User talk:TonyBallioni/Archive 13

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Comment @ here

Could you please clarify your deletion rationale to me ? I would particularly like to know some of the specific archived debates that are related to the topic in question. Also could you clarify what you mean by

“

Depth of coverage does not only refer to the amount of coverage in a piece, but also the level of critical journalistic analysis

”

.(I ask you this because I have written two articles Karimul Haque and Bipin Ganatra based on the same sort of coverage. Should those also be deleted ?) — F R ™ 11:16, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Force Radical, in my view, human interest coverage in journalism raises concerns with several parts of our understanding of the GNG (which, as I also mentioned, is not a guarantee of inclusion.) They lack depth of analysis, which I think fail the directly and in detail part, but there are also concerns about both the intellectual independence and the reliability, even in major journalistic publications. These type of stories are often taken at face value based on interviews with the subject themselves, and aren't typically subjected to the depth of fact-checking that you would see from what we would normally consider journalism. I'm sure that there are those who disagree with me, but I don't think human interest coverage qualifies for the GNG, and that if that is the basis for meeting it, then we should follow WP:N and ignore the GNG because of the reasons I pointed out above: the presumption of inclusion has been rebutted because of the nature of the coverage. I don't have time to look at the other articles now, so I don't feel comfortable assessing them. Hope that makes sense. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:39, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) I am afraid that I may choose to dispatch the duo to AFD on the same grounds, as beautifully put forth by Tony.Even the regional media (Bengali sources) covering both suffers from the same problems.Generally, if you do something slightly unique/unconventional some media-sources will notice you.But, I don't think that every such person deserves encyclopedic inclusion.And neither do Padma Shri recipients claim automatic-notability, given the loads of awardees.Winged Blades^Godric 17:07, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Rollback

Well, Tony, two weeks have passed since you awarded me Pending Reviewership privileges. Would you consider it appropriate to add Rollback to the list? - Conservatrix (talk) 03:45, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Conservatrix - I don't think you qualify for the user right yet. Do you actively participate in any counter-vandalism work such as recent-changes patrolling? I don't see evidence that you do. Please let me know if I missed something... Thanks :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:20, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Greetings, Oshwah. You are correct, I have not participated in targeted RCP. My place on Wikipedia is in preserving the articles of clerics, nobles and soldiers; participating in RfC, questions and projects related to monarchy, theology, historic warfare, and the rollback privilege would be useful in these pursuits. - Conservatrix (talk) 04:36, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Conservatrix - When you say, "the rollback privilege would be useful in these pursuits" - what would you use rollback to do exactly? Where and when do you find rollback useful to you specifically? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:40, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

@Oshwah: ~~Obviously in waging wiki-war against my enemies.~~ Ha! No, seriously: I had recently contacted Ad Orientem seeking his intervention on the Louis Alphonse, Duke of Anjou and Louis Philippe I pages to reverse disruptive POV editing. This could have been handled by myself with rollback. - Conservatrix (talk) 04:46, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Conservatrix - Yeahhh.... I gotta stop you there, man. You don't appear to know when the use of Rollback is appropriate and when it's not, as you responded with a situation where use of rollback would get it taken away from you... haha :-). Just a heads up since you're still somewhat new here (which is totally cool by the way), administrators grant user rights to accounts after they've demonstrated proficiency and experience in the relevant areas - not beforehand. Make sure that when you request user rights that you be able to show that you need them, and demonstrate knowledge and experience regarding what they do and it's appropriate to use them and when it's not. If you have any more questions, please let me know on my talk page and I'll be happy to help you. Cheers ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:00, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

@Oshwah: This was said in jest. Are you more the serious type? - Conservatrix (talk) 05:07, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Conservatrix - Me? Hell no lol :-D! I knew you were kidding about the beginning of your response - that made me laugh :-). But the rest of your response states that you'll use rollback for reversing POV editing (or content-related issues) - that's not allowed with rollback :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:12, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

@Oshwah: Am I wrong in having understood that opinions and unsubstantiated information are not allowed? What would be an appropriate use of rollback? - Conservatrix (talk) 05:15, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Rollback is used to revert obvious vandalism or unambiguously disruptive editing. POV editing occasionally falls into this category (i.e. "x is fantastic"), but it's usually on a case-by-case basis. Anarchyte (work | talk) 05:17, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Conservatrix - Here, let's free up TonyBallioni's talk page and move this over to mine. Can you create a new message on my talk page so we can take it there? Just ask about rollback and I'll give you the run-down and make sure you don't have questions :-). I might've interpreted your response wrong, you might have read rollback wrong.... we could BOTH be wrong?!!! (Just kidding). I'll just give you the run-down on rollback just so you're sure that you know. Cheers -- ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:19, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Draft:PetShop uk

Tony - I would really appreciate some assistance re. the above. The main details can be found here, [1], and further information here, [2]. Although I've been on Wikipedia a fair while, I've, quite deliberately, never ventured into the more contentious areas. I've no idea how to report sock puppetry, or if this editor's conduct does constitute such. To be frank, I do content creation on here, and recently, Afc reviewing, and I'm really not sure I want to go beyond that. I'd be grateful for any assistance. Thanks and regards. KJP1 (talk) 07:51, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Dylan Cerbone 2018

Clear block evasion - [3]. I would suggest rescinding talk page access. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 22:04, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Zzuuzz, I see you’ve been revdeling, can you deal with this? I’m on mobile. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:22, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Block evasion? I think I've cleaned up the worst of it, but I am running short on time. There is a userpage MfD to close, and someone might want to email oversight. With the content possibly inaccessible and the situation contained, and only one dodgy talk page edit, my inclination at this time would be to see what's next. Of course that won't ever stop another admin doing something... -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:30, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

I wanted to advise you, User:Dylan Cerbone 2018 continues to disruptively edit the longevity pages using IP address 24.190.40.112. Please handle accordingly. Thank you.TFBCT1 (talk) 18:16, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

TFBCT1, could you file the SPI? I’m offline and on mobile for a bit. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:53, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

May we please discuss...

...what is happening to our articles because of multiple DS that are so restrictive and foreboding, I'm concerned we may have created a breeding ground for BLP violations. The best example I can think of is List of Trump-Russia dossier allegations and what has recently taken place at that article. It's actually quite serious when a DS notice is added to an AfD discussion, don't you think? I've been seeing quite a few editors end-up with a TB and/or block. Surely there has to be an alternative that's not quite as foreboding, and doesn't give the strongest team the advantage over a single editor who is acting in good faith. ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:11, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) DS are set by ArbCom. It is their fault that the topic under restrictions is so broad. If you want to limit the amount of pages that fall under those restrictions the only recourse, unfortunately, is to ask for a clarification or amendment at WP:RFAR. Can't really complain to admins who are just enforcing what ArbCom sets out (I mean you can but it won't change anything). --Majora (talk) 22:20, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm referring specifically to 1RR/consensus which is where it gets crazy. Hypothetically - example #1: an editor lands on an article, sees an incomplete statement...makes a slight modification to the statement, then adds a bit more material for clarity and neutrality. Come to find out, another editor tried to do something similar several edits prior, and was reverted. So the new editor, unaware of the prior removal, restored material without consensus, and voilà - violation of DS. A team of POV warriors are all over it, and ho-hi-ho it's off to AE they go. Our admins are running ragged just trying to keep up.

Example #2: editor comes fresh to an article, removes material not knowing it was a prior revert added back with local consensus - sometimes "local" can be 2 editors making the decision. Ducks on a June bug, and off to AE they go. 1RR/consensus can lead to POV dominance where advocacies flourish.

Example #3: Editor shows up at an article, adds a RS statement, statement is reverted by POV warrior. Editor who is trying to add balance to the article now has to convince 3 or 4 local POV warriors to accept the neutral statement. Not happening. Time sink, and a major disincentive.

The purpose of DS is to protect articles from harm and avoid disruption but the disruption isn't stopped and our articles are still harmed - it just moves over to AE and the article remains noncompliant under the control of POV warriors. It's just a different kind of time sink/disruption, possibly worse because editors are hesitant to WP:BRD where there are DS banners so we're losing or, at the very least, handicapping editors who may have different perspectives, which is what helps maintain NPOV, WEIGHT and BALANCE in our articles. Whew!! Let that soak in for a minute. ^{Atsme📞📧} 07:23, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)Hmm...Atsme, whilst these are defined as hypothetical, have you really seen new-editor(s) on any article getting blocked/sanctioned in the very exact way as detailed on Examples 1 & 2 i.e one has got no prior involvement with the article (or more broadly article-field) (eg:--Me on APOL) and on restoring a version, which was rejected several edits/days earlier, gets sanctioned ?!Winged Blades^Godric 09:39, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

^{WBoG - "new" or "fresh" (for sake of brevity) as in hasn't been a regular who has been editing that particular article, or is unaware of the TP discussions which are usually among a small team of like-minded editors who call the shots and have the advantage over local consensus.^{Atsme📞📧} 14:51, 27 January 2018 (UTC)}

(talk page stalker)And, in APOL and all, there is no universal definition of BLP Violation and POV edits that all could agree upon! Mileage varies:)Winged Blades^Godric 09:39, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

^{And it's a problem because it's typically the result of POV issues and/or political bias which is when we see double standards in practice. Not good. The ambiguities in our policies need fixing.^{Atsme📞📧} 14:55, 27 January 2018 (UTC)}

I’d support downgrading 3RR to 1RR sitewide (though it will never happen and I realize this): it’s a good policy to follow on all pages, regardless of sanctions. The consensus required provision can be gamed, yes, but IMO it is easier to game 1RR without it. I get people have frustrations with that particular set of sanctions and while they can cause issues, on the whole, I think they prevent much more disruption than they cause. TonyBallioni (talk) 12:23, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

But at what cost, Tony? Editor retention - POV & OWN articles - it's a numbers game regardless, and instead of NPOV being the priority, behavior becomes the priority. Just something to think about. Enjoy the weekend. ^{Atsme📞📧} 14:44, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

I’d support downgrading 3RR to 1RR sitewide would be completely unworkable. Remember, 3RR means three reverts of any kind, not "revert the same edit three times"; when you're dealing with something that gets a lot of good-faith disruption—such as any high-profile figure, or anything currently on the main page—it's virtually impossible to stay within 3RR as it is, let alone 1RR. (This is why you'll see "revert to last clean version" so often as an edit summary on TFAs; going through removing the bad edits while leaving the good would quickly push whoever was doing it over the red line, so one ends up having to go back to the status quo ante.) ‑ Iridescent 15:41, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Good point. 1RR is a standard I personally hold myself to, but the most contentious issues in article space I deal with are typically a result of BLPN. No one really edit wars over early modern religious history articles (and I'm usually the only person in them). Your examples are good ones that I hadn't considered. Anyway, as I said, even before your comment, it's something I would never have proposed as I knew it would have no shot of passing. It's just a behavioral standard I typically find helpful for myself and I think could be useful if more people did. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:47, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

^{Because you're an - most of the time... ^{Atsme📞📧} 01:15, 30 January 2018 (UTC)}

I personally do a sort of 1 revert per edit (so could be three over a day, just on different edits); sometimes 2 but definitely not to the "legally" allowed maximum of 3 on the same edit. Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:53, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

The echo chamber effect is strong, especially on articles related to fringe topics or politics. But it's a natural side effect of people working together over long periods of time, and something you would have to change humans to fix, not Wikipedia. The solution IMO is usually 1) stay calm, 2) be exceptionally patient, and 3) accelerate the dispute resolution process far more quickly than one normally would. For example, it wouldn't be out of character for me to open an RfC within... say, 72 hours of discussion when it starts to become clear that meaningful debate is starting to give way to rhetorical posturing. Oh yeah, and 4) completely mentally remove AE as a step in the dispute resolution process. Literally just ignore it all together. Maybe 5) keep a nice boring article on hand to retreat to for a break. Something like Brick or Jumping.

BLP is more fundamental than ACDS and takes precedence in every situation. Having said that, whenever I revert on BLP grounds (in a way that isn't obvious vandalism of the revdel type) I pretty much always drop a thread at BLPN to the effect of "I've reverted and invoked BLP, sanity check me and if you think I'm wrong please say so." That pretty quickly opens the discussion up to a much more diverse group than might be following any particular article at any particular time.

It's also good to keep a few editors around who you know are just as likely to agree with you as not, and who will actually take the time to evaluate your arguments on their merits, not on their conclusions. I have probably two or three folks who are my "reserve forces" to deploy for things like that. But they have to be used selectively so as not to exhaust them. If you need one of those, feel free to ping me whenever and I'll try to do that for you if you need it. GMG ^talk 16:10, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

My adopted slogan - It's important to know when to stop arguing with people, and simply let them be wrong. What I find a bit difficult is to walk away from the occasional PAs and aspersions without at least trying to defend myself, or another editor who is under attack - motherly instinct, I guess. I'm easy going - love humor - but PAGs take precedence when I'm editing, and I take BLPs seriously. If I inadvertently say or do something that might offend another editor, short of citing policy, I will be the first to apologize...and there were a few times in the past that I was actually reprimanded for sticking to policy - told to drop the stick, or to stop bludgeoning, especially when policy works against the opposition's agenda.

!! ^{Atsme📞📧} 03:31, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

It's important to know when to stop arguing with people, and simply let them be wrong. ... Couldn't have said it better myself. GMG ^talk 16:43, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Today, I happened across an interesting comment while perusing the dramah boards. The effect of DS as it applies to any minority view holds true across the board, and further substantiates my concerns as it relates to POV warriors and the "numbers game" - other views are often excluded from articles, and WEIGHT is determined by the "prevailing POV" which tends to create other issues, all of which may well result in noncompliance with NPOV. My interpretation of how BLP policy reads has not changed in that NPOV, NOR, and V are inseparable, so when there is noncompliance with one of the 3 core content policies in a BLP, it equates into noncompliance with BLP. The relative statement in BLP policy could not be more clear (my bold underline): Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States, to this policy, and to Wikipedia's three core content policies: which I named above; however, I often see admins dismissing a challenged edit as being a BLP vio by categorizing it as something else, commonly as noncompliance with NPOV. Excuse me, but the challenged edit is still a BLP vio because it is noncompliant with NPOV - in other words, the edit did not adhere strictly to the three core content policies.

Add to that the ambiguity as it applies to "poorly sourced material" which should be removed immediately, and that brings up yet another issue. What is poorly sourced? Start with WP:QUESTIONABLE, and move down the line...WP:RSCONTEXT, and WP:NEWSORG which states news sources are only reliable for "statements of fact", and if it's anything other than fact it must be attributed to that editor or author - opinions/analysis are rarely reliable as statements of fact. There's also WP:BIAS which makes in-text attribution appropriate, and WP:COI which requires even more discretion when choosing sources and content in a BLP. When we're dealing with DS, removal of challenged material because it violates BLP policy should always be the priority with the ONUS on the editor who wants to restore it. But that isn't what's happening. Material that was added to be compliant with BLP policy and to correct NPOV may very well be the material that is being removed as soon as it's added; therefore, the material is basically held hostage and the BLP vio remains until consensus is reached - and how likely is that when it's a minority view? Refer to the diff I provided above. Tony, I'm of the belief that we've lost direction in that admins are focusing on behavior rather than the content issues that caused the behavior, specifically as it applies to BLP vios and DS requiring 1RR/consensus. If editors must be handicapped by DS, then admins (who are expected to leave their own biases at login) should go the extra mile to make sure the vios were not justified actions per our BLP policy. ^{Atsme📞📧} 16:16, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

I think you makes some good points. AP2 is not really my field of interest on-wiki, but I respect those who do the needed work there (both from a content side and the admining side). I agree that the BLP policy is one of our most important policies we have, and that is should be enforced strictly. I think the trouble in the AP2 field is determining what BLP means (and as with any written policy, 10 people will read the same text 14 different ways). It's difficult, but I think everyone involved does their best, and hopefully is willing to admit when they are wrong (or at least they should be.) Sorry if this is a bit of a non-answer: AP2 is such a contentious field that I often think it is best looking at the specifics of an article or action rather than talking broadly. At the same time, I agree that the BLP policy must be at the forefront of our minds when dealing with it. Hope this has been (somewhat) useful. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:08, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Cultura Colectiva (Digital Publisher)

"AfC process" my new hat! >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 12:50, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

George Soros

Hi Tony, the George Soros page is locked yet there are some undocumented and, from my standpoint, unjustified editorial comments (imposed on the facts or embedded in them) that should be modified. Why is it locked? Can it be altered? Think20020 (talk) 14:35, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Think20020, another administrator has protected it because of violations of the biographies of living persons policy. You will be able to edit it once you have 10 total edits and have been registered for 4 days. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:40, 29 January 2018 (UTC) Someone also has removed information I added about Felix Sater. While documented I suppose the information could be considered controversial but important. Think20020 (talk) 01:57, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Kid Rock

My last edit was the professionally written and encyclopedic one. The other editor changed portions of the article back to a sloppily written one and readded unsourved and POV statements. TheRealBoognish (talk) 00:59, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

@TheRealBoognish: you have violated WP:3RR and made over 5 reversions in 24 hours, you also are refusing to ask for consensus claiming that you don't need it. I tried to get you to handle this calmly. -- Gokunks (Speak to me) 01:01, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

+1 -- TJH2018 talk 01:02, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

TheRealBoognish, I've full protected the page to force discussion on the talk page. As an administrator, I do not have an opinion on which version is correct. The correct procedure here is for you to discuss it with other editors to achieve consensus. You passed the three-revert rule, and I could have blocked you, but as it looked like multiple accounts were involved, I opted for full protection instead. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:05, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

The main issue on my end is writing quality. I have a neutral opinion on the contents, other than trying to avoid adding trivial content. I made the best editing choices I could based on researching the subject. I just feel like the other editors were trying to obsessively hawk the subject by adding every single detail of his life whereas I focused only on content that could be reliably sourced and in cases where unreliable sources or unsourced content were added, find reliable sources. My edits were mostly grammatical aside from expanding the biography. TheRealBoognish (talk) 01:34, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
- The correct place to have this discussion is the article talk page. I simply protected the page to force discussion. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:35, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Notre Dame Cristo Rey High School

Hi, Tony. I've noticed you've interacted with Jzsj before and was wondering if in your capacity as an administrator you could help him understand why the other editors at the above talk page are becoming increasingly frustrated with him. I do not want to take him to a noticeboard, but without some guidance, I am afraid that is exactly what will end up happening. Thanks. John from Idegon (talk) 20:15, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

John from Idegon, I've left a note. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:19, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Tony. I'm afraid I don't see this ending well. John from Idegon (talk) 00:36, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Still going downhill. I've reported him at AIV for talk page disruption. John from Idegon (talk) 21:11, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Behaviour

I refer you to the advice given on the same topic at User talk:DoRD TonyBallioni (talk) 23:35, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Hi. this is what we call "premature" and "out of bounds". Personally i'd say: bad behaviour. Are you an admin? - DePiep (talk) 21:00, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

No, it's what we call "follow the instructions at the top of the page". --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:07, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I’m an administrator on this wiki. I closed the discussion because it had zero relevance to the WP:ADMIN policy, which is what that talk page is for discussing. Please do not continue to revert the closure, as that would be disruptive. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:10, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

DePiep, your behavior at that page has strayed into disruption. Please leave that section as is. My apologies for misspelling your username in the edit summary, though. —DoRD (talk) 21:16, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

The point is, TonyBallioni, why did you apply admin level of closure on a TALK page? While the talk was running live. Why could not the discussion close by itself? - DePiep (talk) 23:02, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Because the conversation wasn’t relavent and you had already been told how to proceed. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:22, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Two wrong judgements. I made my claim (not a request) in my first post. Then half a dozen of admins came along to misunderstand & abuse me. Your closure deleted two relevant posts I made. Your closure was not right, and not needed. It was a TALK page. -DePiep (talk) 23:27, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Request

Hello TonyBallioni. Can you please soft block my doppelganger account https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Ilyina_Olya_Yakovna like you said on #wikipedia-en. Thank you. Ilyina Olya Yakovna (talk) 14:58, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Ильина Оля Яковна, can you please sign into that account and make a request here with it? Thanks. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:00, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

> Is request again from other account. Ilyina Olya Yakovna (talk) 15:04, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Done TonyBallioni (talk) 15:08, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

PERM inconsistencies

Can you explain your inconsistent application of PERM requirements with approving this page mover PERM while declining mine, especially since the application reasons are nearly identical? Nihlus 17:57, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Nihlus, nothing inconsistent at all. That user had taken a break, which we all do from time to time, but had a substantial and consistent contribution history before he took a break. You registered and didn’t really begin contributing until August of 2017. A comparison of your contribution history with their’s shows very different timelines. For what it is worth, I was actually thinking yesterday about encouraging you to apply for the permission again soon as you now have the tenure the guidelines recommend. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:08, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Eh. Nihlus ain't gonna break anything. At least not break it and leave it broken. GMG ^talk 18:15, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Which is a good reason for him to apply for the PERM again now that he falls within the granting criteria almost two months later. I’d have no objections at this point. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:18, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Unfortunately, saying it is consistent doesn't make it so.

Adotchar: I see no issues with granting for the reasons requested. Nihlus: the reason I'm declining this is because the page mover criteria are pretty strict as it is probably the most sensitive unbundled right.

Adotchar: since you don't have that much experience with article titles, I would suggest staying away from closing RMs unless you gain experience there Nihlus: If you had a strong need for the right (editing articles with Latin titles where you had to frequently post to WP:RM/TR for case issues as an example), I'd be inclined to grant

Adotchar: That being said, you're active in NPP and AfC and this flag is useful there, and you appear familiar with moving policy as that is concerned. Nihlus: while I consider NPP/AFC to be a useful reason to grant, it really isn't a need as much as a want.

As stated before, the six months of active engagement with the community is something you made up. So, I will ask again: please explain the inconsistencies I pointed out above. Thanks. (Post-EC: I wouldn't have broken anything two months ago either.) Nihlus 18:19, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Nihlus, there are no inconsistencies at all here: all candidates are evaluated wholistically and in line with the guidelines and the practices we apply at various PERM pages, which include assessing need and tenure. You did not have the tenure, and did not have a compelling reason to overlook that. Adotchar met the tenure requirements, so he did not need as compelling a reason to grant. I’ve always considered use at NPP to be a valid need, but it is not the strongest one if other factors are in play. Anarchyte explained their review method to you and how they go about it, and it is pretty consistent with my practice. If you still want the PERM and need it for NPP, just let me know and I’d be happy to grant it without you needing to go back to PERM. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:27, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Like talking to a wall. No thanks. Nihlus 18:29, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

That’s fine. If you ever change your mind, let me know. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:31, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

I've changed my mind given the numerous errors I have come across lately. Please add the right when you get a chance. Thanks. Nihlus 01:39, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

@Nihlus:

Done TonyBallioni (talk) 01:45, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

"I was recently threatened by a editor who I had blocked to be reported to a subcommittee of the United States Senate."

Oy. Where do these people come from... Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:36, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Here's the original ANI thread. People are crazy. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:14, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

It could've been worse...it could've come from...
...drum roll please...

...the FBI - not the one you're thinking of, I'm talkin' 'bout the Federated Bullshit Investigators. ^[FBDB] ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:35, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Possible screw-up

Ok, so I was looking to see why Ministry_of_Defence_(Pakistan) was in the NPP queue - it appears it's because there is Minister of Defence (Pakistan) which has created a bit of confusion. Now there is a redirect to the TP which has created another mess. Can you please fix this? ^{Atsme📞📧} 02:19, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Should be fixed now. The bot will sort out where the redirects should point. The article and the talk match now, though, which is what matters. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:23, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

✅ ^{Atsme📞📧} 02:35, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Curious..

Have you ever seen anything close to accepting a ref bombed brochure because the company's marketing director gave him a barnstar happen over at AFC?! Whilst, it's about hyperboles and all, near-equivalents of the one mentioned over WikiSpeak currently, happens quite often!~ Winged Blades^Godric 18:50, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Godric, heh, I couldn't find a diff, and that was a bit tongue and cheek, but yeah, my big critique of AfC and the #wikipedia-en-help IRC channel is that they spend too much time telling spammers how to get advertisements into Wikipedia and not enough time helping people get notable subjects in. It's a systemic thing: the templates and mindset are designed to help those who keep asking for help. The people who are most likely to ask for help are those with a financial motive, who keep coming back, and who keep getting help, even when it is clear their draft has no place on Wikipedia. You get the standard thanks and the like, and I'm sure WikiLove gets handed around sometimes (see all the admins who get WikiLove by vandals after getting reverts, etc.)

I have a few examples in mind of specific cases in mind where I think specific reviewers and helpers had their priorities wrong, but I don't want to diff it (and some of it happened off-wiki, so I won't be posting logs or anything of that sort). I just think that we need to be willing to tell someone "You/your company is likely not suitable for Wikipedia, and probably won't be for a while. Please consider other means of SEO." rather than stringing them along with sugar coated advice for months until they hit the lottery and get a reviewer who accepts them, and then we have to rely on NPP to send the thing to AfD.

Tl;dr: AfC needs to focus on helping new users who are trying to publish articles we want, and spend less time giving advice to people who have the financial incentive to ask for it. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:06, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

IRC is definitely an interesting aspect of WP:) Featureful events in recent memory include clear-cut UPE editors churning out brochures, being coaxed to private-chats to give advice about acceptance of articles and all......But overall, largely agree with your feelings.~ Winged Blades^Godric 02:54, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm pretty active on IRC as are many admins and functionaries: it is useful for collaboration and it is something to do when you don't feel like being productive at work/school/home. I have issues with how PE (declared and undeclared) are handled in the -help channel, but I think that many of the people who work it do a great job. I also think that sometimes people can forget that IRC is not Wikipedia, and that we need to focus on what happens here rather than in the relatively small group that is active there. All that being said, it's what you make of it, and I find the positives to outweigh the negatives. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:12, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

There's no denying that IRC is helpful but sometimes I feel some of them need to realize that IRC exists for the betterment of WP; not for some sort of other way round.~ Winged Blades^Godric 03:16, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Agreed 100% on that, and I think you'll find that I've been somewhat critical of IRC in that regard when it comes up. I don't think you'll find that in the sysops who are active there, though. We're all a pretty sensible crowd, and the most common use is to get a second opinion on a revdel or block, and to bitch about RL stuff. There really is no cabal, at least from the sysop angle. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:36, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Yeah! Things seem to have definitely improved from the earlier days, when IRC folks with the mops were the favorite destination of someone willing to get another editor, he was in dispute with, blocked.But, above all, I don't believe much in any sort of cabal:)~ Winged Blades^Godric 03:40, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

FWIW I've never used Wikipedia IRC. For some odd reason I seem to get on perfectly well, and with my admin work, without it. I'm deeply disapointed to hear that there are so many scroungers and leeches getting a BOGOF on IRC. Someone ought to tell the users who are offering to help them. There are no cabals, but it's probably true to say that admins occasionally communicate off Wiki to get some issues resolved without the background noise of potato chip bags rustling, and the peanuts crunching underfoot. .. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:08, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Upcoming Saylor requests

Hi Tony, sometime in the near future I expect to have additional requests for the Michael Saylor article, and this message here is simply to ask: since you have become involved, would you like to stay involved? If you would prefer to move on, that's fine. If however you want to keep an eye on it, then I can. Figured it made sense to allow you to state your view. (And note, I'm leaving a similar message with Drmies.) Best, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 17:14, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Quick check request

Could you tell if Nina Teicholz is a recreation? ☆ Bri (talk) 23:10, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Bri, some similarities, but different enough that I think they were created by different people. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:16, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Okay. I had it on watchlist for UPE. The creator just appeared and has been extraordinary busy creating fully formed but usually stubby articles last couple days. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:19, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

I hadn't looked too closely at them, but it could be a new freelancer. The previous article was stuby as well, and there are only so many ways you can state basic details. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:23, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Civility in infobox discussions 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/Civility in infobox discussions. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility in infobox discussions/Evidence. Please add your evidence by February 17, 2018, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility in infobox discussions/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:49, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

IP block evasion

Hey Tony,

I see you recently blocked 2600:387:0:803::62 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Well another IP is making edits to Fraser Hockeyland that looks alarmingly similar, and these IPs are already pretty good at hoping. IP 68.37.40.219 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) edits [4] looking similar to 2600:387:0:803::62 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) [5]. I also reported this to NInjaRobotPirate but I do not believe they are online. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 20:55, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

NinjaRobotPirate seems to have dealt with the block. I've protected the article for a week. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:59, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, NinjaRobotPirate had been inactive for ~10 min so I assumed they were offline. Thank you! HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 21:02, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Geez, I made something like 2200 edits last month, but I still get dinged for being inactive for 10 minutes? Haha. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:32, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

I am so sorry, I just wanted this to get put away. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 21:33, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Heh, HickoryOughtShirt, don't worry. No need to apologize (to me at least, and I'm pretty sure NRP is fine too!) TonyBallioni (talk) 21:34, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, don't worry about it. I think it's kind of funny. What I used to do before I passed my RFA is I'd report stuff to AIV, then go do something else. I couldn't stand sitting there waiting for a report to be acted on. It made me want to start pinging random admins. I eventually started doing all my counter-vandalism work when I knew Materialscientist was online because I knew it would get taken care of within minutes. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:47, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

"When are those damn admins going to wake up and take care of my AIV/RFPP report?" Been there, done that. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:51, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Raja Sikandar Sultan

Hi Tony, you closed the AfD but the page is left undeleted. --Saqib (talk) 04:35, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Saqib, it appears to have been contested at WP:REFUND, as I soft deleted it. Just renominate it and note that the previous AfD closed as soft delete, but that it had been contested by an IP. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:37, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Roman Catholic Church notability guidelines

Hello there. Thanks for all the good work you do here. Can you help me to assess which Church articles are notable and which are not? What are our standards to have an encyclopedic entry or they are inherently notable? I'm talking about these articles. Thanks. Störm (talk) 07:38, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

In my opinion, almost all bishops, dioceses and cathedrals would be confirmed notable with sufficient research. That is my working presumption. Individual parishes and church buildings must be of historic or architectural notability, as shown by coverage in reliable sources. Similarly, my presumption is that various priests and Catholic institutions are not notable, unless high quality sources are either in the article or readily available. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:00, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Störm, I'm less good at buildings and the like, but I can help you with what we typically do re: Bios, orgs, and events. I'd agree with Cullen328: any bishop, diocese, and cathedral is going to be notable (and by convention on the English Wikipedia, we include auxiliary bishops in the "every bishop is notable" camp, though you might could start a test AfD on those, but I doubt it'd go anywhere.) Priests who are not bishops enjoy no assumption of notability, but may be notable via the GNG. People who have been declared "Venerable", "Blessed", or "Saint" are all typically notable.

Religious orders that are in more than one country or are in many dioceses in a large country (such as the United States or India), are very likely to be notable under the GNG. Individual provinces of religious orders (and thus the religious superiors of those provinces) are typically not considered to merit their own page (an example of where WP:NOPAGE is actually applied quite well). This is different, though, from articles on the history of religious orders in specific countries where there has been extensive academic study to the point where there could be an article (History of the Jesuits in Japan could most certainly be written and have enough content to be a distinct article from History of the Catholic Church in Japan, but we wouldn't have an article on the modern day Jesuit province that covers Japan.)

Ultimately, we typically consider figures and things that major world religions consider important to be important enough for an article. We have limits, but that's the general rule of thumb for any religion. I hope this has been helpful. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:58, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

G5 deletions

The pages at least Lands common to Axminster and Kilmington, Monkokehampton, Sheldon, Devon, South Huish, West Chelborough, Winterborne Herringston shouldn't have been deleted, they are clearly notable and just add to my missing CP list. Could you please restore them. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:47, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

No. They were created by a highly deceptive and malicious user in violation of a community imposed block. I will not restore these. You may recreate them on your own, but given the level of this user's deception, I will not be restoring any of their work. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:56, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

I can't as I'm banned from creating new pages but those topics are clearly notable, I don't see why they should be deleted. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:59, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

You should be familiar with the concept of WP:BMB. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:02, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes but the user hasn't been banned, it looks like in part they were voluntary blocked, I don't see why we should be without these just because of the person why created them. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:06, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

No, they were blocked by community consensus and made the trolling move of supporting their own block. They would have been indef'd anyway regardless of their quite frankly bizarre support. G5 clearly applies, and given the level of disruption from this user, the use of Special:Nuke was more than justified. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:09, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

But I as an involved user (apart from that I edited them shortly after creation) don't think that they should be deleted, surely that would be enough to overcome the G5 (which should really be just for uncontroversial deletions). Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:12, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Not in this case, no. The user in question posted oversightable material into their own SPI in order to throw CUs and admins off, has been trolling most of the active administrators and functionaries in the English Wikipedia IRC channels for the last 6 months, and has attempted to reveal the identity of an administrator to other users off-wiki. KrakatoaKatie is familiar with the behavioral issues in addition to the technical evidence.

I'm normally the last person to unilaterally delete articles (I'm one of the few admins at SPI who regularly tags for G5 rather than deleting myself). In this case, however, because of how disruptive and deceptive the user had been, G5 was the clear and obvious answer, and I did it myself rather than passing the work along to my colleagues. While I understand how this may be frustrating, and I am normally open to restoring G5s from non-spam accounts on request, in this case, I feel that encouraging someone who we all believe is either still socking or will be socking again very soon would not be in the interest of Wikipedia, so I will not be restoring them. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:34, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Black Jaguar-White Tiger Foundation

Hi Tony, do you think you could restore Draft:Black Jaguar-White Tiger Foundation and userfy it to User:Sro23/sandbox? Or at least email me a copy. I hate to think my hard work was for nothing. In my view, the foundation most definitely meets general notability guidelines. Basically, the owner of the foundation invites celebrities to come over and interact with lions, jaguas, tigers, etc. with little regards to safety. It's been getting quite a bit of backlash from animal rights activists, and as a result of this, media coverage. I got in a content dispute with a very persistent edit-warring IP address who decided the draft should be *as promotional as possible*. I don't know what the draft looked like at the time of deletion, but my guess is the IP did something to it, because I tried to the best of my ability to keep it as neutral and pov-free as possible. Sro23 (talk) 19:27, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Sro23:

Done. Sorry about that. I’d come across another incarnation in mainspace and with all the refs and some of the IP added tone, I went ahead and deleted since it’d been twice salted. No idea how I missed your name in the history or I would have checked with you. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:32, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Scratch that, I misread the history on this one as you constantly warring with an IP who was fluffing it up, and given the mainspace issues, etc. I thought G11 made sense. Shows why I’m right in trying to avoid unilateral deletions normally. Sorry again. Feel so bad about it. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:37, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate it. Sro23 (talk) 21:11, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Aks 2001 Film Hindi

1. Nicely have You seen [Aks 2001 hindi film]?

2. did Raghavan's corpse get burnt into ashes before Spirit entered Amitabh?

3. Is this [Supernatural Thriler Film] realy [Fictional] without [Happy Ending]?(73.220.163.13 (talk) 19:09, 4 February 2018 (UTC)).

No.
No clue.
No clue.

TonyBallioni (talk) 19:10, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)IP, please don't post the same set of questions on multiple user-pages.Editing the film-page does not require a pre-requisite of viewing the film.Also, we are a serious website, unlike some random chat-forum and Reference Desk is that-way.~ Winged Blades^Godric 06:58, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Dysklyver

Well done again on your excellent research. I knew there was something fishy when they were claiming to be a retired lawyer from Cornwall. I can't recall what their user name was before they changed it. I think it was user:A guy into books, or something like that, perhaps you remember. I believe there was already a SPI under that name. Anyways, one of the weirdest cases of trolling I ever came across. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:40, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Kudpung, thanks. The off-wiki stuff if much weirder. KrakatoaKatie and Premeditated Chaos are both aware of it, and I believe ArbCom has been alerted of the oversighted material. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:42, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

On a combination of multiple factors, this would surely go down as the most weird case, I ever encountered over here.And this is a gem:)~ Winged Blades^Godric 05:56, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

YGM:)~ Winged Blades^Godric 08:33, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Extremely weird. Makes one wonder if one should be glad to see the back of such people, or feel sorry for them...Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:13, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

I have restored a number of accepted AfC submissions from this user, and added a source to one of them. If another editor thinks these meet the criteria for inclusion, they should be judged on their own merits and deleted via another mechanism such as A7 / G11 / PROD / AfD. I don't see any trolling at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Russia Row, unless its using weak sources such as the Daily Mirror to support a notability argument, but any good-faith editor could have done that. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:27, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Ritchie333, would you mind reversing that decision. I think it’s inappropriate, especially given that the community just decided to formally site ban this user. This is a highly malicious person, and i promise you that reversing my actions here will just encourage them to troll more people. There were a lot of reasons I deleted these articles, and I don’t really appreciate you restoring them without talking to me. TonyBallioni (talk) 12:57, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

This issue was debated at #G5 deletions, while I did have a problem with the deletions, I accepted that I don't know enough about the situation to fully contest it. I would point out that from the work I can see, their contributions were all constructive. Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:03, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Though thank you for restoring the user talk archive. I had gone through and unclickded that and checked my logs, but must have missed it. Thanks for catching that. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:04, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

No problem. Regarding the articles, I only restored one which I've sent to AfD - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Haynes West End. We'll have to disagree on a "highly malicious person"; personally this guy runs several leagues below the trolls on the Britain First forums who actively advocate the killing of other human beings. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:06, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

That’s fine. It was a valid G5, but I have no problem going through the motions on one of them. Re: malice, there is a lot going on with this user off-wiki that goes into my assessment of malice here. I don’t think he’s a murderer, but I also think there is a lot going on here. Nick is also familiar with much of it as well. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:15, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm not so sure, unless the editor who accepted the AfC submissions was clearly acting in bad faith. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:28, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

It’s not a substantial contribution. This user used AfC to give the false preception that they were new and quite possibly to force situations like this. We don’t reward gaming the system like that. G5 also applies to articles that have survived AfD and closed as keep, which is a much harder to do than pass AfC. If it applies to AfD survivors, it should apply to AfC accepts also. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:33, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

It's a clear G5 deletion Ritchie, created by a sockpuppet (a deceptive sockpuppet, with no declared connections to any other accounts) whilst the master (or what we are currently considering the master) was indefinitely blocked (and is now banned + CU blocked). They've generated (successfully) all this noise, which they're undoubtedly pissing themselves laughing over right now. Nick (talk) 13:36, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

The article can be redirected Haynes, Bedfordshire if not deemed notable, I see no reason to delete entirely, redirection would do the same thing. Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:38, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

After a G5 deletion, yes. Not instead of. Nick (talk) 13:41, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't care who creates what articles as long as they are notable, and neither should you. If a sockpuppet had created Oganesson, would you unilaterally delete it without discussion? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:41, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

I know your position and respect it, even if I disagree with it. I don’t care about notability if the harm to the encyclopedia by keeping the article outweighs the good in keeping it, and the speedy deletion policy takes that stance as well. I consider the harm in encouraging someone like this to be greater than the benefit received from the articles they created. This particular article is at AfD now, which I’m fine with and commented at supporting deletion per G5. I’m content leaving it at that. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:55, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't have an issue with getting rid of abusive trolls and sockpuppets; I just believe it needs to be done as quietly and with as little apparent interest as possible. I have had messages from Vote (X) for Change socks, but I ignore them, and sometimes even reply with a comment along the lines of "sorry, what article are we talking about?", while putting a few obvious trigger character sequences on the abuse filter without comment (as it's more subtle than a block and can't be evaded), and they get bored. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:17, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

I have just seen all this. Disappointed, if not surprised. This person knows my real name, and I am somewhat concerned about that. Should know better. !dave 15:23, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

At the highest levels

On seeing this yesterday and remembering well the issues concerning User:Rlevse (read the user page if you're not familiar with it - the mind boggles), one doesn't need to try too hard to understand why I have become such a cynic about Arbcom and some of those in higher office, and what goes on at AfD, and what comes up at COIN. If those cesspits of anti-Wikipedia forums were not so full of verbal diarrohea from the 'bad hand' of some of our assumed respected users, they could actually be using their influence to help clean up Wikipedia. Why does building an encyclopedia attract so many cranks, misfits, and trolls? (I'm sure someone's written a PhD thesis on it somewhere). Are we in fact simply wasting our time attempting to do anything about it? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:27, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

"Why does building an encyclopedia attract so many cranks, misfits, and trolls?" Because there's no cost in doing so. Here's where I'm coming from. I set up User:Ritchie333/Monopoly as a project that anyone else who was interested could help with, but ultimately I estimate I did about 90% of the work. I look at User:Ritchie333/London termini and think the odds any other editor will improve and get any remaining articles through GA is approximately zero. So here I am doing the work nobody else wants to. Conversely, anyone can troll an admin whose known to respond for trolling and is orders of magnitude easier than understanding a subject and acquiring a working knowledge of its source material. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:21, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Meh, Ritchie333, I’m normally all about DENY and if you check the history here, you’ll see that’s how I dealt with the most recent attempt, and how I plan going forward. There were good reasons in my view to ask for a site ban or else I would have simply left it at the SPI. Now that we’ve dealt with everything formally, we are in solid RBI territory. I actually agree with your troll philosophy, but in this case without a ban his defenders were going to be spending their time arguing over the technicalities of block v. ban with arbs and admins in private, and the discussion here makes it easier to deal with the cross-wiki issues. I don’t particularly think G5 is giving them attention they want, and based on their reactions to the G5’s, I think it has served the purpose behind that criteria. We’re now giving a site banned troll more attention than he needs on multiple places on-wiki, so I think we need to move solidly to the “I” part of RBI. Anyway, your thoughts are always appreciated on my talk, especially when they are different than mine. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:59, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

One of the Blockingest admins out there

I think that's kind of a word, and you're currently #3 in the list of 'admins by number of active blocks' when considering each ip in a range to be a block! SQL ^{Query me!} 02:05, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

NPP Newsletter 9

With the end of the backlog drive I think it is a good time to send out the next NPP newsletter. I have worked out a first draft over at User:Insertcleverphrasehere/Newsletter 9. Cheers. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 09:30, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

I'll look at it later this week. Busy on-wiki and IRL currently. I'll try to get it out either by the end of this week or early next. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:44, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Cheers mate. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 21:43, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

bump. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 20:13, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I also drafted a bit of an update, should have bumped after posting it... I added it to the coordination sub-page, but probably likely to edit conflict now. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 20:24, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Tony. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 20:36, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Insertcleverphrasehere, no problem. Sorry it was so late. Busy here and IRL. I cut a bit more to try to not overwhelm people. Thanks for all your work on this. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:40, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

That is totally fine. Thanks for reviewing it. I have also been busy, and am very late getting the last dozen or so awards out (I am re-reviewing a sub-sample for each reviewer, so it is a bit time consuming and daunting). If I could ask one more favour, I wonder if you would do a review/award giving for my awards? I feel a bit odd awarding them to myself. Basically just have a look at a dozen or so random reviews from my page curation log, provide any feedback you have regarding improvements I could make to my reviewing (if any), and then post the awards that I have hidden below ('edit' to view the code) to my talk page (with personalised messages if you prefer). No hurry on this at all. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 21:15, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

If you are a bit busy and would prefer not to, that is ok too. Just let me know. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}

I’ll check when I have a chance. Sorry I’ve been less help than normal. I’ve been pulled in a lot of different directions of late, but I’ll look at this in a bit. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:39, 7 February 2018 (UTC)