Jump to content

User talk:TonyBallioni/Archive 34

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 30←Archive 32Archive 33Archive 34Archive 35Archive 36→Archive 40

Administrators' newsletter – April 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2020).

Guideline and policy news

  • There is an ongoing request for comment to streamline the source deprecation and blacklisting process.

Technical news

Arbitration

  • Following the banning of an editor by the WMF last year, the Arbitration Committee resolved to hold a Arbcom RfC regarding on-wiki harassment. A draft RfC has been posted at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Anti-harassment RfC (Draft) and not open to comments from the community yet. Interested editors can comment on the RfC itself on its talk page.

Miscellaneous

  • The WMF has begun a pilot report of the pages most visited through various social media platforms to help with anti-vandalism and anti-disinformation efforts. The report is updated daily and will be available through the end of May.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:00, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Arbcom noticeboard

Just thought I'd drop by and send along my best wishes. Hope you're doing well in these trying times! Sorry to disagree with you at ACN, it always pains me. ~Swarm~ {sting} 18:11, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Swarm people can and do disagree in good faith :) No hard feelings on my part. Always good to talk to you, and stay safe! TonyBallioni (talk) 18:13, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Teaneck Fire Department

Hi Tony, my primary concern here is a history of copyright violations, primarily from town websites. Secondly, there's the cruft. Any assistance would be great. Cheers, and be well, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 00:38, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

The copyvio almost goes back to when the article was created. Hopefully I've cleaned it all out. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:25, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
Thank you, JJMC89. Almost all else is original research....five footnotes for an article that size. Cheers, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:44, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Kashish Mittal and Vancouverwiki001

Hi TonyBallioni, can you tell if Vancouverwiki001 existed when you did a CU sweep in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kashish Mittal? The account was created right around the time of the SPI, and I'm extremely suspicious of it being someone's sock, but I don't want to request CU if it would have been caught in your prior check. Cheers! creffett (talk) 12:46, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Arbcom

Time passes quickly and before one realises it, another Arbcom election will be lurking. Not that I'll be around, but if I were able to put together a Committee, you would be one of the people on it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:52, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Seconded. Please run next time, Tony. Much support from this corner. El_C 02:57, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
Yes. I implored you to run two years ago. You are needed now more than ever. ArbCom has turned into a witchhunt against longterm effective admins, apparently believing it has a remit from T&S to rid us of all the most productive admins on the slimmest grounds possible. We need an end to this madness. Softlavender (talk) 07:49, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, I believe I've asked you for the past two years as well. I hope this year you'll take the bait. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:18, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

What to do with CU given the Bbb23 mess?

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.

Mr rnddude (talk) 06:14, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Mr rnddude, seen. Still thinking about it. Will reply sometime tomorrow. It's late here :) TonyBallioni (talk) 03:19, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Edgar181

Hi there. It seems that you are pretty familiar with this case. I am one of the nerdy editors in the chemistry project, one that rarely looks around beyond that realm. I have worked on this project for several years, and for almost all of that time, one of the main arbiters and common sense managers was Edgar181. We did not interact often, but his presence was always felt. So I am pretty despondent because he was sort of a leader, or seemed that way. I am very puzzled by why he did this sockpuppetry and what his betrayal means. It even hurts to say that Edgar181 was explicitly dishonest. In any case, I started this message with the hopes that I could pose a question to you that would help bring some resolution to my sadness. But there is no well formulated question. In any case, I am grateful that the situation was resolved by you and your colleagues. --Smokefoot (talk) 02:33, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I don't think we've met before (I'm unfortunately mainly behind the scenes these days...) but yes, I find the whole situation sad. Anyway, nice to meet you and welcome to my talk page :) TonyBallioni (talk) 03:18, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks...

...for this. I still believe that it's ArbCom's obligation to come clean with the community on the voting, but I will heed your advice after this last comment here.

I am not an ArbCom- or admin-basher by nature, I think that the Committee(s) and the admin corps generally do a good job, but when they fuck up, and have it pointed out by multiple people that they fucked up, I expect both Arbs and admin to admit their errors and do what they can to make good. In this case, the Committee has totally failed to fulfill its obligations to the community, and you can believe that I will be asking hard questions at election time. I am extremely disappointed in ArbCom, many of whose members I know to be good admins who are right much more often then they are wrong -- but in this case, while they may not have been wrong to warn Bbb23 (I have no way of knowing because of privacy issues) there is not a scintilla of doubt in my mind that they are wrong not to tell the community who voted for and against the warning once the warning was made public. At the moment, I have no choice but to hold their error in judgment against the entire committee, each and every Arbitrator. If that's the way they want it, they will have to live with the consequences, one of which is that Wikipedia just got a little less safe than it was. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:17, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

TPS: It occurs to me that at this point it may be time to issue a vote of no confidence against the current ArbCom, if the community as a whole agrees. Softlavender (talk) 05:34, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
Replying to both of you: I don’t think the community would go for a no confidence vote, and I probably wouldn’t either since there are members of the current committee who I trust a great deal and I don’t think adding more drama and another election would do much.
On the broader question, I guess my views have more generally been formed by a fair amount of experience working with volunteer organizations. At one point, I took a more heavy handed approach thinking you needed the volunteer leaders in the organization to follow a company line or program of sorts, but over several years I found that to be virtually impossible, especially with older and younger generations. Things tended to work better the less the overarching leadership group was involved and even when there were fights and drama within groups, letting them play out and reach some sort of resolution short of having to tell someone they could no longer have a role almost always worked out best. Yeah, you’d lose people that way, but you also lose a lot of people and cause a lot of disruption when you say that someone a lot of people in a group admire, respect, and trust isn’t worthy of that trust—and I’m not talking about the person themselves. There are obviously red lines established in every group as norms no one can cross, but typically most people don’t actually cross those and what you’re dealing with is burnt out people who have been there a while arguing with new people who are telling them that the way they’ve been doing things forever is wrong.
Now, sysops and functionaries on Wikipedia are somewhat different because we have tools that can actually impact or prevent the work of others on this project, do we are rightly held to a higher standard. We have some bright line rules, but otherwise it’s a scale of determining what “conduct unbecoming” is: basically asking what the weight of crankiness, incivility, or burnout that we’re willing to accept is. There’s not an easy answer to this, but my general thought is that usually, like in real life volunteer organizations, these things tend to sort themselves out, even if there’s long-term bickering along the way, and that usually ArbCom taking action before it’s a last resort results in more disruption to the project than letting someone who is burnt out retire or letting the people who are all behaving poorly in a limited area come to their own terms. Truly long-term issues where nothing works must of course be dealt with, especially if it’s a sysop or functionary whose actions are dividing the community, but typically trying to keep them involved and reformed if there are issues causes the least damage to both them as people and the community as a whole. Removing rights should be a last resort, especially because of the division it can cause in the community.
My criticism of this ArbCom is that while I think they are responding to an increased community desire for activity after last year, they’re getting involved with a lot of stuff and taking a lot of actions and in the process no longer being a body of last resort. In a volunteer organization that’s highly decentralized, when the highest level of volunteer “leadership” gets involved with everyday disputes rather than only resolving the things that literally can’t be resolved in any other way, you get a lot of good faith but bad decisions because they can’t possibly know everything that’s going on and do their day-to-day work (which for ArbCom consists of privacy stuff and block appeals.) I think the recently closed Motorsports case, while not particularly controversial, is a good example of the type of involvement I’m criticizing: something that didn’t need a case but for some reason ended up with one. That type of mentality leads to more opportunities to divide a volunteer community while trying to help it.​​ TonyBallioni (talk) 07:07, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
Softlavender: I agree with Tony B that your suggestion wouldn't fly, nor do I think that it's necessary at this point. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:29, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
Real-life organizations, including volunteer ones, generally have a decision-making hierarchy, so decisions can be de-centralized and appealed up the chain, if necessary. Wikipedia suffers from trying to make all decisions through group discussion and consensus, which doesn't scale up. Consensus only works if there is strong alignment in goals amongst all the participants, which is increasingly impossible as a group gets bigger. The N-squared communication problem means it's not possible to hold a true interactive dialogue with more than a handful of people. With unmoderated discussion threads, prolific editors can easily drown out the more concise. As a result, on Wikipedia, there is an incentive to be aggressive in responses and verbose, which further complicates attempts at reaching a group consensus. We need processes that encourage more collaborative behaviour and reward working things out, rather than the current ones where being stubborn works. It only takes a small number of uncooperative editors to stalemate discussion. Yes, hierarchies are only as good as the decision-makers in place, but they provide a clear incentive to get along. I suspect, though, that change is only going to come after a drastic shift in the demographics of editors, such as the overrun of the site by biased editors. isaacl (talk) 19:19, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Sockmaster of the accounts you blocked

For reference purposes, what sockmaster is responsible for the accounts you recently blocked, User:Mr Tramp gonna got big defeat on ERECTl0N day and User:There are T00 many lDl0Ts in W.H.? I see their long usernames with OFFENSIVE statements in ALL CAPS sometimes impersonating other users in block logs quite often and was wondering who was behind it. Passengerpigeon (talk) 02:28, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Arturo Gustavo. He’s harmless as LTAs go (see the last revert on this user page.) If you see him, you can report him at m:SRG with the header “Arturo socks”. They’ll know him and can logincu. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:30, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, TonyBallioni. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 19:07, 12 April 2020 (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.

MrClog (talk) 19:07, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Need CU reauested status for SPI

Hey Toni, hope all is well. I would like to request that this investigation be renewed to "CU REQUESTED" since I requested a CU on Queenplz, compared to WorldCreaterFighter. As far as I'm aware that hasn't been done. This case (the one I filed) needs more attention. I gave pretty solid evidence Qiushufang was recruiting meatpuppets on Reddit, and it's gone 48 hours with no response.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Qiushufang - Hunan201p (talk) 11:21, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Another problem

Dear Toni, thanks a lot for re-listing the investigation on Qiushufang. I am sorry to report another problem. I keep opening an investigation for a suspected sockpuppet (Tobby72) of a notoruous sockmaster (WorldCreaterFighter), which keeps getting shut down. In my opinion, it is being shut down because someone mistakenly thinks that it was closed, when what actually happened was another investigation before it ws closed. See the message Amanda(DeltaQuad) left on my talk page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hunan201p#Stop_restoring


There appears to be nothing in these links indicating the Tobby72 ingestigation was ever closed. Only one before it, for a suspected IP sock, was closed. But Tobby72 still needs investigating and closing. Tobby72 continues making malicious stealth edits that multiple people have complained about, such as his recent edits to Timur where he restores demonstratably falsified material:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Timur&action=history

Plese help me get the Tobby72 investigation re-opened. I'm 95% sure it's WorldCreaterFighter and he's being allowed to screw up ethnic and history related articles. Sorry to trouble you. - Hunan201p (talk) 14:02, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) WP:OTHERPARENT?:) ——SN54129 14:17, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
@Hunan201p: First of all, you need to give me over an hour (or even a couple of hours) to respond. We all need sleep. Second, Tobby72 has 27,000 edits to Wikipedia over 11 years. That's almost 18 times the amount of edits you have made. I get you have been reporting WCF for a good while, but a single edit restoring a single point of view that someone has does not make them a sockpuppet. I've deleted your report because of the complete lack of evidence against a long term user. I'm not saying there aren't any other conduct issues, what I am saying is they are not a sockpuppet of WCF. Now please take the issue about their potentially disruptive edits to a more appropriate venue. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 17:58, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
Tony, since then, this has happened. It sounds like Hunan201p, but it's ran off a proxy. Thoughts? -- Amanda (aka DQ) 18:33, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
There's a certain irony to someone doing a bad-faith logged out edit to accuse a CU of being a sockpuppetry. creffett (talk) 18:35, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
I did not make those edits or create that investigation against SPI authorities. Someone is using mimicry to try to get me banned. - Hunan201p (talk) 16:34, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Question

Where is the best place to discuss whether there should be a new logo for Oversight? Interstellarity (talk) 12:59, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

To be honest it shouldn’t be because it’s busywork. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:08, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Who couyld possibly have predicted that?

[1]. Am I allowed to know which LTA please? Guy (help!) 21:04, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

My initial guess was Kumioko based on behavior and geolocation, but might not be him at closer look. There are a lot of LTAs in that vicinity... There’s a few other accounts likely, connected to this one, and I’ll dig later tonight. I had enough to block and the behavior is enough even if it isn’t Kumi, so I’m not particularly concerned enough to unblock until I get the exact name... TonyBallioni (talk) 21:12, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
JzG, the same person as AppliedCharisma (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki), who it looks like you've interacted with in the past. Like I said above, Kumioko is a possibility for a few reasons, and some of the MO matches, but there are other differences so I'm not certain on that point anymore and I'll update the block reason. I don't think either account is the first though. There are a few other  Possible accounts, but none that myself or the other CU who looked at it are confident enough to block or report on right now. The data is messy because of the nature of the range, but we were able to link the two above fairly clearly. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:20, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
TonyBallioni, weird how the crossover between political extremists, anti-medicine extremists and angry nutjobs generally is getting stronger. Isolation, I guess. Guy (help!) 08:06, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Questions about the apparent move and subsequent deletion of the pages for Rain Man (DJ) and Kris Trindl

Hello. Forgive the length of my inquiry, as I'm relatively new to this type of request.

I was interested in reading about Rain Man (DJ) who is Kris Trindl on Wikipedia. However, the articles were deleted. As I looked into it, I couldn't find the reason that they were deleted.

Based on the tags I see on the deleted pages, it looks like there was a consensus to move the page Kris Trindl over to Rain Man (DJ). So the Rain Man (DJ) page was deleted with a G6 tag (non-controversial/make way for the move).

However, the Rain Man (DJ) page is no longer up, apparently due to problems with copyright.

I did, however, manage to find my way to the page Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2020 April 5, where I found the entry for Rain Man (DJ) listed on that page.

So far, I've been unable to locate any of the discussions.

My interest as an editor is to see if I can fix the article. To do this, I need access to the talk pages Talk:Rain Man (DJ) and Talk:Kris Trindl.

Per Wikipedia guidelines, contacting you is the first step in this process.

Regards,

Fantasticawesome (talk) 16:04, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Fantasticawesome. You'll want to talk to MER-C as he was the one who deleted it for copyright reasons. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:03, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Gilbert E. Patterson

Hey Tony! I stumbled upon this mess of an article which looks like it was barely ever sourced even from the start. It's a complete mess but I thought it might be up your ally if you had time. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 00:46, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi, HickoryOughtShirt?4. I'm mainly familiar with Catholic, Anglican, and Orthodox bishops, not Pentecostal ones, unfortunately. Sorry I can't be much help here. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:06, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
Protestantism sure has made things complicated. EEng 01:10, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
If you want a more in-depth discussion on the nature of the episcopacy, I could give it to you but we'd both be asleep before it was over. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:11, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
When I went to University, coming from a different religious school, I had no idea what Ash Wednesday was and almost told some kids they have some dust on their head. Learn something new everyday. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 01:12, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
OMG I had the same experience. It wasn't until I moved across the country that I saw people with ashes on their forehead. I thought they must be protesting something. Natureium (talk) 03:41, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Let's Talk About Sects ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:15, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
On this topic, there's a fairly big difference between the claims of Catholic, Anglican, and Orthodox bishops and Pentecostal ones. The first three claim that their authority to teach and minister comes in a direct line from Jesus via the laying of hands of other bishops (see Apostolic Succession for more details if you're curious.) The first three claim a direct physical line of authority that if you had the resources and assuming there were no fires in the monasteries housing the documents you could trace back 1987 years. The farthest any modern historian has traced is ~1000 years back because once one document disappears all the ones preceeding it don't matter, but the idea is still very much there and alive in the documents from the First Millennium that the bishops of the East and the West were the actual successors to the apostles and that they very likely knew their lineages either via documentation or oral tradition. This concept is one of the central theological tenants of Catholicism, Anglicanism, and Orthodoxy and underlies the sacramental theology of Catholicism and Orthodoxy in particular.
Pentecostal bishops don't really claim this and they also have a much different sacramental system than the religious traditions I mentioned above. In this tradition, the title is sometimes literally just a title that someone gives himself or herself rather than a role in a larger denomination that requires the consent of other clerics or the lay faithful. There are Pentecostal bishops with roles beyond one specific physical church, but you don't know this solely based on the title. In this case, the individual did in fact have a larger role and probably is notable for Wikipedia purposes, but unlike bishops from other Christian traditions we do not assume notability since 1) the claims are different which means the religious tradition doesn't consider them to be as big a deal and 2) there's no assumption there would be any press about them since they aren't guaranteed to have a role that's larger than themselves. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:28, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
the lay faithful – Speaking of sects... EEng 01:51, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
And today I learned that John Wesley believed that apostolic succession could pass down through priests as well as bishops, and so Methodism has a less-direct claim to the succession. You really do learn something new every day around here. creffett (talk) 02:06, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
Wesley was consecrated a bishop by Erasmus of Arcadia so depending on the sacramental theology one holds he may have been a bishop within the traditional understanding, or at the very least you could debate it academically in Orthodox and Catholic theological circles and people wouldn't look at you strange.
Today's Methodist bishops are generally not recognized as having valid orders by the Orthodox and Catholic hierarchies. The Catholic Church only recognizes the orders of Eastern and Oriental Orthodox bishops. This has to do with the language used in the ordination rites—in Latin Catholic sacramental theology men are granted Holy Orders to offer sacrifice and the language surrounding the ordination as well as the intent need to be to ordain men to perform the sacrifice of Calvary as an Alter Christus. Leo XIII established this as the standard for the Catholic Church in his encyclical Apostolicae curae. To my knowledge, the Orthodox aren't as strict, but they're also unlikely to recognize the orders of any group with female bishops, which would rule out most Protestant groups with bishops these days. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:25, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) In the discipline of the Orthodox Church the consecration of a bishop requires at least three co-consecrating bishops. Also there are affirmations of doctrinal orthodoxy required. The Orthodox Church holds to the Cypriatic position that there are no Mysteries (sacraments) outside The Church. Heresy and schism are understood to separate one from the grace of the Holy Mysteries which in its fullness exists only within The Church. That said, The Church does not hold that non-Orthodox sacraments are meaningless. Only that they do not do what The Church does. What goes on outside The Church is generally seen as above our paygrade. But female ordination is not accepted in the Orthodox Church. For these reasons and other complicated theological issues we do not practice the modern custom of open communion. If you are suffering from a particularly severe case of insomnia, I would suggest this as a possible cure.-Ad Orientem (talk) 02:55, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
Ad Orientem, yes, the discipline is almost identical within the Catholic tradition, though the 1983 CIC allows for intercommunion with the Orthodox mainly on the grounds that both Churches retain access to sacramental absolution because of valid Holy Orders.
But on the question of what makes a valid bishop vs. a licit one the standard is one bishop intending to do what the Church intends. You can see this with the SSPX consecrations as well as ordinations in China by the underground Church after the establishment of the People’s Republic of China. In both cases the new bishops were 100% bishops. They just were either in schism (SSPX) or in the Chinese cases were ordained in emergencies not requiring the traditional three bishops. It’s a question of liturgical practice vs. sacramental validity. My guess would have been the concept would have been similar for the Orthodox, but if it’s not that would actually be very interesting. 03:17, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
In Orthodoxy we are bit stricter. The Russian Church Abroad was in a very tenuous relationship with the Church for many years given their extreme conservatism. And for a while they were "consecrating" bishops in some of the Greek Old Calendarist sects. While ROCOR was always recognized as being "in communion" albeit a strained one, with the canonical church, the Old Calendarist consecrations are universally rejected as schismatic and without grace. While it is understood that the Roman Church has extended sacramental hospitality to Orthodox Christians that alas is not reciprocated at present. Any Orthodox who communes with those outside the Church is understood to have self excommunicated them-self. In Orthodox ecclesiology, you are who you are in communion with. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:30, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
Ha! With all of this talk of Christianity, the significance of the username "Ad Orientem" just clicked for me - I knew the literal Latin meaning but forgot that it had a specific meaning in the context of church. creffett (talk) 03:22, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
It's also a very subtle pun since Ad is Eastern Orthodox. It is perhaps the most clever username on Wikipedia. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:25, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
There’s an open question as to if the episcopate is a distinct order from the presbyterate.
Also, Creffett, there’s actually room within the Catholic tradition to make a somewhat similar argument albeit different, but post-1960s it would be in the minority. Basically there’s an open question as to if the episcopate is a distinct order from the presbyterate or whether bishops are simply priests with added jurisdiction and faculties. Bishops alone would be the heirs to the apostles still, but would not be ontologically different than priests. If you want to see a linguistic representation of this priests and deacons are ordained while bishops were historically consecrated. Post-1960s you’re seeing a shift to the ceremony for making a bishop br called an episcopal ordination, which also follows the shift in the general sense of the Church on the nature of the episcopate. Both positions are still considered orthodox within the Catholic tradition, however. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:06, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
That's very interesting. I had no idea that the RCC was moving in that direction. The distinction between a bishop and presbyter in the threefold Mystery of Holy Orders is pretty much carved in stone within Orthodoxy. The bishop is considered the touchstone of the Church. Every Orthodox Christian is in communion with The Church through their bishop. Again see the piece by Zizioulas. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:17, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
Interesting! Since you mentioned the 1960s, does that mean that the shift is related to Second Vatican? Catholic history isn't really my strong area.
Regarding Methodism and succession - I figured that other traditions wouldn't recognize Methodist (or most other Protestant) succession. Just find it interesting since I'd never really thought about it too deeply. I don't think we put a significant amount of value in the literal succession (from what I remember of reading the Book of Discipline, I think we put more value in the continuation of the actions than the lineage). We do publish a "bishop lineage" of who-ordained-whom (it gets kind of complicated since the modern United Methodist Church is the result of some merges with other denominations, so there are paths which don't trace directly to Wesley). I'll have to ask my pastor about it sometime. creffett (talk) 03:19, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

@Ad and Creffett: as a point of clarity, the prevailing position within the Roman Catholic Church these days is that that the episcopate is a distinct order from the presbyterate and that bishops are ontologically distinct from priests.

It is an acceptable alternative, however, to hold that a bishop is a priest with added jurisdiction, similar to how the Pope is simply a bishop with added jurisdiction. There isn't an ontological difference in the nature of the Pope's soul upon being elected to the papacy than before (assuming he was already a bishop upon his election which has been the case for a few hundred years.) This doesn't change the position of the RCC that the Pope is the Vicar of Christ and Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church. It's a question of authority vs. how divine grace changes the nature of a soul.

If you want to look at some of the existing support in the liturgy past and present for the minority position, you can see phrases such as fullness of the priesthood used to describe being a bishop, a phrase which could be read something along the lines of a priest with the full authority to administer the sacraments without the need of anyone else's permission there's a very strong sense in Catholicism (not using the Roman identifier because this is true of both Latin and non-Latin sui iuris Churches) that the practiced tradition and prayers of the Church themselves hold teaching authority as a way of conveying Apostolic Tradition.

A more philosophical argument would go something along the lines of: upon his ordination a priest's soul is already configured in a way beyond description to Jesus Christ. He already has undergone one of the most profound ontological changes that can happen to a human being. It is not believed that a priest is any less of an Alter Christus than the bishop while performing the sacraments. Logically a priest doesn't really need to have his soul changed anymore because by virtue of his ordination he already is another Christ.

That is currently the minority position, and it's honestly not one that's debated that much even in academia. After Vatican II, where the whole of episcopacy was given a more visible role in the governance of the Church, the flow came somewhat naturally. As I mentioned, the prayers and small traditions of the Church are seen as a way that Apostolic Tradition is conveyed, and you're seeing the shift towards the "distinct ontologically from priests" position there. Even if the RCC were to formally take what is now the minority position, it wouldn't fundamentally change the understanding of what a bishop is: they are the heirs of the apostles. They have the authority to teach, to ordain priests, deacons, and other bishops, to hear confessions without the permission of another bishop, to confirm the faithful in their diocese at any time without special conditions or permission from another bishop, and to be the Vicar of Christ for the see entrusted to them.

What the debate boils down to is: is the episcopacy added authority (like the papacy) or is it a change to the nature of a man's soul. This is one of the few parts of Catholic sacramental theology that still does not have a defined answer. Like I said, it's not particularly discussed that much these days, but if you ever want to clear a party you now have an insanely minute discussion on the intersection of Catholic sacramental theology and ontology to get people out of your house. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:47, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

A request

Tony, could you please indefinitely semi-protect my talk page. I'm out of Wikipedia, but having to return now and again to remove grave-dancers and trolls is beginning to become tiresome. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:03, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

 Done. If you become active again we can lift it. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:10, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Dear toni

Can you please tell me what is the criteria for becoming a beurocrats Maizbhandariya (talk) 01:09, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Maizbhandariya to be a bureaucrat, you typically have to be an administrator for at least a 18 months or more. To be an administrator, the de facto current standard is 10,000 edits and a year of actively editing, but there's not official standard for either. Regardless, you need more experience before going for either. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:13, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks tonu Maizbhandariya (talk) 01:14, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

And what will be the criteria for confirmed user Maizbhandariya (talk) 01:16, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Maizbhandariya, confirmed comes after being registered for 4 days and making 10 edits (technically that's "autoconfirmed," but it and confirmed essentially mean the same thing). Extended confirmed comes after being registered for 30 days and making 500 edits. creffett (talk) 01:21, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Maizbhandariya (talk) 01:22, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Message

Hello, I just wanted to ask if I'm going to be blocked? I noticed the case had been closed but I want to use {{*SPI case status*}} to prove that I'm not a sockpuppet. (Sapah3 (talk) 07:10, 19 April 2020 (UTC))

Sorry, I re-read the article and I noticed that you are the SPI clerk. Do I need to provide more evidence to support my claims? (Sapah3 (talk) 07:18, 19 April 2020 (UTC))
(talk page watcher) @Sapah3: it was closed as "Unrelated" ten minutes before you posted here  :) ——SN54129 09:02, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
@Serial Number 54129: thank you for your reply. I wasn't fully aware of what was happening regarding the case so thanks for the clarification. (Sapah3 (talk) 11:12, 19 April 2020 (UTC))

DYK or GA a week-- challenge to admins who work in maintenance areas

Since I have more time at home now to the present situation; I've decided that I'm going to do a DYK or GA a week until 20 June 2020. I'm here to build an encyclopedia, but because of work and other real life commitments, I've focused my limited time here on CU/OS matters for the last year or two because I thought (and still think) it was probably the best way to deal with the commitments I had while still giving back to a project I care deeply about. I also have the goal of finishing the 17th century conclaves GA series, though I may need to order another book to do that. Anyway, I'm making this challenge and I'll update it weekly. If you want to publicly commit to a goal like this, I'd encourage you to post something to your talk page or even here. Saying you'll try. Most of us came here because of the content and then drifted behind the scenes. Showing a commitment to improving or expanding content by the admin corps is important, and also reminds us of the challenges those who focus primarily on content deal with. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:36, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Well said, Tony, so right and so easy to forget! I'm going to think about – but not commit to! – a minimum of a stub per week. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:55, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation

Hi @TonyBallioni: Recently Innocent Paki was blocked for puppetry]. Is there a reason his block is only for one week instead of indefinite?Alishernavoi (talk) 21:30, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Because it was only one account, he has over 1500 edits, and he hadn’t done it before. Clearly not a troll, but also clearly violation policy. If it happens again it will be indef. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:39, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Ah, I didnt realize that more than one sock had to be created in order to be indef'ed. I thought it was a "if you sock, you get indeffed" policy. Thanks. Alishernavoi (talk) 23:36, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Alishernavoi, we can indef with just one. Depends on the situation. This wasn’t that bad (no harassment or anything.) To be honest, I’m also a little selfish: I don’t want another long-term socking case in the South Asian topic area and if it’s minor I’m inclined to give them a final chance and hope they take it rather than spend the next 18 months dealing with their socks. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:39, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

the race and intelligence RFC

I just wanted to say that I think you gave a fair, thoughtful, reasoned close to the RFC. I didn't participate in the RFC because I couldn't make up my mind, or rather I could see points on all sides, so I admire your willingness to go through all of the arguments and digressions and passion to identify the consensus. Thanks for taking that on. Schazjmd (talk) 23:30, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

+1, thanks for taking that on. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 23:58, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Thanks for reading through all of that, we sure all wrote a lot, shame you didn’t weigh the arguments in your written close. Not sure you got the first consensus right and that was that this RfC required a three admin panel to close it.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 00:02, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
    • @Literaturegeek: You're free to challenge it at AN. The question is not whether or not I think factual arguments are correct, but how participants in the discussion apply policy to facts. I identified the relevant policy definition, and read comments based on how they responded to that question. There was consensus that a genetic link fall's under the English Wikipedia's guideline definition of fringe. You interpreted the facts the other way. That was taken into account, but that was not the overall consensus.
      On the panel point, no discussion ever requires a three admin close, and usually they're bad ideas in my view. My words can stand on my own without others signing them in agreement. If someone wants to challenge them through the formal procedures, that's fine, but having done the contentious close panel-thing before, ultimately one person ends up getting challenged and having to explain it for all three, so it's just cleaner to have one closer. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:24, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Tony, thanks for taking this on. It is really very much appreciated. And you're right - your word, or any admin's word, stands on their own. As far as I know all admins are equipped for a job like this. It all depends if they mind doing a job like this. Maybe brand new Admins would not be ready - this I don't know. I just assume any Admin who is willing to close an RFC is probably equipped to do so. And there are very sharp non-admins who could also do this. Regards. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 00:44, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
  • +1, thanks for putting in the time and effort to weigh arguments against policy. –dlthewave ☎ 00:46, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

MustafaO

Hey! Just to confirm: is MustafaO banned due to 3X (they're not listed as blocked on their use page)? A CU has confirmed sock puppet abuse twice since their initial block. --MrClog (talk) 21:32, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, by my count. All it means is that they have to go to AN when they appeal in 6 months, though :) TonyBallioni (talk) 21:37, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. I made the change in their sockmaster template. --MrClog (talk) 21:39, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi

Did you get my email? Doug Weller talk 17:55, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

I’ll look now. Sorry if I missed it. The OS OTRS notification and ACC auto generated stuff makes my wiki inbox chaotic. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:07, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
Found it. Responded. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:09, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Thanks for dealing with my fan club last night. That'll teach me not to sign off for something as frivolous as a night's sleep. Cabayi (talk) 06:32, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Dear toni

I need your help for my article Saqib Iqbal Shami to make it more acceptable as per wp gn policies so that it will be added in a good article list thanks have a great day Maizbhandariya (talk) 17:07, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Silly me again

Meh.

Well.

Hi TonyBallioni,

Regarding Special:Contributions/Souniel_Yadav, I shouldn't have touched this block without asking you before. I'm stumbling with an alarming frequency regarding checkuserblocks in the recent past. Having a close look at the blocking policy again, as the user wasn't pleading innocence, I hope the decision was in line with it, but I should perhaps better not touch any topic labelled "checkuser" in the next months. I'm sorry.

I hope the decision is fine and mostly a problem for formal reasons only. I'll take a break.

Best regards,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 10:56, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

You can revoke TPA without talking to us. Even if someone isn’t pleading innocent, they need permission from a CU to be unblocked. And yeah, if you have any questions you can skip :) TonyBallioni (talk) 00:16, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
That's a huge relief, TonyBallioni, thank you very much. I had assumed the same, then felt shock running through my veins when I had clicked the button and saw my name next to a checkuserblock log entry. I knew it was one, and I knew "Administrators must not undo nor loosen any block that is specifically called a 'CheckUser block' without first consulting a CheckUser" per WP:CU, but I realized too late that WP:CUBL has a slightly different wording ("undo or alter") that could theoretically make my quick decision an admonishable one. It's good to know that my instinct was correct, but I really panicked for a moment. I know the spirit of the policy is more important than its wording, but this is an area where the wording of policy is very carefully selected to avoid ambiguity and bad excuses. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 10:14, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Recent comment

Hey Tony,

With regards to your comment on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Icewhiz/Archive#24 April 2020: I'm as familiar with Icewhiz's editing patterns as the OP, yet I wasn't pinged to that case despite his statement that he will "inform several other editors familiar with [this]". My comments had nothing to do with any ongoing content disputes, only with the OP's claims, and his conduct within the TA. The OP regularly states that he wishes to "calm down the TA" and criticizes any use of ANI/AE, yet he makes liberal use of SPI - he has now filed five such requests against Icewhiz, all failed - and makes frequent accusations of "sockpuppeting" against new editors. This sort of conduct is not conducive for building good faith within the TA, is a deterrent of new editors, and a waste of administrators' time.

That said, I appreciate your firmness in this matter. If in the future I find myself in a situation where other editors make off-color comments about myself, I trust I could approach you to enforce the relevant policies to keep discussion on track.

Best regards,

François Robere (talk) 11:01, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for reaching out. If there is ongoing behavioral concerns AN or ANI are the best place. SPI is typically used for good faith concerns about abuse of multiple accounts. If people are abusing it, we can ask them to stop, but I don’t see abuse of that process currently. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:09, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Some stroopwafels for you!

Thanks for your advice on the mailing list. The guideline is a bit ambiguous, so it's good that you offered some advice based on your experience. MrClog (talk) 22:21, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
I have left the article alone awaiting the Foundation's response. If you believe it would be good to stubify it until we hear more, I will do so. --MrClog (talk) 22:24, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Check-User on IP 176.88.142.166

Hello Tony Ballioni, I have just checked that a disruptive IP user 176.88.142.166, have been vandalising and making disruptive edits in some Articles, he have been blocked for a period of 48 hours by User:331dot. I asked him so a Check User could be made to verify if he is a Sock Puppet and ban him. I have been checking his edits and he have the same behaviour as a previous SockPuppet that vandalised articles in February March 2020.

Hope you could use that Tool to check on this accounts.

1)User:RandomAccount13343413
User:RandomAccount1235423
User:KasimMejia
User:Gilesartq
User:SyriaAnalyst
User:Nabu-Kudurri-Usur Yaniv
110.168.30.203
176.88.143.228

2) If not maybe this another account
User:Gala19000
User:Hakan3400
User:Türk260000

Thanks.Mr.User200 (talk) 23:02, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Mr.User200, based on the privacy policy I can’t publicly link accounts to IPs. Sorry I can’t be of more help. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:34, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
So a Check User could not be made. There is no way to verify is they have same account??Mr.User200 (talk) 23:43, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
I can compare other accounts to one another and look for potential hidden accounts, but I can’t publicly connect the IP to any account. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:54, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Ok thanks. Hope that Anon IP dont come back vandlising articles.Mr.User200 (talk) 16:39, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2020).

Administrator changes

removed Gnangarra • Kaisershatner • Malcolmxl5

CheckUser changes

readded Callanecc

Oversight changes

readded HJ Mitchell

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:19, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

ANI notice because I mentioned your CU

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Retaliatory SPI?. Nil Einne (talk) 04:57, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Nil Einne, thanks, replied. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:30, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Topic ban

If you would consider limiting the scope or duration, I would appreciate it. I do plan on filing a formal appeal. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 01:05, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi Wikieditor19920 feel free to file an appeal. Considering that as a whole we're moving towards indefinite TBANs and away from limited duration ones, I consider 3 months pretty short, so I won't be shortening it. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:06, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks

Working fine now. 😀 Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:06, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Miraclepine at UTRS

Miraclepine is requesting unblock on UTRS. They have addressed all the issues and I am inclined to unblock, albeit earlier than anticipated. Please let me know if you are agreeable. Thanks, --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 18:10, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi Deepfriedokra, I think Bradv mentioned something about them sending him an email with inappropriate images or something similar when he reached out to ArbCom for an unblock. If I’m remembering the correct person, I’d be disinclined to unblock. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:27, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
(Non-anything comment) On their talk page, MP accepted and agreed to the standard offer, including its six-month duration. Looking back, I think that was for the best; I wonder why it isn't any more? serial # 18:34, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
Good to know. How long ago? Sounds like they were not past their "personal issues" and I don't want them to return before they are ready. I left BradV a note too. If I don't here back I will decline and hold them to the SO timeline. --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 18:31, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
I saw Brad’s ping. I’m less concerned about the email now after discussing it offline. My personal view is that I don’t think Miraclepine will be an asset to this project, so I personally wouldn’t unblock them, but I typically have a stricter view of unblocks than many, so don’t let that prevent you from unblocking if you’re comfortable. Use your judgement here :) TonyBallioni (talk) 19:48, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
Deepfriedokra, see above. Also just a general note that I prefer if they make the appeal on-wiki with TPA if you’re considering granting— that way it’s public what they say. Otherwise, like I said, use your judgement even if I’m skeptical :) TonyBallioni (talk) 21:08, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Tony. Restoring TPA sounds like a good first step. But maybe not till tomorrow. --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 21:15, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Yep. I agree. I’m comfortable with you doing whatever you think is best here. No real “objection” from me if you’re convinced. Just skepticism. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:17, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Technical error amendment

A while ago it was pointed out that there is a technical error [2], in the article sourcing expectations the text states to cover all articles on the topic of Polish history during World War II (1933-45), but it should state 1939-1945.This wasn't changed. Can somebody fix this or should petition be made?--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 12:05, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

I wasn’t involved with the original case, but I was involved with drafting a restriction in the German War Effort case. The 1933-1945 dates were used in that case to mean anything in the nazi error and I think using the 1933-1945 definition of World War II and it’s run up makes a lot of sense for consistency purposes. Basically the idea is that we’re saying Hitler and his megalomania were a big enough force in Europe in the 1930s that the timeframe on the continent is likely to be read through that lens. As such, sanctions surrounding WW2 should have a broad timeframe to encompass the road to war (also cc’ing Worm That Turned since he commented on that thread.) TonyBallioni (talk) 14:22, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Email from blocked user

Hello. I received an email from User:Wumbolo completely out-of-the-blue this afternoon, in which they reported an alleged sock puppet on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tara Reade. I thought the email was odd, and didn't immediately remember that Wumbolo had been indefinitely blocked a few months ago. Seeing as you were the blocking admin, I thought I would bring this to your attention just to be on the safe side. Sorry if this is an overreaction. For reference, the text of the message is as-follows:

There's a sock at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tara Reade. Napoleonjosephine2020 is a sock of Monab2020. The names are similar, they registered their accounts within an hour, they are both SPAs, and they both posted in a same AfD. This is a bit old situation, but it should be taken care of, so there is no way it can influence the current Tara Reade AfD. Please report it to SPI.

Thanks, KidAd (talk) 23:29, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Revoked their email. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:35, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Unblock request: GargAvinash/Kumargargavinash

I see you closed this AN thread. No issue with you instating (reinstating) the block. However, I'd like a chance for my proposal to gain consensus. The discussion is obviously not new but my proposal is and so far had a favorable reception. Could it be re-opened so that there would be a chance to see what the consensus for it might be? Thanks and best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:41, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

No problem with starting a subthread under it. I was alluding to your proposal in my close, but didn’t mention it directly because I didn’t think it’d get consensus without extending the discussion past its natural end, but if there’s a subthread it might attract attention and get resolved in a few days. I think having it combined with the initial discussion would make it less likely to get comments/more difficult to determine consensus since you’d be somewhat mixing proposals. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:57, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
TonyBallioni, yeah I was also thinking of a distinct subthread. So great minds. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:17, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Getting ridiculous...

But could someone deal with this sorts of edits? diff --Ealdgyth (talk) 12:08, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi Ealdgyth see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Fireslow. We're not entirely sure what is going on here (I don't mind admitting that.) There are a ton of proxies both at the Fireslow and Icewhiz SPIs, and we think at least two different people. I'm not really sure if this is actually a Polish nationalist or an LTA trolling because they realize it's a high dramah area right now, but it's probably the most frustrating content/admin/CU area I've worked in. If you see anything more like this where it looks like a sock and is more aggressive than a civil POV pusher type, I'd either block as a Fireslow sock or report it to that SPI and Berean Hunter and I can take a look. I'm personally hoping ArbCom does go with the 500/30 rule for the entire topic area at this point because dealing with all this only from an SPI perspective would not be fun. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:13, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
I'm not comfortable blocking myself because of my (minimal but still there) involvement in the topic area. Luckily, it got handled. The whole topic area is ... I don't have enough cuss words, I don't think. --Ealdgyth (talk) 20:40, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
I've decided to withdraw from editing the area. It may be the worst I've seen on Wikipedia. I tried briefly in response to the Grabowski article, but I can't keep going. SarahSV (talk) 23:46, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
I stopped helping as an admin in the area for about a year after someone went on a neo-Nazi website to praise me for my putting Jews in their place and a friend on Wikipedia. Obviously a false-flag account meant to paint me as an antisemite beloved by the worst of humanity, but I don’t particularly like off-wiki attempts to get people to think libelous things about me. It’s truly toxic. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:51, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
That's the kind of thing to expect. I'm sorry that happened to you. I think I was heading toward it too. I've been accused on my talk page of trying to play down the negative nature of one particular antisemitic idea, which is not only false but my edits show the opposite. There's no commitment in the topic area to accuracy or following mainstream scholarship. It's all about advocacy. Any solution would have to be systemic and involve the community, functionaries and ArbCom. It can't be left to individuals. SarahSV (talk) 00:03, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

There is little I can do, but I've semi-protected a couple of them for really, really long. Drmies (talk) 00:55, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

vandalism

Please consider checking contribution made by user: Alex1981march he added a non-notable and fake name to cast list after adding it to IMDB to create a fake reference — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.59.1.61 (talk) 08:16, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

May 2020

I trust that this is satisfactory. Now kindly unblock the IP; having to log in is a major nuisance to me. Iaritmioawp (talk) 20:25, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

No. You've gotten in disputes with two editors on their talk pages on issues involving policy while logged out within the last week (see here and here. If you're going to be arguing about the nuances of policy with people and you have an account, you need to use it. If you want the the line from policy Editing under multiple IP addresses, or editing under both a named account and as an IP, may be treated as the same level of disruption as editing under multiple accounts when it is done deceptively or otherwise violates the principles of this policy. In my mind, getting into disputes over policy nuances while logged out quite clearly violates the intent of the policy. It also clearly isn't actually a major nuisance for you as evidenced by this message. If you're going to pick fights, log in to do so. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:33, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Actually, it is a major nuisance because I use a setup such that I have to log in anew every time I go from one page to another. The policy you quoted intends to prevent a user from using multiple accounts/IPs to create the impression that there is more support for their point of view than there actually is, which clearly doesn't apply to my situation in any way. I know that you're used to dealing with editors who use alternate accounts/edit while logged out to disrupt the project but in my case, it really is just for the sake of convenience. In fact, I find it mildly annoying that the IP edits don't go on my account's track record but as the saying goes, you can't have your cake and eat it. I must also disagree with your characterization of my edits as "getting into disputes over policy nuances." This was not a "dispute" at all and it was hardly nuanced; I just answered a help request with a very reasonable reality check that the user unfortunately needed and that nobody else was willing to step up to the table to provide; they were pushing a non-issue to a point where it seemed likely it was going to boomerang and I made an attempt to prevent that. This was/is not a dispute either but rather, it's a very reasonable attempt to stop an admin from biting a new user. If you believe it to not be reasonable, I'd love to hear why. These aren't "fights" by any stretch of imagination. I'm surprised that anyone would call them that; nothing I said in these two instances was in any way controversial.
Having considered all of the above, do you intend to uphold the block? Iaritmioawp (talk) 21:23, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Yes. If you want to appeal the block on the IP talk page, you may. See WP:GAB for instructions. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:26, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
I've requested a review of the block, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#IP block review. Iaritmioawp (talk) 08:39, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TonyBallioni/Archive_34&oldid=960331651"