Jump to content

User talk:TonyBallioni/Archive 28

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 25Archive 26Archive 27Archive 28Archive 29Archive 30→Archive 35

Thewolfchild

And you see, I didn't support the unblock but was will to make his ban lesser. And rudely removed my comment. Don't unblock him, that's my view!

BlueD954 (talk) 09:30, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Additional comments: Apparently, he has so many supporters for unblocking. But whhy an't he accept a balanced view? After all, that's what he has trying to do so on my talk page right? BlueD954 (talk) 15:48, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

32.218.0.0/16

This is the range's third edit after your previous 6m block ended. I wish I could say they're ready to come back and collaborate, but this inspires no hope right off the bat. Nate • (chatter) 20:32, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, someone else pointed it out to me, and I was unsure whether or not it was best to give a chance, but as the last block would have been an indef if it was an account, it's clear it is the same person, and they haven't changed, I'm blocking the range for a year. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:44, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
I would have hoped they would come back a bit more friendly, but yup, going on the warpath against admins the moment the lock comes off isn't a way to stay here. Thank you for staying on top of this. Nate • (chatter) 23:11, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks to both of you for helping to keep an eye on things! -- Dolotta (talk) 18:11, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Just asking

File:Smutty.jpg
Hates 'em?! He was one!

Do you like Teddys? Sincerely, Masum Reza☎ 05:45, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

He hates them. It would probably be best if you avoided mentioning them again. Natureium (talk) 13:28, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
I don't feel strongly either way about them. Someone was posting giant teddy bears on userpages for April Fools and I decided I liked it on my page. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:28, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
How can you not feel strongly either way?? It's an 8 foot teddy bear! Natureium (talk) 14:53, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Well you nailed that one

I just heard about FWTH's parting act of wiki-seppuku. Ss112 is probably sipping some vintage champagne and toasting your call for a site ban. Unbelievable. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:25, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Drv

Hi Tony. A courtesy ping re drv w rgd the Clarice Phelps afd i just filed, my wishing u best happiness / fulfillment in adminning editing etc etc.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 02:38, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, I have commented there, and I'm content to let the community decide again. I appreciate the notice. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:56, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Rama Arbitration case

You were recently listed as a party to 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/Rama. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rama/Evidence. Please add your evidence by May 10, 2019, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rama/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, -- Amanda (aka DQ) 19:46, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Hey Amanda, I was going to add a boilerplate "ArbCom doesn't do content disputes" to the workshop page and almost edited through your protection on accident. All the other cases I'd commented on allowed editing it from the opening of the case. No real concerns either way here, but I wanted to add it before I forgot. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:02, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
The direction actually came directly from the Arbitration Committee that the workshop would not open until the 8th. As for that boilerplate, I still have to place something on the evidence page out the content stuff being out of scope, one thing I forgot to add in the complicated process of opening the case. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 00:05, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Cool. Fine by me. Thanks for dealing with the paperwork. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:06, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2019

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

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • XTools Admin Stats, a tool to list admins by administrative actions, has been revamped to support more types of log entries such as AbuseFilter changes. Two additional tools have been integrated into it as well: Steward Stats and Patroller Stats.

Arbitration

  • In response to the continuing compromise of administrator accounts, the Arbitration Committee passed a motion amending the procedures for return of permissions (diff). In such cases, the committee will review all available information to determine whether the administrator followed "appropriate personal security practices" before restoring permissions; administrators found failing to have adequately done so will not be resysopped automatically. All current administrators have been notified of this change.
  • Following a formal ratification process, the arbitration policy has been amended (diff). Specifically, the two-thirds majority required to remove or suspend an arbitrator now excludes (1) the arbitrator facing suspension or removal, and (2) any inactive arbitrator who does not respond within 30 days to attempts to solicit their feedback on the resolution through all known methods of communication.

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:37, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Pocket always open

Hello little Tony. What is pocket CBAN?[1] Pocket open to all! bishzilla ROARR!! pocket 11:41, 5 May 2019 (UTC).

Great and mighty Zilla, a pocket ban is when one is banned by not being unblocked after discussion! Much like pocket veto. All know that Zilla's pocket is open to all, even little Jimbo Wales and his Twitter followers friends!​ TonyBallioni (talk) 19:32, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
[Bishzilla considers starting use pocket veto for arbcom superclerking. Intriguing! Prolly need put little committee in pocket?] bishzilla ROARR!! pocket 20:14, 5 May 2019 (UTC).
The Pocketbureau? TonyBallioni (talk) 20:23, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Revision Deletion request

Hello TonyBallioni, Are these edits of mine eligible for RevDel:1 and 2? And even here: 1. The reason is because its been shown as I am the creator of the article. --Gpkp (u • t • c) 13:24, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi Gpkp. Those edits are not eligible for revdel in my view. Seeing how it worked out in the article history is useful, and it isn't a case where I'd want to IAR either. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:33, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Block

Did you have anything to do with putting a block on my account? The reason given was stated Open Proxy:Leaky webhost: Contact stewards' No block shows up on my account but your name was listed as the blocking party. Was this some kind of hacking or malware? Please give me some input if you have any. I could not edit for a couple days. Thanks. Eschoryii (talk) 14:45, 5 May 2019 (UTC) Another notice said the blocks were [2] (meta.wikimedia.org) None of that language has meaning to me. I think my Norton 360 may have helped or Wiki safety measures removed an unwarranted block. I sent a message to Mediawiki. If this event just happened to me, its ok because I am back to normal. If this was part of some bigger attack on Wiki, I want people to know to prevent harm to other editors. Eschoryii (talk) 14:45, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

No, that’s a global block by a steward. though I have made many similar blocks on en.wiki: you were editing on a VPN or webhost. Turn it off and you should be good. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:48, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Eschoryii (talk) 08:52, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Still no?

I'm making you my first stop because I think that's what I'm supposed to do, but please tell me if I should stop bringing new sources to you first. Published May 5, 2019 by the Editor-in-Chief of Chemical & Engineering News (a trade magazine published by the American Chemical Society):

One of these unsung heroes is Clarice Phelps, a nuclear scientist who was part of the team at Oak Ridge National Laboratory that created element number 117, tennessine. She and others purified the radioactive sample of berkelium-249 from which tennessine was created. If you were not familiar with her name before, you may have heard of it since Phelps became the center of something of a media storm. This attention started after editors erased her article page on Wikipedia because they considered her achievements insufficiently notable. The page had been created because Phelps is possibly the first black woman to help discover a chemical element.

Her appearance in Stereo Chemistry was completely coincidental. We didn’t interview Phelps because of the Wikipedia controversy. We wanted her perspective on what it takes as a chemist to prepare nuclear targets and projectiles for superheavy element experiments. In our opinion, her achievements are worthy of an entry. Much to our dismay, Wikipedia has not yet restored her page.

Full article Please note recent major polishing of Draft:Clarice Phelps, which has the original C&EN article that this new article refers to as a source. Thanks. Leviv ich 01:31, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

There is an ongoing deletion review, and I will be fine with whatever the community as a whole decides, which at this time very likely looks like it will be keeping the title salted. I will warn you, however, that if you open up a third deletion review in less than that many months it is highly likely the community will find it to be disruptive and there exists the very real possibility that someone will take you to AE for a Clarice Phelps topic ban under the GamerGate DS. This is not a threat: I want nothing to do with the topic anymore and I want even less to be caught up in anything related to AE and Ms. Phelps. I do think someone should tell you what the possible outcomes are here, though, which is why I mention it.
The best thing to do at this point is to wait six months, see if there is sustained coverage, and then seek community consensus for recreation. This is not me the admin talking, but me the person who led NPP for two years and has to some degree helped to shape our interpretations of notability for BLPs and corporations. It's good advice, but whether or not you take it is up to you. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:57, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Agreed. The text above *still* frames Ms Phelps's significance in terms of the Wikipedia debate. It's quite laughable really. If she's worth interviewing, then interview her. Don't do it just to prove a point about Wikipedia. ′But aside from that, although the interview might establish some notability, we will be in a far better position to assess that in six months when the emotion of the ongoing saga has subsided.  — Amakuru (talk) 06:33, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
I'll note that in that piece, the editor-in-chief specifically and explicitly stated that, just as you are suggesting, they interviewed her because she's worth interviewing, and not to prove a point. Leviv ich 14:38, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Just a reminder/pointing-out-for-watchers that I did not create the article, never recreated the article (except in my userspace to show Tony), never moved a draft into mainspace, never opened a DRV on it, and never complained about a close. While I !voted keep in the first AfD, I also !voted endorse in the first DRV. I was going to start the second DRV to allow recreation, but someone else beat me to it (too soon and with an ineffective argument, in my opinion), and now that that's done, it unfortunately pushes the goal posts further back. However, I think it's highly unlikely that anything in my Clarice Phelps history–where my participation has been limited to editing the article and commenting at AfD/DRVs, but not opening them or moving the page or recreating it or anything like that–would lead to my being topic banned. I think you are conflating me and my actions with other users and their actions, and unfairly so. (Though I do understand that your warning is a cautionary prediction and not a threat, so no hard feelings there.)
I am only posting on your talk page because you are the deleting/salting admin, and I understand that it is within your purview to unilaterally allow recreation of the article. That is, with your permission, the draft can be moved to mainspace, and without your permission, it takes a DRV to "allow recreation" before the draft can be moved to mainspace. If I'm wrong in my understanding of that, or if your position is that you'll never agree to allow recreation and so DRV is the only route, then that would save us both some time :-) But if there is some point at which you would allow recreation, and I should bring new sources to you first, then I will continue doing so. I think you and I both know that it's highly likely that new sources will continue to be written, so I'm really just looking for guidance about whether you want to be the first stop for recreation requests, or not. Thank you. Leviv ich 14:37, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
One other thing: I received a GamerGate DS notice, and now you also mentioned GamerGate. Can you explain how Clarice Phelps's biography has anything to do with GamerGate or gender-related-anything, other than that she's a woman? Are all female scientist bios considered under discretionary sanctions? All female bios? Who and when was it decided that this article was in a DS area? Thanks. Leviv ich 14:45, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
I understand that it is within your purview to unilaterally allow recreation of the article What? Natureium (talk) 14:50, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
WP:SALT: Contributors wishing to re-create a salted title with more appropriate content should either contact an administrator (preferably the protecting administrator), file a request at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection, or use the deletion review process. In any case, it is generally preferable to have prepared a draft version of the intended article prior to filing a request. This is originally why I created a draft in my userspace and posted on Tony's talk page. Leviv ich 14:57, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
I will not be overruling the clear consensus of the community. You’re free to continue with this as long as the community will tolerate it, but at this rate you are on a collision course with sanctions, and that you don’t seem to realize that shows you really should take a step back. As for the GamerGate DS, it covers all gender related disputes, which this clearly is. It has been made the most high-profile gender controversy on this project in at least a year and the subject’s strongest claim to notability is the gender-related dispute on en.wiki. This is clearly covered by the DS, and I believe there was a recent ARCA that merged all the other gender-related DS into GamerGate (or got rid of them in favour of it.)
I won’t be answering any further questions on this, as there is a community consensus that has been tested four times now, and you’re aware of your options and I have informed you that in my view, repeated attempts to force this question will likely be viewed as disruption that falls within discretionary sanctions by other members of the community. What you do is up to you and if others agree with that assessment, them. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:58, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
I don't realize it, so please explain it to me. What actions have I taken that put me on a "collision course with sanctions"? What "repeated attempts to force this question" have I made? Let me start the list: 1) edited the article and posted to RSN about the new sources, 2) !voted in various AfDs/DRVs, 3) posted on your talk page to request recreation per WP:SALT. This puts me on a collision course with sanctions? Because I thought that was called "building an encyclopedia". Or are there other actions I'm missing on my list? I find it alarming now that you're suggesting I'm engaging in sanctionable conduct, when I've been trying to follow the rules, e.g., by coming to you first with the recreation request, and when I've only made one recreation request (now two, if you count this one). I won't ask you any more questions about the article per your request, but your vague suggestion that I'm engaging in sanctionable conduct is WP:Casting aspersions, so please explain or correct that. Thanks. Leviv ich 15:07, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
See WP:TE. You’re engaging in non-stop bludgeoning across multiple pages, have tried to turn an arbitration case into a third DRV while an active DRV is ongoing, and hours before the closure of the DRV, which was obviously going one way, you come here trying to get me to go against it? If you were to open a third DRV so soon it would very likely be viewed as failure to drop the stick and refusal to recognize the community is tired of discussing this topic. The community being exhausted by good faith disruption is probably the biggest reason established editors get sanctioned. Two AfDs, an arb case, an AFC/CSD, ANI threads, and what would be 3 DRVs would push the community to its limit of patience for talking about a topic, and it is very likely someone would take notice and open up an AE thread. I can’t tell you what to do, and I’ve made it clear I have zero intent on being involved in any further controversy surrounding Phelps either as an editor or an admin, but this should be pointed out to you. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:22, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
How the hell could I have know that it was "hours before the closure of the DRV"?! You think I can predict the future?! I didn't start either AfD or place the CSD. I didn't recreate the page. I didn't undelete the page. I didn't start either DRV (and I endorsed your close!). I didn't start either ANI thread. Those were all done by different editors, not me. The only thing I did was participate in discussions that others had started, and you call that "bludgeoning across multiple pages". Thanks.
A new source was published, and I posted it on your talk page to see what you thought first. That's out of respect for you. After the last round of new sources, I also posted on your talk page first. That was out of respect for you. At the time I did that, there was no arbcom case, no second DRV, no undeletion. What in heaven's name gives you the idea that my intent is to open a third DRV? Or that my intent was to make you "go against" consensus??? WTF is that even about?
And what's this about me "trying to turn an arbitration case into a third DRV"? I don't even know what you mean by that. Arbcom obviously would never opine on whether the page should be restored. I assume you're referring to my posting links to press sources, which is relevant to Rama's claim that the press sources were part of the motivation for the undeletion, and it directly rebuts an argument from another editor that there weren't recent press sources.
I came to you first instead of starting any DRV or anything like that. I made one recreation request on your talk page–and it took me hours to prepare that draft, just for your review–and I did this so as to NOT be disruptive, to see what you thought first, out of respect for you and out of a desire to minimize the time taken up by other editors, and what do I get in return? Accused of ridiculous things like being able to predict the future, blamed for the actions of other users, and a whole ton of you assuming bad faith on my part. That's bullshit, Tony. I don't deserve the way you have treated me here. Good day. Leviv ich 15:47, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
I’m sorry you feel that way, but I feel the advice I gave you was both accurate and fair. As I said, you’re free to ignore it, but you should at least be made aware of how others may view your actions here. Happy editing. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:56, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Recent Issues with TheWolfChild

Hi Tony. Hope you don't mind this out of the blue message but as the administrator who dealt with thewolfchild's recent request to have his or her indefinite block overturned I thought that I should bring some of their recent behaviour to your attention. After you turned them down, a range of editors appeared who have called for the block to be overturned; another, User:PlanespotterA320, posted to express support for the block. Thewolfchild responded by reverting PlanespotterA320's post with the edit summary "go away". I then posted on the thread alerting other readers that thewolfchild was deliberately deleting the posts of their critics to give the false impression that everyone wanted their block overturned, but thewolfchild simply reverted my post and asked me not to write on their user talk page again. I don't want to get into an edit war with thewolfchild, especially not on their own user talk page, but the fact that they are deliberately removing other editors' posts which express criticism of them is troubling, indicative of why they were blocked in the first place, and clear evidence that they have no intention of changing their behaviour. Would you recommend I raise this point at the administrator's noticeboard or some other venue so that it does not go unnoticed next time thewolfchild asks for the block to be removed? Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:01, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

They're free to remove any message they want from their talk page (and also to appeal their block again if they want.) Admins check the page history, so it isn't that big of a deal. Thanks for asking for clarification, though :) TonyBallioni (talk) 17:03, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Range block?

Hi, Tony! I'm not techie enough to do rangeblocks but one may be needed at Talk:Donald Trump, where there are serious BLP violations going on. I blocked one IP account and a second one immediately appeared from the same range and resumed the vandalism. See what you think. Thanks. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:42, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Hmmm... Tony may have logged off for the day. Any stalkers want to take a look? -- MelanieN (talk) 23:43, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Nah, I was being pinged for something on meta. This is easy. I blocked the /64 (see [3].) For IPv6 it makes sense just to block the /64 range most of the time rather than individual IPs. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:45, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks! -- MelanieN (talk) 23:50, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

"Waste of time"

Could you please not call my RFC a "waste of time" and instead wait for the result? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:41, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

ToBeFree, I'm sorry to be blunt, but there is no other description for it. You should withdraw the RfC. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:47, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
Maybe the surprising bluntness especially from a user I value a lot was necessary. Thanks. Taking a sleep. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 03:11, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
ToBeFree, sorry if it hurt you. That was not the intent. I try to come in early on RfCs like that to avoid having too much community time spent on something relatively minor things. My general views on it are in the topic above: namely it's been this way for a decade and the people who care already know what it is. Again, sorry if it was overly blunt. You're a great user and it isn't reflective of my overall views on you :) TonyBallioni (talk) 03:20, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
No worries. Thank you very much for the kind words. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:08, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Review

Hello Tony, how you doing? Thank you for your past support Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Veuveclicquot1/Archive, the silverlock etc. Is that sockpuppet investigations archive page for Administrator input only? I'm not sure whether to file a query here or there. It would name users around your ongoing case, but it's just to confer with you first rather than a formal filing. -- Roberthall7 (talk) 00:33, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi Tony, just to let you know I didn't want to bug you (saw you were on mini-break) so I went ahead with a filing. It's a first one so I hope it's okay: [4] All best, -- Roberthall7 (talk) 20:14, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
Roberthall7, sorry for not responding earlier. Your request wasn’t clear to me so I was waiting until I was a bit less busy tonight to respond. If you’re asking if anyone can file an SPI, yes, anyone can. We protect them on occasion but it’s somewhat rare. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:18, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
Roberthall7: fix ping. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:19, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

CU query

Hello young Tony. Are YugoslavianIdiot and YugoslavIdiot the same, please? Bishonen | talk 08:46, 14 May 2019 (UTC).

Yes, they're the same, but Tony can take another look if he pleases. —DoRD (talk)​ 10:33, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
Thank you very much, DoRD. I softblocked them earlier today, but since they're acting like that, I think I'll just go to hard blocks. Do you agree? Bishonen | talk 11:59, 14 May 2019 (UTC).
I do. I looked at the first account because of the behavior, thinking that there must be a connection to an older account. Unfortunately, I only found YugoslavianIdiot and a possibly unrelated account. I still suspect that there is more to this than CU turned up, but at any rate, these two are NOTHERE at best. —DoRD (talk)​ 12:05, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
Right, and a timewaster. Hardblocked. Bishonen | talk 12:09, 14 May 2019 (UTC).

Response to question

You asked me about a relationship with someone jake or so, i dont know anyone by that and my name is Ariola, i signed up this wikipedia change because i was interested in creating an article about "Fisayor Montana" a young nature PhotoGrapher, when i signed up my account i thought i would have to use the name i signed up to create the article i wanted to create that was why i used the fisayormontana on my profile and unfortunately after setting up my profile and created the first article on the name it was deleted and i got message speaking about autograph which is not, the person you're asking about could be just another person who has the same goes i had and when i figured out the article i wanted to create is being created i clicked on it and added more content which is why you're asking about the relationship between me and the guy, Thats the pure truth. i hope i didn't violate wikipedia rules ??? and better still if you could send me a link to change the name on my profile to my own name I'd be very Grateful — Preceding unsigned comment added by FisayorMontana (talk • contribs) 03:36, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, TonyBallioni. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. qedk (t 桜 c) 16:11, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Thakor Sumant Sinhji Jhala

Hi, thanks for the recent CU atWikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Thakor Sumant Sinhji Jhala. When you did that, did you take a look at the numerous new accounts that made just one or two edits to Mukne Dynasty? Based on the sourcing and the creator, the thing should be CSD'd as a creation by a banned or blocked user but the complication is the number of subsequent edits by accounts that were not named in the CU sweep. If you didn't check them then no worries and I'll formalise things by opening another SPI report there. - Sitush (talk) 20:53, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Sitush, I blocked all the ones that showed up on the ranges MulberryMukne used. I just ran a check on two of the more suspicious accounts on Mukne Dynasty and they're on the wrong continent. Don't think searching any more there would be useful, but if they start peddling more caste nonsense on other articles, I can look again. Maybe just use a PROD instead of G5? TonyBallioni (talk) 21:08, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
That's fine, thanks. They're probably meats via some caste forum. I'll just gut it of the rubbish. - Sitush (talk) 21:16, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

MileyCy 1Fan

Hi Tony. I found out Daddy Lesons (talk · contribs) is a sockpuppet of MileyCy 1Fan. Same pattern and mainly focus on Miley Cyrus articles. 2402:1980:8257:772D:2EFD:2E5F:33CC:CCCD (talk) 16:57, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with that case and the data appears stale. Filing an SPI would probably be best. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:08, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.18

Hello TonyBallioni,

WMF at work on NPP Improvements

Niharika Kohli, a product manager for the growth team, announced that work is underway in implementing improvements to New Page Patrol as part of the 2019 Community Wishlist and suggests all who are interested watch the project page on meta. Two requested improvements have already been completed. These are:

  • Allow filtering by no citations in page curation
  • Not having CSD and PRODs automatically marked as reviewed, reflecting current consensus among reviewers and current Twinkle functionality.
Reliable Sources for NPP

Rosguill has been compiling a list of reliable sources across countries and industries that can be used by new page patrollers to help judge whether an article topic is notable or not. At this point further discussion is needed about if and how this list should be used. Please consider joining the discussion about how this potentially valuable resource should be developed and used.

Backlog drive coming soon

Look for information on the an upcoming backlog drive in our next newsletter. If you'd like to help plan this drive, join in the discussion on the New Page Patrol talk page.

News
Discussions of interest

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 7242 Low – 2393 High – 7250

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.
Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of DannyS712 (talk) at 19:17, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

SPI query

Hi Tony,

Hope you're well.

I have an SPI query if you don't mind. I dealt with the unblock request of User:YoshiFan160 under ticket 25255 on UTRS. When I was looking into it, I couldn't help but notice that the block log said that this was an LTA case and referred to JarlaxleArtemis being the sock. The sockpuppet investigation for that user being here. However, on the userpage it says that it is a sock of User:Sonic the Hedgehog Boy. The SPI for that user can be found here. Is it just the block notice that's wrong or is there an SPI needing merged?-- 5 albert square (talk) 21:32, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

zzuuzz left a note on the talk page saying that the block log was wrong. He's probably the best person to ask if you have any questions about it. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:14, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
Ah thanks, they left that after I reviewed it so I didn't see it. I just refused the block anyway based on behavioural evidence. Thanks anyway :)-- 5 albert square (talk) 01:06, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

About a blocked account…

Hello,

As a global renamer, I came across a request by "Alfwin cross Fernando" (I do not want to put a direct link to prevent any notification to occur), who wanted to be renamed "Alfwin fernando". The account was created on May 3rd. However, I noticed that you had blocked "Alfwin Fernando" on May 1st… And looking at the contributions of this new account, I think I can find a kind of pattern (I'm not familiar enough with the procedures on enwiki to correctly ask for a RfCU…) Litlok (talk) 10:39, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Litlok and will you look at that, they're  Confirmed to one another. No sleepers, though. Thanks for reporting. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:51, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Mail

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

--SamHolt6 (talk) 18:17, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

This WMC userpage [5] and the contributions of User:Kwaolezzes may be insightful, as well.--SamHolt6 (talk) 20:05, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
Flixtey would you be able to help out here. @MER-C and SamHolt6: have both raised some very valid concerns that I was not aware of when we last discussed this. It very much looks like Tyt0791 is in fact a banned user evading his block and ban. I'd like to hear you out on this, because I unblocked based on your vouching for him in this case, but this looks really bad on Tyt079's part. See also Wikipedia:PAIDLIST#Fast_Fingers_Hype_Team_(FFHypeTEAM)TonyBallioni (talk) 20:53, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
Hello TonyBallioni, sorry for the delayed response and the courtesy of contacting me on this issue. From what I know about the user in question he only started editing this March after my event in Kumasi. I am unaware about the possibility of being a previous user who was blocked in the past, however I will probe wisely and revert with my findings. Thanks --Flixtey (talk) 23:25, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Flixtey as he's self-revealed to be the same person that is the subject of their creations and is highly likely to be involved with the socking (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Daniel Kobe Ricks Jr/Archive and ctrl+f "Tyt") I can't really not block him. I can also find at least two other accounts where the self-disclosure appears to be the same person, and I can email you to show it. I'm sorry, but I don't think I can do anything but block here.
@SamHolt6 and MER-C: sorry for the confusion. Sam, if you can get all of the G5 eligible articles on a subpage, I can d-batch them (or MER-C can delete them again without me considering it wheel warring). TonyBallioni (talk) 23:51, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
@TonyBallioni: roger.--SamHolt6 (talk) 00:11, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
@TonyBallioni:@MER-C: the articles I have deemed likely candidates for G5 speedy deletion at User:SamHolt6/Tyt079 G5 Canidates. Thankfully, it seems most of Tyt079's UDP/COI editing was done in regards to existing articles, while most of the articles they actually created were not effected. Much of the editor's work concerned towns, schools, and legitimately notable individuals, and it would be harmful to the project to delete these articles without reason. This is my personal view, of course. Best. SamHolt6 (talk) 01:07, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 Done TonyBallioni (talk) 01:22, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
Hello TonyBallioni, I am aware that these conversations have been concluded already but as promised I got in touch with the user to find out about having a previous account. He admitted that he did and because he realized he had little information that led to his block thats why he joined our sessions. I think this is evident in his recent contributions with his account Tyt079, as he resorted to editing mostly schools, towns, cities, etc. Which I believe proves his interest in just contributing to Wikipedia and without any hidden agenda. I have also explained the implications of his actions and he is ready to serve any punishments due him, but we kindly ask that for the good of the platform (and improvement of content from and about Africa) you kindly make him serve a time of which he would have learnt his lesson when he returns. --Flixtey (talk) 12:21, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Corina Smith

Then the article is out of danger?
Stays?
I already explained the arguments and several users have given me the reason.
Erickespinal26 (talk) 14:15, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Erickespinal26, I don’t think it is eligible for G4 deletion (though someone could nominate it again at articles for deletion.) My comment at Eastmain’s page was just that they shouldn’t be removing tags when they don’t have the ability to tell if it is the same. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:17, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
Erickespinal26, fix ping. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:19, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
My question is, why should it be eliminated?
And because so many people want to eliminate him?
This is a legitimate article, and observed worse in this encyclopedia.
Erickespinal26 (talk) 14:22, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
I haven’t looked at it closely enough to have an opinion on that. Sorry :( TonyBallioni (talk) 14:29, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Request to unprotect User:Cassianto's userpage and talkpage.

Withdrawn, per User:Cassianto's wishes. The Duke 17:57, 20 May 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.

Hello there Tony. I'm writing to you to request that User:Cassianto's userpage and talkpage be unprotected. This is due to as he's now back. So unprotection would be good so that IPs and new users can interact with him. We can protect again if vandalism starts back up again. Thank you. The Duke 15:31, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Can I ask what my talk page has to do with you? Why don't you mind you own sodding business. CassiantoTalk 16:57, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Tony knows only too well how many times my talk page has been vandalised, including filthy comments about my wife. There's no reason to unprotected it, unless of course The Duke of Nonsense wishes to create a sock to carry out such bile, undetected. CassiantoTalk 17:02, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

@Cassianto: I would never do something like that Cassianto. Please don't make accusations against me. I'm trying to be helpful. Please be civil. And please assume good faith too. It's doesn't hurt to treat people kindly. Thank you. The Duke 17:03, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
​Today's suggested reading: WP:DLTAGF  :) ——SerialNumber54129 17:17, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
I don't need your help. Why would you want protection removed from a talk page that is not yours? You're user confirmed and can post with the protection in place...in fact you did, here. The only thing you'll achieve is to allow the trolls to infest my talk page. Why would you want to do that? CassiantoTalk 17:09, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
@Cassianto: I just thought so that IPs can talk to you if needbe. I'm not trying to allow trolls to infest it. I'm only trying to help. And why did you delete my edit on your talk page? I went to you because you have written countless WP:FA's on the subject that I am currently planning to write my first WP:GA and WP:FL, so I knew you would be helpful with getting good, cheap sources. I'm not trying to interfere, I'm just trying to help. Thank you. The Duke 17:16, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Nope, I'm not interested. I've been abused one too many times by sick people pretending to be the late Kevin Gorman and saying disgusting things about my wife. If they are worth their salt they will endeavour to contact me via other means, whether that be through the WMF or on another talk page with a ping. CassiantoTalk 17:32, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
@Cassianto: I was only trying to help. I was just going by the notice from Tony himself: "If he comes back, we can remove the semi". Thank you. The Duke 17:46, 20 May 2019 (UTC) I'm just wondering why you removed my question on your talk page? Thank you. The Duke 17:38, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Please read the edit summary, User:The Duke of Nonsense. Drmies (talk) 17:40, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
@Drmies and Cassianto: I wasn't trying to interfere with anything. Again. I was just trying to help. And again going with Tony's notice: "If he comes back, we can remove the semi". Thank you. The Duke 17:46, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
I'm just telling you why Cassianto seemed unwilling to answer your question, that's all. Drmies (talk) 17:51, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) You were trying to help, but intent and outcome don't always coincide. Cassianto has expressed a desire for the semi protection to remain and for you to leave him alone. Please respect that and drop the matter. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:52, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) The Duke of Nonsense, I maintain my point that my talk page is exactly that, my talk page. Its content, protection level, style of font, colour, style, and anything else about it is nothing to do with you. Posting a comment is about all you can do and if I choose to answer it, archive it, or even remove it, then it is down to me. And not content with wanting to remove the protection level, I see you're now wanting justification for why I removed your comment. I don't like your interference, frankly, and you're not being collegial, even though you may think you are. CassiantoTalk 17:55, 20 May 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.

Emigrate, immigrate: PoV?

Hi Tony,

In your edit summary for this edit, you wrote "no, that's not a POV prefix and it is more accurate".

A Scot would say "he emigrated to Canada". A Canadian would say "he immigrated from Scotland". I have always assumed that Wikipedia should take neither viewpoint, and just write "he migrated ...". I have made many such edits. Can you please explain why "emigrated" is not PoV, and why it is more accurate? Maproom (talk) 22:06, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi Maproom, the e/i is dependent on how the sentence is constructed, not on the nationality of the writer. If I had written He immigrated to Canada from Scotland it would be immigrate. I just chose to construct the sentence to emphasize leaving Scotland for Canada rather than entering Canada from Scotland. Migrate is much less commonly used in this sense, and also just sounds weird in context. I don't see a real reason to change it based on there apparently being a PoV issue against Canadians' view of Robertson, and I say that as someone who holds a Canadian passport... TonyBallioni (talk) 22:14, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) He's not a migratory bird; I can't say I've seen "migrate" used in this context. To me "emigrate" seems natural since the decision to leave the old home country is likely more significant than the decision to make Canada (as opposed to, say, the US) his new home. I'd use "immigrate" only if either the country of origin isn't mentioned or if we're dealing with immigration statistics, not for an individual. Either way, I can't see a POV issue here. Huon (talk) 22:32, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
I'll think about that. To me, "He immigrated to Canada from Scotland" just sounds weird, whatever the nationality of the speaker. Meanwhile, some data: [6]. Of course that graph includes seasonal migrations like swallows make, where there's never a prefix.
BTW, maybe this is obvious, I'm not referring to bias, like a positive or negative view of the subject or his action. I just believe that the verb used of the change of nationality should be neutral relative to the nationality of the writer. If someone wrote "in September 1938 Chamberlain came to Munich", I'd want to correct it. The people currently trying to cross the Mediterranean from Libya to Europe are almost always described as "migrants", with no prefix. Maproom (talk) 22:48, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
Migrant has a sense of poverty usually, in my experience (i.e. the people crossing the Mediterranean and farm workers tend to be described as migrants but people with PhDs entering a country are immigrants.)
I also have to admit that I share Huon’s view and it was what I hinting at above: migrate reads to me as something animals do. This is one of the only times I’ve ever seen it used to describe people. I also think emigrate/immigrate are neutral regardless of nationality. All it let’s you know is the direction the moving is going. I’m dual US-Canadian, and I would never have read the sentence as being something a Scot would say: only a neutral description of what happened. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:58, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
But, Tony, in my experience, while people probably mean to be neutral, they're sometimes tripped up by unreflective nationalism. Once, in my more diligent wiki days, I wrote an ambitious article called Swedish emigration to the United States, with an eye to getting it Featured, which worked out all right. My sources, as well as my own angle, were focused on the emigration — on the reasons Swedes had for leaving Sweden, which were mainly poverty, miserable conditions in the countryside, and also religious persecution. The emigration was a large-scale movement, and caused (I wrote) "national alarm in Sweden" in the late 19th and early 20th century. Many European countries similarly lost sizable chunks of their population to the US (remember the Irish!), and were similarly alarmed. Obviously, each of these immigration waves wasn't separately a huge deal to America — nothing like as important as the national trauma, and the blow to national pride, of emigration was to, for example, Sweden. Anyway, the emigration — the outward movement — was my chosen angle, partly because I simply knew more about it. No doubt a detailed article could also be written about the people involved from the POV of what happened to them in the new country — their immigration, if you like. (I included some of that in the article I wrote, but it was never the focus.) And yet, what do you think — several editors insisted the article must be moved to Swedish ''im''migration to the United States. I was never able to get a coherent explanation out of them for why — it wasn't that they want the article changed, just the title — it seemed to be simply natural to them, on a very deep level, that America must always be the centre of any narrative, and other places must be the margin. That may also be a reflexion of the very unselfconscious assumption many Americans make that the rest of the world always wants to come to them. And hence their preference for immigration to America, not emigration from Sweden. (But as you can see, I managed to defend the original article name.) Bishonen | talk 23:27, 27 May 2019 (UTC).
  • {U|Bishonen}}: I wonder why your article wasn't just called "Swedish emigration". The causes in Sweden, the effects on Sweden, the "national alarm", would all be the same if they'd chosen to emigrate to Canada instead.
  • I'm glad that in the example I happened to chose, the countries involved do not include either the US (for the reason Bishonen mentions) or my own country, England.
  • I wonder whether the use of the term "migrant" (rather than "emigrant" or "immigrant") in articles like these[1] causes the people to be viewed as inhuman.[2] Maybe that's even the intention of the journalists. Maproom (talk) 10:08, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
Well, there was a not inconsiderable trickle of Swedish emigration to Brazil also; I wanted to focus, so it seemed unsafe to call it just "Swedish emigration". For instance, there was considerable advertising in Sweden for emigration to the US — strong men were invited to come and build railways, kind of thing, presenting the US as a paradise. I didn't want to have to research the reasons for emigrating to Brazil as well, advertising, etc. I don't think the reasons were quite the same, and that would be a whole different collection of books to read. (Incidentally, for anybody who thinks Bishzilla doesn't create content, on this occasion she proudly wrote a spin-off article about the alarmist Swedish Emigration Commission.) Bishonen | talk 11:40, 28 May 2019 (UTC).


  1. ^ "Migrant Crisis". Express.
  2. ^ Williams, Zoe (19 April 2015). "Katie Hopkins calling migrants vermin recalls the darkest events of history". Guardian.

Cassianto

In light of the continued harassment against Cassianto, do you think it may be worth setting up an edit filter. I don't want to say exactly what I'd put in it for obvious reasons, but you might well be able to guess. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:21, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Email

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

PCHS-NJROTC (Messages)Have a blessed day. 22:22, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Your comment on Batvette

Hi Tony. At WP:AE you essentially [7] indicated that this [8] comment by Batvette as extremely problematic. You didn't outright state what was the problematic part. If the problematic part was that muslims celebrated on NJ rooftops on 9/11 - I thought I should inform you that there was a NJ.com news report [9] that stated the following:

But in a new examination by NJ Advance Media, a police officer who worked on 9/11 and residents on the outskirts of Journal Square say they witnessed small pockets of people celebrating before the groups dispersed or were broken up by authorities.

"Some men were dancing, some held kids on their shoulders," said Gallagher, then a sergeant. "The women were shouting in Arabic and keening in the high-pitched wail of Arabic fashion. They were told to go back to their apartments since a crowd of non-Muslims was gathering on the sidewalk below and we feared for their safety."

Three additional officers who remain on the Jersey City force said they witnessed small groups of Muslim celebrants on Sept. 11, but they would not speak for attribution, citing a department policy that prohibits media interviews.

starship.paint (talk) 07:41, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Starship.paint, please do not defend this racist trope on my talk page. This myth has been busted time and time again: the justification given is always that there were rumours of one or two instances, but no one serious takes these claims as anything but Islamomphobic fearmongering. Actively promoting racist conspiracy theories on Wikipedia is inappropriate and results in a topic ban. If you want to read more: “I specifically visited the Jersey City building and neighborhood where the celebrations were purported to have happened. But I could never verify that report,” Kunkle said.
Before the MTV News report was posted online, Mr. Khawaja wrote on his blog last week that witnesses had told him that “the ‘celebration’ in question consisted of maybe a dozen or half-dozen teenagers jumping around and yelling. It dispersed relatively quickly (i.e., within a few minutes). The police were patrolling the area and claim to have seen nothing.”
The problem is that Siegel, a scholar-in-residence at St. Francis College in Brooklyn and senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, didn’t witness any of it firsthand, and today, a decade and a half after the fact, he can no longer remember who told him about it.
“We followed up on that report instantly because of its implications,” he added. “The word came back quickly from Jersey City, later from Paterson. False report. Never happened.”
What can be said is that maybe for a few minutes some teenagers were being idiots and that it quickly ended according to the sole witness who claims to remember anything first hand. This is not the same thing as claiming that Muslims celebrated 9/11. Using that as an argument anywhere on Wikipedia is Islamophobic conspiracy theory pushing nonsense that will be met with sanctions as it is a behavioural issue. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:00, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for responding in detail, Tony. There's no doubt that Trump's claim of thousands celebrating is false, and that it would look very bad for any editor to promote that claim. There's also no doubt that there have been many reliable sources debunking that claim of thousands. However, none of the above sources you provided mentioned police officer Peter Gallagher who was quoted in the NJ.com report as personally witnessing the matter. That is all I want to say about this claim.
Batvette's behaviour was indeed problematic. I even warned him myself [10] (I considered that their last chance before I would have reported them). The thing is that for the 9/11 comments, Batvette did cite a CBS News video as well as a resultant The Hill report on it. [11]. As such, I don't think the 9/11 comments were the most problematic, as you singled out. Personally, I just think the other behavior was the determining factor. starship.paint (talk) 13:26, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
I disagree: he, and now you, are promoting racist conspiracy claims that have thoroughly been debunked. See the NYT quote above from the person who was actually in charge of investigating said claims on 9/11. There is zero evidence to support any of this and his using it as a bludgeon on talk pages and doubling down on it at AE is highly toxic and worthy of sanctions. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:32, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
Both NYTimes sources you provided pre-dated the NJ.com report. Gallagher, the retired policeman, said that he never filed a report on the matter. Farmer, the person you quoted as heading the investigation, responded to Gallagher in the NJ.com report. "The officer chose to treat whatever he saw and did as a non-event, not even worth recording for intelligence purposes," Farmer said. "I have no reason to doubt that something happened, but I think the officer's non-action speaks volumes about the significance of whatever did occur." starship.paint (talk) 13:46, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
I think the quote you cite speaks for itself. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:48, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
Alright then. Good day to you. starship.paint (talk) 13:49, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
I {{ec}}’d on adding a bit more, but this is what it was going to say: ... speaks for itself in making the opposite point that you think it does. Anyway, you’re free to believe racist conspiracy theories on your own if you want, but don’t bring them on to Wikipedia. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:54, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
Sorry I interrupted your edit, Tony. I agree that Trump's claim of thousands is a conspiracy theory, and I do not believe Trump. I only wanted to inform you of the NJ.com report - as for Gallagher's claims within it, naturally I do not know if Gallagher is telling the truth, so I don't endorse Gallagher's views either, except to point out to you that he said it. starship.paint (talk) 14:06, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
No problem :) Yes, he said it, but that misses the point. All conspiracy theories work on some plausible underlying argument, otherwise no one would believe them. Supporters are always able to hold up something or point to something as evidence, but that doesn’t make them true. In this case, you only have one person who reported anything at the time, and they currently describe it as teenage antics. The other report is from someone who didn’t consider it significant at the time, and only came forward about it 14 years later, when memories aren’t fresh, contradicting what every other person says. That’s how conspiracy theories work, but there’s a reason no one takes it seriously: there was zero verification when the claimed events occurred. Promoting such clearly racist theories in dialogue on talk pages is inappropriate behaviour and is what led to the ban from my angle. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:06, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

User review request

Hi Tony!

I saw at WT:RfA that you would be willing to do reviews for anyone that wanted to get a critical eye over editing for a potential RfA.

I really don't plan on running (certainly not in 2019), but I did want to know more about my edits at large and if I am doing the right sort of things to be considered a decent editor.

I understand this is different from what your original offer was, so feel completely free to ignore this request! I really wanted to know if I have done things in the right way, or if there are things I really need to work on.

From looking at this myself, I can see my AfD rate is quite low, low edit summaries and I've never edited policy before being downsides, but wondered if there was anything that leapt out at you.

Many thanks for your time & help. Keep up the good work. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:35, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Lee Vilenski, sorry for the delay in this. Just letting you know I've seen this and I'll try to get back to you within the next 24-48 hours via email. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:05, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
Hi Tony! Thanks for your reply. Don't rush at all, it is a massive favour to me. Thank you. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:07, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TonyBallioni/Archive_28&oldid=1095001631"