User talk:TonyBallioni/Archive 29

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 25 ← Archive 27 Archive 28 Archive 29 Archive 30 Archive 31 → Archive 35

Thanks

Tony, I just wanted to thank you for your efforts to make Wikipedia a respected source of knowledge freely available to the world. This isn't spurred on by some specific action other than wanting to generally express my appreciation. I know how hard you work as a functionary and that the demands of that position can put restraints on you which is sometimes frustrating. I want to thank you for accepting those compromises so as to provide what is thoughtful, deliberative, use of some of our most important and sensitive tools in ways that upholds policy for all. Thanks and I hope to continue to see you around Wikipedia in the days, months, and years ahead. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:25, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Obvious block evasion and/or abusive socking

Hi, would you mind reviewing [1] and blocking if warranted? R2 (bleep) 19:01, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, it's Hidden Tempo. He's solidly in RBI territory now, but I tagged this one so it'll be easier for non-CU admins to spot and block. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:18, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
So much for the standard offer... Primefac (talk) 19:32, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Would you mind checking this one as well please? R2 (bleep) 17:56, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

New 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.

Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:09, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2019

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

Administrator changes

removed Andonic • Consumed Crustacean • Enigmaman • Euryalus • EWS23 • HereToHelp • Nv8200pa • Peripitus • StringTheory11 • Vejvančický

CheckUser changes

removed Ivanvector

Guideline and policy news

  • An RfC seeks to clarify whether WP:OUTING should include information on just the English Wikipedia or any Wikimedia project.
  • An RfC on WT:RfA concluded that Requests for adminship and bureaucratship are discussions seeking to build consensus.
  • An RfC proposal to make the templates for discussion (TfD) process more like the requested moves (RM) process, i.e. "as a clearinghouse of template discussions", was closed as successful.

Technical news

  • The CSD feature of Twinkle now allows admins to notify page creators of deletion if the page had not been tagged. The default behavior matches that of tagging notifications, and replaces the ability to open the user talk page upon deletion. You can customize which criteria receive notifications in your Twinkle preferences: look for Notify page creator when deleting under these criteria.
  • Twinkle's d-batch (batch delete) feature now supports deleting subpages (and related redirects and talk pages) of each page. The pages will be listed first but use with caution! The und-batch (batch undelete) option can now also restore talk pages.

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:49, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Sockng

It looks like Yanviv is socking. This account is highly suspicious https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/זָרַח

80.111.232.52 (talk) 10:09, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

TB, do you know who the IP means (no user called Yanviv)?--Bbb23 (talk) 13:42, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
Bbb23 they’re referencing יניב הורון (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki). TonyBallioni (talk) 16:18, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
Yes, after I blocked the IP, they told me.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:47, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
That’s cute of them. Don’t you love when sockmasters rat on each other? Too bad we can’t put extra money in their commissary or something. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:05, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
I seriously doubt the rat is right this time, although they often are, but there may be a problem with the new user they accuse. BTW, bunny rabbits are cute, rats not so much.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:07, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
In Hebrew, Yaniv (Yanviv is a typo) translates to will bear fruit! El_C 17:17, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
They can't bear fruit if TB blocks them before they have a chance to, uh, grow.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:21, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
Blackberries have become my favourite fruit of late. I had an excellent cider made from them last night. They’re in season now, so I’ll have to buy them at the grocery store next time I’m there. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:30, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
I like blackberries less than I used to since moving to an area where blackberry bushes abound and are considered a noxious weed: they can completely destroy a property, and they're very difficult to remove. Some people burn whole areas of them.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:36, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Socks/editing logged out

The geolocation of 2405:205:31aa:4d21::1666:60a5 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 136.22.32.190 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) are different but their edits look likely to be connected to the socking of Thakor Sumant Sinhji Jhala (talk · contribs), especially the latter IP. I'm not sure what to do - SPI won't link to named accounts and there are a lot of articles being affected. I'm fairly sure I've seen some other anons involved, too. - Sitush (talk) 19:53, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

In fact, I have seen lots of others, mostly on the articles about princely states. This has been going on for ages and I am wondering whether we need to put some form of protection on a swathe of those articles. - Sitush (talk) 20:34, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

I can’t comment as to specific IPs, but based on my last check, there was a lot of logged out socking going on and there wasn’t much to be done technically. If behaviourally it matches, revert them and if they keep coming back let me know and I can protect the page. I wish there was more that could be done technically, but unfortunately there isn’t. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:42, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, I realise your hands are tied. Be prepared for a long list of protection requests in the coming weeks! There must be 30 or 40 articles, at least. - Sitush (talk) 21:09, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
Did you CU block GujaratiGangster (talk · contribs) because they were a sock of Thakor Sumant Sinhji Jhala? They're not mentioned at the SPI but if so, I will probably CSD some stuff. - Sitush (talk) 21:52, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
D'oh. Forget that - I was looking at the wrong page and have now seen the template you placed. - Sitush (talk) 21:58, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

They're at it again - you'll see a whole load of reverts in my contribution history over the last few minutes, using the summary "nope - anon rapidly inserting caste claims". Someone had previously reverted them once or twice at the same articles. - Sitush (talk) 15:48, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, TonyBallioni. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 07:06, 10 June 2019 (UTC). 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.

∯WBGconverse 07:06, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Help

Hi Tony. I hate to drop this in your lap but could you have a word with Ss112 who has been having a long term problem with MaranoFan? I had been trying to take a short break w/o success (the emails have been near daily) and now my step sister is gravely ill. It's possible I will be going into mourning shortly and I simply do not have the time to deal with this. These two editors have been at each others' throats for as long as I can remember. If you would like me to fwd the emails let me know. If you are not able to handle this right now, I do understand we all have full inboxes, just let me know. Thanks. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:50, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Since I was tagged, just dropping in to say that I have no idea what this is about. My editing has been very low key for the past month and I haven’t had any lengthy interactions with pretty much anyone. Apologies about your time being wasted due to paranoia. Sending positive vibes and hope AO's sister gets well soon.—NØ 19:08, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I would just like to say, I have not been at anyone's throat. I haven't interacted with MaranoFan in a while, and I do not wish to, hence my emails to others about it. I was keeping Ad Orientem informed of continued antagonistic behaviour after he gave MaranoFan a final warning about vindictive actions. It is not just my "long term problem" with an editor, the actions have been towards others as well. It's about problematic behaviour in general. This is not dispute resolution between two editors, and I am not going to engage in a discussion to resolve anything with this editor because this has gone above and beyond affecting just me. Ss112 19:51, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
If you truly didn’t want any interaction with me, then you would stop shooting off random emails about me to administrators. Thanks for confirming you’ve been keeping tabs on my talk page since you knew about the warning. You've been accusing several people of stalking you for years; so it’s not exactly as one-sided as you’d like people to think. I’ll seriously need to take this to ANI if you don’t stop emailing people trying to turn them against me. Give up the obsession and just accept that you’re not the only person allowed to edit music articles on Wikipedia. It’s honestly sickening and tiring to see you start up some huge drama every time someone creates a Bebe Rexha song redirect before you.—NØ 20:09, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
This has nothing to do with a music redirect or redirects in general, and nobody said anything about stalking. It appears you're referring to something you did several hours ago, but I had emailed before you even did that. Tony, if you don't see anything actionable in what Ad Orientem chooses to send you, then I guess nothing can be done. This affects more than just me. Ss112 20:27, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Ad Orientem feel free to forward. Ss112 and MaranoFan: please don’t argue here. I don’t know what’s going on and arguing here isn’t going to solve much. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:34, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Misread?

Hi, I don't want to go off on yet another tangent in the Fram discussion so I ask here whether in writing this you noticed that the proposal related to EN-WP? Paedophiles would get global bans etc, or at least that is how I have always understood it. Not much point banning/blocking etc them from just one project.

No need for a reply - just concerned you may have misread or need to clarify what you said. - Sitush (talk) 16:23, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

If I haven't replied to an email or ping

Sorry, I've been pretty lousy at it lately. RL has been busy and I've gotten a ton of Wikipedia emails/pings on complicated things that I've fallen behind on. I *think* I caught up on email, but if I haven't let me know and I'll look for it. If I missed a ping where I'm still needed, can you leave me a note here so I can go through it somewhat organized? Sorry again to anyone who I've missed. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:49, 12 June 2019 (UTC)


Thanks...

...for looking into Rivselis and CU-blocking them as a result. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:19, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

May I ask you to give your insight to a contentious move review?

Hello Tony Ballioni!

We don't know each other yet, but I've noticed in your contributions: whenever you give your insight to contentious debates, that is very neutral, looking deep into the details of each argument on each side.

I'd like to ask you to help reaching consensus in the contentious move review of "Boeing 737 MAX" article. There were 2 move request, one on 11 March, another on 25 May, both closed with vote count by the same person, without evaluating the arguments as required by WP:RMCI#Determining_consensus.

I've evaluated and summarized the arguments in the move request to point out, that the opposing vote count was based on 61% false assumptions, 24% personal preference, 10% misinterpretation of policy, 5% debatable application of a guideline. Many votes, but few arguments that make the effort to properly apply policies and guidelines. See the [summary, and the evaluation of each argument below it].

Thank you for your kind attention! —Aron M🍂 (🛄📤)   00:07, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Owen Campbell

Hello,

I noticed you deleted the article Owen Campbell (actor) on January 24, 2018. That being said, I would like for you to know that I created a draft of the same name and I was wondering if you could please consider moving the draft to article space. I know the draft is a stub, but it does qualify per WP:NACTOR since Campbell portrayed significant roles in the films As You Are (film) and Super Dark Times. I even provided reliable sources to the draft from Patch Media, Times Union (Albany), Nylon (magazine) and Entertainment Weekly in order for it to qualify per WP:BASIC. Would you please reconsider giving this draft a chance to be a Wikipedia article? I know it's a stub, but most articles start out that way. I'll understand if it cannot be an article at this time, but that's up to you.

Please ping me or please feel free to reply at my talk page to respond. Thank you. Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 00:33, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Hitcher vs. Candyman. You're free to move it back to mainspace if you feel it meets the inclusion criteria. I deleted it as a biography of a living person with no sources. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:09, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
@TonyBallioni: I would if I could, but I don’t know how. I’m not an administrator and the article is protected from being recreated. Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 15:41, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Hitcher vs. Candyman, sorry! I didn't see that. I've removed the creation protection. You can move it to main space if you feel it appropriate. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:44, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Thank you TonyBallioni. So do I redirect the draft to the article then? Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 15:53, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Just move the draft to mainspace using the move function. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:55, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Hi User:TonyBallioni. I apologize but I seem to be having trouble moving the draft via the move function. Could you help me please? Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 20:51, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
It's fine. Since you're the only editor to the draft, there isn't really a need to move the history now that you've copied and pasted. In the future you can find out how to move a page, you can go to Help:Move for an explanation.​ TonyBallioni (talk) 22:38, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

kushagr.sharma1 BLOCK

Hi TonyBallinoni,

My account for some reason briefly indicated that you put a block on my account. I would like to know why my account was blocked as I try me best to follow all the guidelines of wikipedia.

Kushagr.sharma1 (talk) 05:40, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Kushagr.sharma1. It doesn't look like I've blocked either you or the IP address that you are editing on. I suspect you may have been using a VPN or other open proxy when you saw that message, as I've blocked a lot of those. Just don't use an open proxy when editing Wikipedia and you should be fine. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:08, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Soestdijk Palace

for reasons I do not understand I have been blocked from making edits on wikipedia. You should note on the Soestdijk Palace wikipedia info that the Dutch government is since 2017 no longer the owner of Soestdijk Palace. In 2017 the investment fund Meyer Brinkman group, a Haags investment fund - bought and so owns Soestdijk Palace. Regards Richard A. George DutchRichard (talk) 21:59, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi, DutchRichard, you aren't blocked. It could be that you are trying to edit on a VPN or other open proxy. I've blocked a lot of those. You are welcome to contribute with an open proxy off. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:33, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Westernways and User:Uupnow

I don't know if I may be right but I believe that Westerways and Uupnow is a sock puppet of User:Smallmouthbassboost who edit the sandbox more that ten times and vandalize Taylor Swift related articles based on the report I made earlier at the AIV. Is it possible that both accounts may be Smallmouthbassboost? Raritydash (talk) 16:55, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, TonyBallioni. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 00:59, 23 June 2019 (UTC). 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.

GABgab 00:59, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Repeated tendentious sockpuppetry accusations

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.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:58, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Recent Changes Patrol Help

Is there any way you configure RCP so it shows edits likely needing patrol? Recent Changes Patrol seems very daunting...the list grows by 30 or 40 every second... Awesome Aasim 01:06, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

I may have figured it out. I know of the filters available, but I do not know which ones you tend to use (which may be helpful given you are an experienced editor and admin). Awesome Aasim 01:15, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
Awesome Aasim, (talk page stalker), I hope you don't mind another opinion.I use these settings: [2], which excludes registered users and bot edits and highlights probably bad edits. I sometimes include registered users, but I find that they are much less likely to be problematic. StudiesWorld (talk) 13:26, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Starship.paint

Further arguing here isn't going to help. The block has been lifted and to one degree or another everyone is unhappy. It's been a rough two weeks. I've tried to stay out of most of it, but I still strongly believe we have an obligation to protect actual humans. I will continue to do that, and I hope the rest of the community will as well, but for now, let's try to move on from this unfortunate incident. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:37, 28 June 2019 (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 Tony. What is the precipitating event or events that caused you to indefinitely block Starship.paint?. Also, why was his talk page access revoked? Thank you.- MrX 🖋 14:06, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Read the block notice on Starship.paint (talk · contribs)'s talk page. Also look at roughly the last several edits across enwiki and metawiki. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:12, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
You really think I didn't read the block notice? Awesome.- MrX 🖋 14:17, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
Well, you asked what caused TonyBallioni (talk · contribs) to block Starship.paint (talk · contribs), and the reason is clearly given in the block notice. I assumed you hadn't noticed it, so I pointed it out. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:26, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi MrX, see my comments here and the previous warning he received by Nick here. Even if identities are known, this is not something we allow. It is the harassment of other human beings based on where they work or their perceived side in a on-wiki dispute. In cases of harassment where the harassment involved the abuse of user talk pages of others, I typically revoke TPA to prevent further issues from occurring on-wiki. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:13, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) diff, diff, [3] seems enough to be going on with... ——SerialNumber54129 14:14, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
I forgot about the Rob thing, but this still seems excessive under the circumstances.- MrX 🖋 14:19, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Seriously, Tony? This is indef-worthy stuff, from a contributor who has written excellent content and is not a flyby drama-monger? Since, Nick's warning to him counts, I will expect that stuff like this shall get a warning too for the 2 involved admins, right? I can surely point out others, who have asked the same query including ex-arbs, warn all of them? There are also multiple longstanding editors, who have raised/commented on the issue of the staffs (esp. T&S folks) liking Maher's tweet, warn/block them for infringing on OUTING and all that? ∯WBGconverse 14:30, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
  • He’s free to appeal (and has). My identity here isn’t public, but I always try to put myself in the shoes of the person the actions are taken against. The message being sent is we’re watching your every action because of your job, which I do consider to be targeted harassment, especially when taken in context. If the reason the WMF stepped in was because they thought that we couldn’t handle cases like this, the way to prove them right is to not take any action when someone targets their staff members. Yes, this whole situation is a complete mess, but blocking people for inappropriate actions in it and letting the appeals process play out shows that we do have community self-governances and that it should be taken seriously. The other option would have been for T&S to lock themselves, and that would be less than ideal in the current circumstances... TonyBallioni (talk) 14:34, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
    Nice. Since we're entering newer territories, let me understand something. Floq over Jimbo's t/p noted:- Is it true that users with Twitter profiles "Trust & Safety @Wikimedia/@Wikipedia" and "Community & Audience Engagement Associate" both liked your CEO's tweet?. Does it qualify under watching your every action because of your job i.e. harassment? Does it show any fake concern? ∯WBGconverse 14:44, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Block is not only justified, but mandatory until they can adequately explain the error of their behavior, make it clear they understand our policies against harassment and vow to never repeat it.--MONGO (talk) 14:36, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
  • There is no way for volunteers to communicate with WMF or its staff. Unresponsive on-wiki, blockworthy off. It's a horrible way to treat volunteers. One could suspect that elements in WMF are deliberately winding things up in order to cause editor blow-ups, and get critics blocked. DuncanHill (talk) 15:12, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Starship.paint block pulled

A jump straight to indef isn’t justified and is a really bad way of dealing with the situation. Not only does it turn the whole thing into an ego clash between you and Starship.paint but it is a great bit of passive aggressiveness towards you fellow admins who might want to resolve the matter (there aren’t many admins who like pulling fellow admin’s blocks). Yes none of these objections are entirely rational but when we are dealing with humans and people are throwing around words like honour the movement needs to be towards conflict de-escalation. Thats the advantage of time limited blocks. Gives the person a chance to get the hint without having to take an ego hit.

Oh and talking of honour this in the context of say this isn’t the most reasonable of requests.©Geni (talk) 20:04, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Geni, considering that @Doc James, Stwalkerster, Lourdes, and Dlohcierekim: and myself all thought the block was needed and wanted to wait to see their response, I don't think this was wise. You're not just overruling me. You're overruling four other administrators. Also, the reason that admins don't pull other admin's blocks without talking to them first is because it is against policy. I also think my request to Floq was entirely reasonable, and as I have said, I do not think opposing WJBscribe's action in violation of policy as a bureaucrat makes me involved here. I've been staying pretty neutral on the Fram thing, which apparently makes me "pro-foundation". TonyBallioni (talk) 20:12, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
Hey All. Lets just drop this. I am sure Starship understands things. I have an email indicating that they do. Geni the unblock was not cool but everyone lets just move forwards. We do not need this. I have requested here for more time to deal with the underlying issue. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:24, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
Doc James, I typed up several responses, but I'll say this: thank you for your leadership in this difficult time. I'm very discouraged by this unblock for multiple reasons, but anything I say will be taken in bad faith by people on either side of the Fram debacle who just want to win. Geni, all I'll say is this: by overruling the consensus of reviewing administrators, you just made it much easier for the WMF to intervene on local projects. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:50, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
Made it much easier to do...what they are doing anyway? Doesn't wash with me, TB. But of course, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Serial Number 54129 (talk • contribs) 20:57, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
Serial Number 54129, the issue is that this is a clear identifiable instance of harassment: if Starship.paint had started going around anywhere I'd work asking people to verify social media accounts, they'd have been trespassed and told not to return. The issue was being dealt with locally. I'd blocked, and there was going to be a discussion about what would happen going forward and what the lines are. Then an admin comes in and overrules the other administrators on the page without first talking to the blocking admin? That's a pretty good case for globally locking someone via office action if it happens again. Anyway, always good to have you on my page, even when we don't see eye to eye TonyBallioni (talk) 21:08, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
Sorry TB, I came to rollback my remark, but you'd already replied ——SerialNumber54129 21:25, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
You're fine :) TonyBallioni (talk) 21:26, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
Doc James, I'll happily drop the incident with Starship, because I do feel that they're probably on the up from here. I would still appreciate getting something from them showing that they understand why they were blocked though, but I'm not going to push for it. I'm much less willing to drop the abuse of tools by Geni in performing the unblock against both consensus and policy though. As I said elsewhere, this makes us look like harassment enablers, and that's not something I'm willing to stand by as a fellow member of this community. Finally, I find myself echoing Tony again when I also say thanks for your input :) stwalkerster (talk) 22:22, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I agree with Stwalkerster here, and the several other admins who've questioned this action. To break ADMINACCT policy at a time like this, undoing another admin's block for harassment with no strings attached, when our failure to tackle harassment is precisely what's led to the WMF seizing our powers, is crass and tonedeaf to say the least. Let's hope starship has really learned from this, but Geni please don't do anything like this again.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:31, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
I am currently triaging problems. In normal times I would agree with you User:Stwalkerster and User:Amakuru. But these are no longer normal times. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:27, 28 June 2019 (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.

User:TonyBallioni's block of User:Starship.paint and User:Geni's unblock

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#User:TonyBallioni's block of User:Starship.paint and User:Geni's unblock and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks,

Govindaharihari, thanks for giving me the chance to respond to you. My answer was this: I want to discuss it more, and yes, I’m open to withdrawing the call and moving on. There is zero need for this. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:56, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

ok, I agree you should. do you retract your request for Geni to resign then? Govindaharihari (talk) 05:03, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

It doesn’t matter because you’ve already filed an ARC and completely made any future discussion not possible outside of it until it’s resolved. You can’t unfile, Govindaharihari, this is why literally everyone who you talked to about this said not to file this! I wish I would have seen Geni’s response before you forced an unneeded Arbitration that you’re uninvolved with for no reason. I’m perfectly capable of filing arb cases myself if needed. It wasn’t at that point yet. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:09, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
I disagree. Multiple users can comment in support of you but I still feel your actions were excessive in the block and also that your request for Geni to resign on IRC and enwiki were undue. Govindaharihari (talk) 05:19, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Cross-wiki spam user talk

Hello TonyBallioni, I nominated this page for speedy deletion as "cross-wiki spam", but my edit reverted under "declined; it's a talk page", so I can't understand why it's declined by Mackensen and it's content still in it! Note this IP blocked globally due to "cross-wiki vandalism". Best --Alaa :)..! 16:29, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi, علاء, I’ve blanked the page. We normally don’t delete user talk pages on en.wiki unless it’s really bad, so I see why Mackensen would decline. If anything else is needed, let me know. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:37, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, I know that enwiki normally don't delete, but I think "cross-wiki spam/vandalism" is exception. Thanks again --Alaa :)..! 16:40, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
We can delete Talk pages when there's no history except the offending edit. I'm not going to "overrule" two administrators, and I don't see it as the end of the world, but I would have deleted.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:45, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, I would have too, Bbb23, I hate overruling my colleagues so I didn’t want to delete as it’s also a “not the end of the world” thing for me, and I’ve had more than enough drama for the month. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:01, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Where everyone gets along, there's no drama, and you get free lollipops every day

It's not too late to start beefing up one's resume and retreat to Meta. Next steward election is still seven months away. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:09, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

I would support you there. StudiesWorld (talk) 20:17, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
Alaa, you should have told me about the free lollipops stewards get! On a serious note, I'm not likely to run for steward this time around, there is at least one mid-sized wiki that would be canvassed to oppose me (which, oddly enough, is okay in steward elections depending on how you do it since letting people who may be interested know is fine, and it doesn't have to be done on-wiki) and I have enough controversy on en.wiki that I'd be pretty unlikely to get elected in 2020. It's something you should consider, though, NinjaRobotPirate. I may help out more with serious xwiki socking that needs en.wiki CUs, though. It's easier than dealing with our local mess currently. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:20, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
Lollipops!
—MarcoAurelio (talk) 22:03, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
m:User:Rschen7754/SE2015 has my thoughts on it. I think that both of you could do it, though you would need more crosswiki experience (though TNT didn't have much and did pretty well, maybe language skills helped there). --Rschen7754 01:13, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
Oh, and for controversy, I got ArbCom sanctioned blocked a few times in 2006 (which was a lot closer to 2014 than it is now), and failed CUOS2013. --Rschen7754 02:10, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
Tony, when I ran for Steward, I got 74% support. Surely you would do better than me.—CYBERPOWER (Around) 02:02, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
I’m not sure. I have my share of “fans” both here and xwiki. Xwiki it tends to be because I don’t have much patience for the SWMT friend club attitude, and have expressed as much on a few occasions. Here: well, I don’t mind making controversial blocks when I feel they’re needed (see WP:ARC and above.) I’ve made mistakes—DHeyward was early in my admin career and likes to be pointed out, and I definitely didn’t handle it well, but on the whole I think I typically act in the best interest of the project and in line with consensus. At the same time, being willing to take such actions generates criticism, some well-deserved, which makes things like steward elections difficult.
I’m aware there are a lot of people who would support me, and I’m grateful for them, but there are also a significant number who would oppose because of one issue or another. Presently, I’m fine with being an en.wiki functionary and helping out xwiki behind the scenes. I find fulfillment in it, and not wanting to run for anything else has advantages as well... Anyway, thank you all for the kind words. They are very much appreciated. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:31, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, one can still help out without having any global permissions. I've never spent any time with SWMT, but I can still identify Charliewolf79 sock puppets on it.wikiquote despite having no edits logged there. It's mostly a matter of whether the global community needs an anglophone CU like me – though, like I hinted at above, I don't consider myself especially electable with my current level of xwiki experience. And I couldn't really give up on English Wikipedia. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:47, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
So, this is something that I don't think a lot of people in the meta/SWMT crowd get: en.wiki CUs can do a ton of global work without ever editing another project. علاء will tell you that he and I work fairly closely on joint en.wiki/ar.wiki investigations, and I have good relationships with stewards and CUs on projects I've never edited. I personally think being an en.wiki CU is a really good case for you (or someone) to run because en.wiki data is usually some of the more valuable data, because xwiki LTAs stop here, even if just to look at the main page, so we'll often have some of the freshest CU data, and our local policy explicitly allows us to use it to aid in cross-wiki investigations. That's not something that really hold much weight in a steward election, sure, but it is something in terms of a need factor. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:53, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
As far as languages, I'm mostly monolingual (I can get the gist of something in Spanish) but Google Translate was sufficient for me and I rarely found myself disadvantaged. I would say the most problems I've ever had was dealing with the Croatian Wikipedia issues (but that is not a major language) and the Azerbaijani issues (but that was well after my steward term). It is true that voters can't see CU activity (unfortunately it didn't help one semi-recent enwiki candidate) but getting involved in other projects can help (Commons, Meta, Wikidata, maybe English Wikivoyage or Wikisource). Or offering your opinions in Meta RFC to fix the broken wikis all over the place. Or running around and getting wikis on m:Bot policy or m:GMD. I am sure stewards could be convinced to let people leave the m:AAR messages - and the policy also is kind of crummy and outdated in some regards, and so is the m:GS policy and the m:CU and m:OS policies, but stewards are really too busy to start a RFC to get them changed. Anyway, I've rambled on long enough but you get the idea, and I'm sure that a lot of stewards have things on their wish lists that non-stewards could probably do part of. --Rschen7754 06:13, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

New Page Review newsletter July-August 2019

Hello TonyBallioni,

WMF at work on NPP Improvements

More new features are being added to the feed, including the important red alert for previously deleted pages. This will only work if it is selected in your filters. Best is to 'select all'. Do take a moment to check out all the new features if you have not already done so. If anything is not working as it should, please let us know at NPR. There is now also a live queue of AfC submissions in the New Pages Feed. Feel free to review AfCs, but bear in mind that NPP is an official process and policy and is more important.

QUALITY of REVIEWING

Articles are still not always being checked thoroughly enough. If you are not sure what to do, leave the article for a more experienced reviewer. Please be on the alert for any incongruities in patrolling and help your colleagues where possible; report patrollers and autopatrolled article creators who are ostensibly undeclared paid editors. The displayed ORES alerts offer a greater 'at-a-glance' overview, but the new challenges in detecting unwanted new content and sub-standard reviewing do not necessarily make patrolling any easier, nevertheless the work may have a renewed interest factor of a different kind. A vibrant community of reviewers is always ready to help at NPR.

Backlog

The backlog is still far too high at between 7,000 and 8,000. Of around 700 user rights holders, 80% of the reviewing is being done by just TWO users. In the light of more and more subtle advertising and undeclared paid editing, New Page Reviewing is becoming more critical than ever.

Move to draft

NPR is triage, it is not a clean up clinic. This move feature is not limited to bios so you may have to slightly re-edit the text in the template before you save the move. Anything that is not fit for mainspace but which might have some promise can be draftified - particularly very poor English and machine and other low quality translations.

Notifying users

Remember to use the message feature if you are just tagging an article for maintenance rather than deletion. Otherwise articles are likely to remain perma-tagged. Many creators are SPA and have no intention of returning to Wikipedia. Use the feature too for leaving a friendly note note for the author of a first article you found well made or interesting. Many have told us they find such comments particularly welcoming and encouraging.

PERM

Admins are now taking advantage of the new time-limited user rights feature. If you have recently been accorded NPR, do check your user rights to see if this affects you. Depending on your user account preferences, you may receive automated notifications of your rights changes. Requests for permissions are not mini-RfAs. Helpful comments are welcome if absolutely necessary, but the bot does a lot of the work and the final decision is reserved for admins who do thorough research anyway.

Other news

School and academic holidays will begin soon in various places around the Western world. Be on the lookout for the usual increase in hoax, attack, and other junk pages.

Our next newsletter might be announcing details of a possible election for co-ordinators of NPR. If you think you have what it takes to micro manage NPR, take a look at New Page Review Coordinators - it's a job that requires a lot of time and dedication.

Stay up to date with even more news – subscribe to The Signpost.
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:38, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Instant sockpuppet "investigations"

While I am not questioning the decision (per se) to block Lachlb for sockpuppetry (note: I have communicated with Lachlb in the past, but otherwise have no stake in this matter), I do question the opening and closing of the "investigation" in just one minute by a single user, with no mention of what evidence led to the decision (even in general terms). This seems to run counter to the spirit, at least (if not the letter) of the relevant guidelines. After all, the ridiculously quick turnaround time defeats the purpose of inviting "Comments by other users" (including from "Accused parties") on the investigation subpage, and the lack of any mention of what evidence the decision is based on makes it difficult for interested parties to verify (to the extent possible) that the investigation was carried out in a proper manner. Granted, there may be cases that are so cut-and-dried that no real discussion is required, but even in those cases I would think that having multiple users involved (at miniumum: one to open, one to close) would be preferable. In the future, please consider taking an extra moment to describe the nature of the evidence that your decision was based on, and consider not opening and closing your investigations without even the possibility of participation by any other users. - dcljr (talk) 03:06, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Dcljr, thanks for posting here. I was contacted by another user in private who suspected socking on that account. I ran a check on the account as a legitimate concern about sockpuppetry, suspecting it was a sock of a specific user given that the the there was a lot of overlap in focus in specific areas that would not be normal. The CheckUser policy allows for individual CheckUsers to perform investigations into accounts at their own discretion so long as there is a valid reason for a check. CUs do not have to file SPIs at all to block if there is convincing evidence of abuse of multiple accounts, and they do not see the value in an SPI (this is mainly the case for long-term or petty vandals.)
CUs can also file SPIs for the record when they discover socking has occurred and there is no pre-existing case. That is what happened here. If you check through the contributions of other CheckUsers such as Ponyo (who I'm pinging since she does this semi-regularly) and others, you'll find that when this is done, we normally don't list all the things that are needed to investigate because we've already performed an investigation and blocked. In this specific case, I think I'd already blocked the account something like 10-15 minutes before I filed the SPI. There was no need to put forward the specific diffs because the investigator (me) had already done the investigation and found enough behavioural and technical evidence to block. The SPI is just a record for others so they can see the accounts and look at them more easily if/when the socking continues. That's a long explanation, but hopefully it is helpful. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:23, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
OK, so then you could just say something like, "Suspected socking reported to me privately. Sufficient behavioral evidence based on page edits. Socking verified through CheckUser." Something like that. BTW, if you generate these subpages by, say, subst:ing a template, I wonder if it would be worth changing the output (via a template parameter) in cases like this where no user comments are going to be considered. - dcljr (talk) 04:59, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
dcljr, that's what " Confirmed and  Blocked and tagged" means. Only a CheckUser will ever use {{confirmed}} or {{checkuserblock-account}} so anyone reading it should know that 1) I'm a CheckUser and 2) I conducted an investigation and found enough evidence to block.
SPI can be confusing if you haven't been there, but part of the reason that we use the templates is because saying this sort of stuff can get pretty repetitive and the small group of people who are active in this areas of the project know what the templates mean. Filings "for the record" are meant to let people know who is connected and to help future clerks/CUs/sysops who are active in SPI know what accounts to look at when doing their own investigations. They aren't supposed to be something where people can present evidence or discuss. The investigation is already over at that point.
On the template bit, I just use Twinkle and then confirm with the SPI script immediately after filing. Editing templates is beyond me, and I'm also not sure how they interact with the SPI helper script. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:09, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
Fair enough. - dcljr (talk) 23:54, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – July 2019

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

Administrator changes

removed 28bytes • Ad Orientem • Ansh666 • Beeblebrox • Boing! said Zebedee • BU Rob13 • Dennis Brown • Deor • DoRD • Floquenbeam1 • Flyguy649 • Fram2 • Gadfium • GB fan • Jonathunder • Kusma • Lectonar • Moink • MSGJ • Nick • Od Mishehu • Rama • Spartaz • Syrthiss • TheDJ • WJBscribe
1Floquenbeam's access was removed, then restored, then removed again.
2Fram's access was removed, then restored, then removed again.

Guideline and policy news

  • In a related matter, the account throttle has been restored to six creations per day as the mitigation activity completed.

Technical news

  • The Wikimedia Foundation's Community health initiative plans to design and build a new user reporting system to make it easier for people experiencing harassment and other forms of abuse to provide accurate information to the appropriate channel for action to be taken. Community feedback is invited.

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:20, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

RE: User_talk:Geni#Please_resign

I've replied but messed up the {{u template when doing so. My comments were not aimed at you at all, but rather some of those people who responded to you in support of your request. Promethean (talk) 00:05, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

This is courtesy HEADS-UP

--Arturo gots plans to visit to Atlantic Southeast for Independence Holiday weekend (talk) 06:22, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

I give this notice because of I also respect T. Baloney. --Arturo gots plans to visit to Atlantic Southeast for Independence Holiday weekend (talk) 06:24, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
I have a headache in my eye. Class dismissed.  Dlohcierekim (talk) 06:30, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Functionaries-l

Hey Tony, I've sent two e-mail this morning regarding the ongoing discussion on the list. Both appear to go through from my perspective, but I suspect they're not. If they aren't going through, whom do I contact? I know Risker is one of the moderators. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:11, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Bbb23, they went through. We just cross-posted :) TonyBallioni (talk) 17:13, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:25, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Request for arbitration declined

The request for arbitration User:TonyBallioni's block of User:Starship.paint and User:Geni's unblock has been declined by the committee. The arbitrators' comments about the request can be viewed here. – bradv🍁 03:44, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Eternal sadness. Just when I was wanting to be the party to a new arbcom case... TonyBallioni (talk) 03:44, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
Sorry to disappoint you. – bradv🍁 03:50, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
It's okay. Marco left some of the steward lollipops because I helped him with something. I'll go have one of them now TonyBallioni (talk) 03:53, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
I suppose a trip to the dentist is a suitable alternative. – bradv🍁 04:14, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
The dentist is much more pleasant. They give you a free toothbrush. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:57, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
And if you're lucky, some N
2O! El_C 05:00, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, you're right, arbcom can't compete with that. Let me see if we can get t-shirts made up or something. – bradv🍁 05:05, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
Don't overpromise. Poor Maxim is still waiting on the cookies he's owed for getting an ArbCom hat trick this year. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:14, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
Okay, I got shirts, cookies, and hats. Anything else? – bradv🍁 05:27, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
My dentist has never given me a toothbrush. I think I need to move to wherever Tony gets his pearly-whites done...  — Amakuru (talk) 10:19, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
Maybe this is an American thing? Every dentist I've been to over here gives you a little goodie bag with a toothbrush, floss, and mouthwash. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:22, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Hi Tony. From looking at the case and what happened, I was wondering if admins need a tool variation here. The term "idef block" has, wrongly or rightly, become to be associated with actions taken against bad cases (e.g. I see editors often use it in an pejorative manner at ANI). In this case, you were trying to point out to starship.paint that it also means that an account has been temporarily frozen until the editor can confirm/clarify to an admin that they understand why specific actions are not appropriate. However, I think the term "indef block" really rattled starship.paint.
My question is whether we need a variation block, called something like a "clarification freeze" (even with a different colour to red on the template), where an account is frozen until the editor gives comfort to the admin that they understand the transgression. Obviously, if no comfort is forthcoming, then an admin can move it to an "indef block" to make it clear that nothing will change until the editor resolves things. Do you think that admins would find such a variation useful, and might keep editors on an even keel, and stop them getting too rattled early on? Britishfinance (talk) 09:28, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) "Clarification freeze" sounds like Newspeak and I suspect would be about as comforting as calling ArbCom the Ministry of Love... ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:26, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
It can be "account freeze" or anything else. The issue is that we are using the same tool (e.g. "indef block") for combating extreme vandalism as we use for established editors who hopfully have temporarily "gone off the rails". A "softer" tool that achieves the same result as an "indef block", but without the editor feeling the stigma of an "indef block" (and I think there is a stigma), and the admin handling a stressed editor, is something to consider? Even in my time, I have seen established editors still pack it in, after an indef was lifted. Britishfinance (talk) 16:26, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
PMC, well WP:HAPPYPLACE exists so I figured that WP:MINISTRYOFLOVE might as well exist too. You're welcome.
Britishfinance, there are multiple areas of Wikipedia where indef doesn't mean infinite is very much still a thing. Copyright blocks and username blocks are probably the most common of these, but {{OversightBlock}}s of experienced editors also fall into that, and the reason I indef'd without TPA was that I was following the oversight block model since what we were dealing with was something that was a violation of that section of the harassment policy. It is (fortunately) an area that most users and administrators don't have to worry about that frequently, but it's one I've dealt with a lot so I'd be lying if I said that wasn't part of what influenced my thinking.
I'm not really sure renaming it as a "hold" or whatever would do much. Administrators who work in the areas where indefs are frequently shortened to days or hours know how the process works, and are open to working with editors to lifting them. Maybe we could do better at explaining at the time of the block how appealing it would work, but I don't think renaming a technical feature would do much good. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:49, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
Ah thanks Tony, it was just a thought in case it might be of use to admins to "control" the stress of a situation. Hey, at least we got WP:MINISTRYOFLOVE out of it, so progress in any event :) Britishfinance (talk) 22:57, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) The Party approves of this redirect. Never forget, edit warring is peace, volunteering is slavery, and ignorance is strength. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:11, 5 July 2019 (UTC)


Draft:Clarice E. Phelps

Talk to me. There's a discussion at Jimbo's and I volunteered to help before I realized there was an issue. ??? Atsme Talk 📧 22:05, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Atsme! Hope you're doing well. I've somewhat stopped following the goings on of that page for now. My position on it is basically this: it's been through so many discussions that resulted in a consensus not to include, that I don't think the salting should be lifted without consensus at DRV, though I won't participate in that discussion either way. Sorry if that's not much help, but it's just been discussed so many times that lifting unilaterally at this point doesn't feel right to me. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:21, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
Should you or I post that at Jimbo's page where the discussion is? I'm not involved other than an AfC reviewer who was willing to help. (hope you're not overworked, Tony - burnout sneaks up on you like King Kong) Atsme Talk 📧 22:24, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
I went ahead and replied there :) TonyBallioni (talk) 22:34, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/User_talk:TonyBallioni/Archive_29"