regardless of what side of the ARBIPA spectrum you fall on"), whereas this led to an indefinite block. Why is "extremely" "zionist" / "anti-Palestinian" not sanctionable at all, while "rv antisemitic vandalism" is met with an indef? Icewhiz (talk) 09:23, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

One is accusing someone of being a racist vandal and the other is accusing editors of POV-pushing. One has a block log a mile long plus more entries on the AELOG than most editors have in a decade in less than a year and the other hasn’t been blocked in nearly a decade. One went from causing disruption in the Arab-Israeli conflict to doing the exact same types of behaviour in regards to the history of Jews in Eastern Europe. One has a history of false accusations of vandalism used in content disputes (see my previous response to you on Yaniv’s talk) and assumptions of bad faith on historical articles, while the other was an emotional outburst on an article about a current event. The whole situation is considered before any action is taken.
As I have already told you, I’m not getting into a back and forth on this without an appeal: the English Wikipedia does not accept block appeals from third-parties, and unless I’m egregiously wrong in this block in a way I’m not currently seeing (@Boing! said Zebedee: is an unblock regular who I trust to check me on the block if it’s wrong), I have no intent to unilaterally lifting it without an unblock discussion, and even then depending on what the reviewing admins think WP:SO might be the outcome. I’ve explained my action here to you multiple times tonight. Policy doesn’t require that you agree with my reasoning, just that I explain it and back it up with policy. I’d suggest that the best course of action at this point is to wait to see if Yaniv requests an unblock, and then see if he and I or he and another admin can agree on a path forward. TonyBallioni (talk) 09:59, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
The casual accusations of "antisemitic vandalism" on top of such a lengthy block log (even considering two of the blocks appear to be in error) make the current indef block justifiable in my view. And I believe that the requirements of WP:ADMINACCT have been satisfied. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:29, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
"emotional outburst on an article about a current event" is not congruent with this diff (diff 1 above) on Template:Did you know nominations/Israeli occupation of the West Bank (on 22 January, a week prior to the editing to the somewhat current event in 29 January). Nor was "vandal" deemed actionable in this case. I'm dropping this in this forum (last post of mine here), and I am making expert inquiries regarding the edit in question..Icewhiz (talk) 10:45, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
In the case today the editor did exactly what you asked me to have them do: self-revert, and you brought them there for a 1RR violation when the actual situation on that page wasn’t clear. If they self-reverted because I asked them to at your request, blocking would be punitive. They also didn’t preface it with antisemite. This editor and his ilk are what most of us think of when you talk about antisemitic vandals, and that is a massive personal attack and chilling effect.
On the anti-Palestinian/pro-Israeli thing, he was calling you a POV pusher. That’s not nice, but that’s not the same thing as saying you hate Arabs, and I generally don’t believe in sanctioning people for thinking someone is biased. If he called you an anti-Arab bigot or an Islamaphobic POV-pusher, let me know. I’ll be the first to block. That is the equivalent to what Yaniv did tonight, and as Boing! has pointed out, with that block log, indef was basically the only option. TonyBallioni (talk) 11:08, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Note

Further to our last exchange I have refrred to your page protection here [7]. I would appreciate your objective review of the Talk page, and input. -Roberthall7 (talk) 13:04, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Suspected high traffic article

Hello, please put this article under your attention due to high traffic related to it. We protect it in arwiki due to vandalism on 23/24 Feb. Best --Alaa :)..! 13:00, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

علاء, I’ve added it to my watchlist. Looks to be fine on en.wiki for now. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:18, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

This is anonymous user responding to so called vandalism claimed by TonyBallioni on 23 24 February. It is not. The article is regarding Jimmy O. Yang. His surname starts with O not Y. I've changed it to reflect that throughout the article. It's O. Yang. His family name is Au-Yeung. Read the article gosh darn it and all the references to it both in English and Chinese!! Please revert back to what I changed! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.71.130.157 (talk) 05:20, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Italian IPA sockpuppet recursive waves

Hi TonyBallioni, I've read the note you left here. Today I found a number of further -- most likely -- socks of the same group and I was wondering about which approach is the more appropriate at this point. I'm going to ask a new check, but, as you said in the note, it will likely not produce a positive technical relation, but only a decision based on behaviour. Do you have any other better approach to this issue? Since it seems that these waves of sockpuppets targeting italian IPA are not willing to stop, do you have any suggestion about a better way to deal with this matter? Horst Hof (talk) 16:04, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Horst Hof, if you check my block log anything 16:38, 25 February 2019 to 16:44, 25 February 2019 was a sock or sleeper of this farm. You can keep reporting them to that SPI, and I'll keep clearing and checking for sleepers. What we're looking at here is blocking the sleepers, not tying them technically to the master because from an ISP/geolocation perspective, that is very unlikely to happen. Maybe MusikAnimal has an idea as to if edit filters will work, but for now, just keep reporting and I'll keep sweeping. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:54, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Yaniv's talk & Icewhiz's defamatory remarks

Hi, I reverted you because while you can certainly make that argument on sourcing, doing it on the article talk page is much better than picking a fight on a blocked user's talk page. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:28, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello, I didn't realize it was inappropriate to post it on Yaniv's talk page - that is, after all, where the defamatory remarks were made by Icewhiz, a staunch supporter of Yaniv's - and couldn't understand why my remarks disappeared. I would appreciate your guidance as to where this should be posted for follow-up as a complaint against Icewhiz. signed TATZREF

Icewhiz’s allegation that the text purged by Yaniv (יניב הורון), as allegedly “antisemitic vandalism,” in fact constitutes “WP:HOAX material - blatant and libelous misrepresentation of sources” is every bit as offensive and baseless as Yaniv’s. Wikipedia defines “hoax” as “a falsehood deliberately fabricated to masquerade as the truth.” Set out below is the impugned text in question. No cogent evidence had been presented that any statement it contains is a “hoax” or that the sources (pages of publications) cited do not support those statements. Until Icewhiz produces such evidence serious consideration should be given to blocking his participation in Polish-related issues for the same reason that Yaniv has been blocked. IMPUGNED TEXT Anti-Jewish violence in Poland, 1944–1946 Property claims and restitution A restitution law "On Abandoned Real Estates" of May 6, 1945 allowed property owners who had been dispossessed, or their relatives and heirs, whether residing in Poland or outside the country, to reclaim privately owned property under a simplified inheritance procedure. The law remained in effect until the end of 1948. An expedited court process with minimal costs was put in place to handle claims. Applications had to be examined within 21 days, and many claims were processed the day they were filed. Poles often served as witnesses to corroborate claims of Jewish neighbors and acquaintances. Jewish law firms and agencies outside Poland specialized in submitting applications on behalf of non-residents. Properties were also transferred and sold by Jewish owners outside this process.[23]. The American Jewish Year Book reported, at the time, “The return of Jewish property, if claimed by the owner or his descendant, and if not subject to state control, proceeded more or less smoothly.”[24] Thousands of properties were successfully reclaimed, for example, more than 520 properties were reclaimed in two county towns of Lublin province alone (281 applications in Zamość, and 240 in Włodawa - some applications involved multiple properties).[25] Given the lax criteria, there were a number of cases of Jews advancing fraudulent property claims.[26] The American Jewish Year Book for 1947-1948 is available online for anyone to examine at http://www.ajcarchives.org/main.php?GroupingId=10082;http://www.ajcarchives.org/AJC_DATA/Files/1947_1948_10_PolandSoviet.pdf Furthermore, Icewhiz’s claim that Mark Paul propagates hoaxes such as the myth of “the ungrateful Jew” has no merit. The relevant text, found in Mark Paul’s “Wartime Rescue of Jews by the Polish Catholic Clergy,” is available online (http://kpk-toronto.org/wp-content/uploads/CLERGY-RESCUE-KPK-9.doc). The section headed “Recognition and (In)Gratitude” compiles many statements by Jews regarding Polish rescue efforts, some expressing gratitude, others not – hence the ambivalent wording of the heading. An example of the latter is former Prime Minister Menachem Begin’s infamous remarks, “What concerns the Jews, the Poles have been collaborating with the Germans. … only at most one hundred people have been helping Jews. … Polish priests did not save even one Jewish life.” Icewhiz (and Joanna Michlic, whom he cites) may not like to be reminded of such statements but they are part of the historical record. Mark Paul’s “Patterns of Cooperation, Collaboration and Betrayal: Jews, Germans and Poles in Occupied Poland during World War II” was recognized recently as an important study in a major publication of the prestigious Jagiellonian University: Wymuszona współpraca czy zdrada? Wokół przypadków kolaboracji Żydów w okupowanym Krakowie (Kraków: Universitas, 2018), at p. 34. The author, Alicja Jarkowska-Natkaniec, has impeccable academic credentials: http://fellowships.claimscon.org/fellows/cohort-xi-academic-year-2018-2019/jarkowska-natkaniec-alicja/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tatzref (talk • contribs) 16:43, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Tatzref. The best place to have this discussion is on the article talk page (but about the sources, not the contributor.) I have blocked Yaniv for long-term tendentious editing, which I consider accusations of antisemitic vandalism to be a part of. I hope you have a good day. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:50, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
Hello, Earlier today I came across Icewhiz's request for enforcement against me, sparked - it appears - by the above post. Unlike Icewhiz editing Wikipedia is not a full-time pastime/occupation for me so I need a bit of time to respond to the numerous allegations he has leveled against me.Tatzref (talk) 00:38, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Extended protection rights

Hello, TonyBallioni. Where do I request extended protection rights? I wanted to udpate 2019 Balakot airstrike but realized I wasn't able to. Cheers, MX (✉ • ✎) 19:45, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

MX, I’ve restored extendedconfirmed to your account. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:06, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Re Wikipedia:No Nazis

Can we still say "trump card"? Bishonen | talk 23:09, 26 February 2019 (UTC).

Heh, I had that thought, but went with it because I couldn't think of a better term. Feel free to edit as you see fit. I strongly stand behind that essay as a whole (hell, I wrote WP:BLOCKNAZIS Do you like the nifty new ALLCAPS?, but I've just made 3 blocks in maybe a 72 hour period based on claims of anti-semitic vandalism or white supremacism being used as a way to further disputes, so I felt it an opportune time to explain what that essay does not mean. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:16, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
Ach, I'm just fuckin' with you. Bishonen | talk 23:33, 26 February 2019 (UTC).

Can you link me to these cases? I'm curious to see how Wikipedia:No Nazis has been applied. Cheers, Pokerplayer513 (talk) 23:19, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Pokerplayer513, no one was citing the essay, but here are the three I was talking about: [8], [9], [10]. These cases were where people used accusations of racist vandalism and white supremacism to try to get ahead or against the other side of a dispute. As the essay says, it isn't targeted at legitimate differences on reading sources or opinions, but on actual clearcut cases of editors who's views are so outside the mainstream that simply allowing them to continue to be here would be disruptive.
Since this is likely going to be the most high profile essay on racism and Wikipedia's sanction system, I thought it was probably also the best place to include "don't claim someone is a white supremacist because they are on the other side of the India-Pakistan dispute from you." TonyBallioni (talk) 23:29, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
Pokerplayer513, fix ping. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:30, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
Thank you! Pokerplayer513 (talk) 00:41, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Stink bomb?

User talk:RaviMoolchandani? Drmies (talk) 03:49, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

My god. Will he never find a new hobby? Yeah, I'll get the stewards around with locks. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:19, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks a lot!

As I was composing my little e-mail, you were busy.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:40, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

The magic of browsing a watchlist while at the bus stop. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:41, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
Not sure I see that as "magic" or have-you-thought-of-therapy. Did you do this from a cellphone, a tablet, or were you carrying a PC around on your back?--Bbb23 (talk) 23:21, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
Ha! I need probably therapy, but for other reason. I was on my iPhone 8 passing time while waiting on the bus. I have never edited at the bus stop from a laptop. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:27, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

SPI

Hello, I would to follow up with you, on my worry of no punishment for this I thought that I provided enough evidence that showed the user in question has been logging out to edit war on List of Impact Wrestling personnel. In the situation that sparked the report they violated 3RR. I just feel bad, because they will think this is okay since it seems like they have done it before [11][12][13]. The IPs first edit was a revert on that page. As I put in the SPI the the User account was blocked in the past for abusing multiple accounts. The IP has not been used, but the user account has and he has been getting away with this the last two months it seems, me barley noticing it during the recent edit war. StaticVapor message me! 05:03, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Blocks aren't meant to punish, and from the looks of it, if the IP user was him (which I don't know), it very well could have been an accident thinking they were logged in. I'm not going to block someone for potential logged out editing 10 days ago that they looked to have stopped, could have been an accident, and hasn't caused ongoing disruption. I did just leave them a note though in case it was them. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:12, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Okay, I understand your point. Thanks for following up. For the record, I made the report when it happened and have been wondering why it was sitting there getting stale. StaticVapor message me! 05:22, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
You requested CU to connect an IP to an account, which we can’t do. I’m not sure if it’s because of that, but if you go through closed cases, you’ll see CUs don’t block many IPs on behaviour and tend to leave them for clerks and patrolling admins. We’re aware that we need more clerks to review non-CU cases, and we’ve recently appointed two new trainees. We could also use more patrolling admins (hint, hint talk page stalkers). Those of us who work SPI regularly are a relatively small crowd, and there’s always a backlog. We do our best, but unfortunately sometimes things fall through the cracks. I’m sorry about that :/ TonyBallioni (talk) 05:30, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Okay, thank you for the detailed response, I do appreciate it. I only asked for CU in case there was sleepers (due to the previous block), but that might have been my downfall. Sad to hear there are not as many invested in SPI, it seems like it is still a major problem area like it used to be. :( StaticVapor message me! 06:09, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

It's so tempting...

...to reply to User talk:2607:FEA8:A75F:F823:D95:6E42:68A1:DCE1 with "Request accepted, block reduced to 672 hours" ;-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:29, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

​LOL. One of my favourite parts of being in the unblock channel on Freenode is reading some of the decline rationales. Yunshui I think still takes the prize with Talk page goes bye-bye now. but there are many other good ones. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:58, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks re. AlbionJack

My thanks for having blocked AlbionJack (talk). Oddly, I had not suspected the user of sockpuppetry, as the user did not pass any obvious duck test on articles on the War of 1812. Nevertheless I was preparing to engage in a really nasty war over the user's blatant POV, use of OR, in most cases very poorly researched, habit of rewriting the lead sections of some articles so as to repeat or even contradict the body of the article, and refusal to engage in discussion. I would probably have been forced to make official complaint of edit warring within a day or two. HLGallon (talk) 12:01, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Their previous autoblock rationale was for being a sock of the user in question, then they went on to recreate the page and had the same name. CU is stale, so it couldn't definitively confirm, but based on what I did see, I highly doubt that this is someone different. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:00, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Articles by Knuand

Hi Tony!

I've just reviewed 19 articles by Knuand but they appear to be blocked for copyright violations. As you're the blocking administrator, I thought I'd leave a message here regarding the issues in their articles as they can't do anything about it.

  1. Bob Bain - {{stub}}
  2. Sasha Berliner - {{notability}}, {{weasel-inline}}, {{stub}} - PROD
  3. Fergus McCreadie - {{notability}}, {{weasel-inline}}, {{stub}} - PROD
  4. Alf Hulbækmo - {{notability}}, {{stub}}
  5. Bucky Calabrese - {{stub}}
  6. Sebastian Nordström - {{notability}}, {{stub}} - PROD
  7. Axel Skalstad - {{notability}}, {{stub}}
  8. Tom Hasslan - {{notability}}, {{stub}}
  9. Arianna Neikrug - {{notability}}, {{stub}}
  10. Andreas Haddeland - {{stub}}
  11. Magnus Bakken - {{notability}}, {{stub}}
  12. Jonathan Barber - {{notability}}, {{stub}} - previously deleted at AfD
  13. Sasha Masakowski - {{notability}}, {{stub}}
  14. Simon Gore - {{notability}}, {{stub}}
  15. David Arthur Skinner - {{notability}}, {{stub}}
  16. Jason Nazary - {{notability}}, {{stub}}
  17. Bill Beason - {{notability}}, {{stub}}
  18. Anders Thorén - CSD G12 - previously deleted at AfD
  19. Kjetil Jerve - {{stub}}

I checked all of them for copyvios considering Knuand's block and Anders Thorén was the only one. Of the ones I haven't sent to PROD, do you think an AfD is worth starting on the ones tagged with {{notability}}?

Many thanks,

SITH (talk) 15:14, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

AE / how to atone for calling out misbehavior of a player?

I just read your comment at AE where I have not been allowed to participate for 750+ days. Your comment seems quite pertinent to an appeal in my own case. I was blocked for asking AE admins to consider that Sagecandor / Cirt's extensive number of prosecutions at AE were a problem in a case that they brought with false accusations (they accused Tlroche of forgery in diff #4 of that case, which was quite clearly false). I asked the sanctioning admin to reconsider [here], or at least to explain what I did wrong. They have not. I wonder if you might see it in your heart to advise me as to how I should best proceed to remove the only remaining sanction on me from the Cirt/Sagecandor (or any) episode.

Everything you need to look into the case is linked from the permalink to the sanctioning administrator's talk page above. Pinging @Volunteer Marek: since they were involved in the original sanction request against me.

This is more in regards to SashiRolls' comments here. The relevant policies are WP:ASPERSIONS and WP:BATTLEGROUND. There's no reason for them to show up here and based on some flimsy excuse use this as a forum to attack another editor whom they happen to dislike. Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:49, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for helping me to understand what, perhaps wrongly, seems to be a very clear double standard. Should I appeal, to restore my first class citizen status, or should I just "suck it up" as an Arkansas politician used to say? Do you think that T. Canens response to my question has been sufficient? SashiRolls t · c 16:52, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Timotheus Canens’s point that sanctions can be valid even if the sanctioned person is right is definitely true. I think my point on the VM appeal was more of “well, if he brought this to AE himself with the links he provided after Sandstein sanctioned him, we would be having a very different discussion.”
As for your case, if Tim doesn’t want to remove it, I’d suggest following the standard appeals. I’m not overly familiar with it beyond the broad strokes, so don’t feel comfortable commenting one way or another on it. I think if you can demonstrate it’s no longer needed, it’d likely be lifted, but that’d be up to reviewing admins. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:07, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I suppose they could have been valid in an alternate reality. :) SashiRolls t · c 18:15, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

I've sent you an email!

Hello, TonyBallioni. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

99.203.142.0/23

Tony, who is this d-bag? I've been revdeleting more material. Drmies (talk) 02:35, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2019).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • A new tool is available to help determine if a given IP is an open proxy/VPN/webhost/compromised host.

Arbitration

  • The Arbitration Committee announced two new OTRS queues. Both are meant solely for cases involving private information; other cases will continue to be handled at the appropriate venues (e.g., WP:COIN or WP:SPI).
    • paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org has been set up to receive private evidence related to abusive paid editing.
    • checkuser-en-wp@wikipedia.org has been set up to receive private requests for CheckUser. For instance, requests for IP block exemption for anonymous proxy editing should now be sent to this address instead of the functionaries-en list.

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:13, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Email

Hi there Tony. I've just sent you an email. NiciVampireHeart 05:55, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Replied. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:11, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Many thanks, NiciVampireHeart 06:22, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Revert

Definitely not because the list of the last fifty blocks goes back to...2009 then  ;) ——SerialNumber54129 16:23, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Curiosity

This interesting stuff seems to be related with clerkship at SPI. But, I don't recall coming across any such training sample earlier! New methods, eh?! ∯WBGconverse 19:18, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

I’m stealing from Katie’s training of Sir Sputnik who stole from Bbb’s training of GAB. We normally delete them afterwards, which is why you likely haven’t seen them :) The bit about looking at permalinks of old cases is my innovation, but on the whole, the questions are exactly what others have been asked in the past. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:36, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
That explains it:-) ∯WBGconverse 16:56, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

FYI

You're on (Redacted). Thought you should know. Pokerplayer513 (talk) 03:41, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

🙄. Yeah, let them know I also wrote WP:BLOCKNAZIS and got opposed by one person at CUOS2018 because they thought I’d go on an anti-Nazi CU fishing trip after I blocked someone for being a Holocaust denier. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:45, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Kooks and cranks and crazies need places to congregate, after all. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:47, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
TonyBallioni, considering you wrote NONAZIS, I found this quote while looking at an archive, and was wondering how to proceed, this was written by someone with an ideological bent and it's obviously not a NAZI but it's venturing into Holocaust denial, and I don't think it should be something we tolerate here, in any event here is the quote: ""I think the Holocaust deaths may have very well been exaggerated by some. And, I’m not interested in excluding deaths that were clearly aggravated by forced labor, lack of medical care, and starvation, or even relocation. (I hear Trump claiming that Puerto Rican deaths after the hurricane was over somehow don’t count.) But, it’s still in the millions. Does it make it OK if it was 75% as many? Just say “substantially fewer deaths”."" Thanks, Sir Joseph (talk) 04:08, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
I think any concerns should be addressed to the Arbitration Committee in private. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:12, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Even if the edit was "ages" ago? I'd have to check but it was certainly over months ago. Sir Joseph (talk) 04:21, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Oh, I misread you. Sorry about that. If the user does anything similar again, report them to ANI and show the diffs as a trend. I’m certainly of the belief that virulent and genocidal anti-semites should be blocked on sight, and that Wikipedia has no place for neo-Nazism or any of its evil cousins. The community can handle that, but it needs to be substantiated. If you prefer, you can email me the diff and I’ll let you know what I think. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:36, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
OK, thanks, I sent you the DIFF for review and advice. Sir Joseph (talk) 04:51, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Sir Joseph, Unless; the above DIFF was redacted; I note that the above quote (or significant phrases of it) are not returned by a search query except over your t/p and here. ∯WBGconverse 17:01, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
It's still there, not sure why the search doesn't work. I already emailed it to Tony. Sir Joseph (talk) 17:08, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) No comment on anything else, but @Sir Joseph: Tony didn't write WP:NONAZIS. He wrote part of it (the bit referred to above as WP:BLOCKNAZIS), but it seems inappropriate (and I'm sure he'd agree) to credit the page itself to him. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:16, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TonyBallioni/Archive_26&oldid=1045693774"