Jump to content

User talk:TonyBallioni/Archive 36

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 30←Archive 34Archive 35Archive 36Archive 37Archive 38→Archive 40

Thank you

GizzyCatBella🍁 05:08, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

GizzyCatBella, the functionaries list is aware of the situation and a lot of us are monitoring it. Hopefully we can find a way to slow it down to the point they get bored soon. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:12, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
I hope so..thank you again for being so quick.GizzyCatBella🍁 05:18, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
[1] - GizzyCatBella🍁 03:51, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
Yeah. MyRoyalYoung has decided to play copycat. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:55, 14 June 2020 (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. Signed,The4lines |||| (You Asked?) (What I have Done.) 14:33, 16 June 2020 (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.— Ss112 02:07, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer newsletter June 2020

Hello TonyBallioni,

Your help can make a difference

NPP Sorting can be a great way to find pages needing new page patrolling that match your strengths and interests. Using ORES, it divides articles into topics such as Literature or Chemistry and on Geography. Take a look and see if you can find time to patrol a couple pages a day. With over 10,000 pages in the queue, the highest it's been since ACPERM, your help could really make a difference.

Google Adds New Languages to Google Translate

In late February, Google added 5 new languages to Google Translate: Kinyarwanda, Odia (Oriya), Tatar, Turkmen and Uyghur. This expands our ability to find and evaluate sources in those languages.

Discussions and Resources
  • A discussion on handling new article creation by paid editors is ongoing at the Village Pump.
  • Also at the Village Pump is a discussion about limiting participation at Articles for Deletion discussion.
  • A proposed new speedy deletion criteria for certain kinds of redirects ended with no consensus.
  • Also ending with no change was a proposal to change how we handle certain kinds of vector images.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 10271 Low – 4991 High – 10271

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:52, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Help regarding fixing errors

Hi, TonyBallioni I have requested for a file-name extention correction at File:Dilip Ghosh Signature.png.jpg. I would kindly request if you can approve the change . Thank you. ~ Amkgp 💬 19:58, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

That appears to be a file on commons currently. Nick, could you do whatever magic is required on that side of the house? Thanks. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:59, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

AE close

While I understand that you closed this appeal based on the apparent consensus. I would still like to know if you will have no problem if I made my argument to overturn this decision on ARCA? Thanks. Shashank5988 (talk) 22:28, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't think overturning an appeal is within ARCA's scope, and I don't think it's ever been done before. You're free to challenge my actions anywhere (I really don't mind), but my thought process would be that since there is no sanction to be clarified or amended, the arbs probably wouldn't go for it. I think the best thing would be to see if there is any future disruption, and if there is, put a new AE request in asking for a new topic ban. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:43, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
Since AE comes under the jurisdiction of Arbcom, they reserve the right to overturn any decision made on AE. I have mentioned you on my recent filing on ARCA.[2] Shashank5988 (talk) 16:58, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

All-Polish Youth

Hello, given that you have an edit about protection of History of the Jews in Poland I thought you might be able to weigh in on Talk:All-Polish Youth#"based on fascist doctrines" as your input would probably be better explained than I have managed to do. I did the request to protect the article initially as there were multiple IP and single-purpose accounts removing sourced content from it every once in a while hence my stance now; however, I may be wrong here, so it's best someone else weighs in? Abcmaxx (talk) 19:10, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I'm not overly familiar with this sort of thing, and it looks to fall outside of the remit of the recent ArbCom motion, so wouldn't qualify immediately for protection. I alerted one of the new accounts to the DS for Eastern Europe, though. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:24, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Pending changes

Isn't there something we can do to give it more bite for longterm editors who have the user right, or would it be better to eliminate it all together? I am aware of the growing backlogs in various areas where the mop is needed but this one seems easy enough to fix. Atsme Talk 📧 02:02, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

I’m not sure what much else there is to do: it doesn’t really do much. People love suggesting using it for BLPs, but it’s not great there because it sticks violations permanently in the history. I don’t really think we’ll ever get rid of it, but it’s worth pointing out when people are talking about it on a large scale that it’s not great. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:06, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
I don’t really think we’ll ever get rid of it. We might, in a few years - T185664. Looks like it might be headed for undeployment. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:53, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

notice

Thank you, noted. I have small input, but only reason of my edits is strict following the sources, or remove editions misinterpreting them. Best regards Kojoto (talk) 21:56, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Not a problem. It's just a notice letting you know special rules are in place. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:12, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – July 2020

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

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:26, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Question on notifications

Hello TonyBallioni. I just wanted to ask you if a Sockpuppeting case is opened against a user, is that user supposed to be notified that they are being accused of abusing accounts and sockpuppeting? There fore allowing them to have a say in the case? I came across an past case that was opened against me and it seems the person who filed it never did notify me. I only found out after being blocked. [Case in question] As if so I wouldn’t know it was happening. Is it a requirement to notify the accused? Thanks and stay well. Also thank you again for unblocking me that time. I continue to use solely one account as promised. OyMosby (talk) 16:44, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

We don’t require notifications for SPIs and most of the time people aren’t notified. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:23, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Haikyu (season 1)

Can you restore the page without the summaries or show me the history link from 17:54, 28 June 2020 on List of Haikyu epiosdes so I can do it because this isn't right for other people. SpectresWrath (talk) 03:57, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I’d talk to the deleting admin. I’m not that familiar with that page. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:24, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Grosaktion Warsaw

Why was Grossaktion Warsaw protected for extended access? I need to make an edit. In the second section it should be "the SS commander in charge of all police and security forces in the General Government", not just SS commander in charge of the General Government, as to not confuse people. Thanks. Edit0r6781 (talk) 19:16, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

The page for Treblinka was also protected. These are pages that I've made approved edits on that I can no longer contribute to. Edit0r6781 (talk) 19:21, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi Edit0r6781, the Arbitration Committee placed a restriction in place requiring individuals be extended confirmed in order to edit pages related to Antisemitism in Poland from 1933-1945, including the Holocaust in Poland. My protection was enforcing this ruling. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:28, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

That's disappointing. I've made approved edits on both those pages and now I can't contribute to them anymore. Any idea when this is going to be lifted? Edit0r6781 (talk) 19:36, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Edit0r6781, probably never. There’s been some fairly extreme harassment of editors in that topic area. You can always make requests on the talk page. You’ll also be able to edit directly if you make 500 edits to other pages. K.e.coffman is a good individual to reach out to for advice on contributing to this era on Wikipedia. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:40, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

July 2020

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

Thanks, -- SashiRolls 🌿 · 🍥 11:15, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

RFA - loss versus gain

is there a good link for the loss/gain of the last couple of years? or is it I have noticed the departures keenly because I have known quite a few of them ? JarrahTree 05:19, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi, JarrahTree. I'm sure someone has it Kudpung or WereSpielChequers would be the ones who would be most likely to know. I've actually argued that our level at RfA right now is about right in terms of standards. We're promoting significantly more qualified people (like Wugapodes), while also realizing that yes, being an admin on the default educational resource for the world requires a certain level of competence and familiarity with policy that it didn't in 2005. The numbers might not be pre-2007 level, but I think on the whole we've found a good balance of being willing to accept mistakes while also having standards.
Ultimately I think this project is probably headed to around 500-600 admins while staying at around 3000-4000 active users. That really isn't too huge a crisis. For one, we have bots that do a lot of the work that used to require admin intervention. Edit filters also are extremely helpful, and things such as unbundling page mover, rollback, etc. decrease the need for the high number of admins we once had. I'm certainly always for new blood, but I think the thing a lot of people tend to forget about institutions (which Wikipedia is at this point) is that very rarely do they actually collapse over stuff like declining "leadership". People find ways to adapt, and the sheer inertia of the institution tends to find ways to solve problems. Anyway, more admins generally is better than less, but I'm also not really on board the Adminship is a sinking ship bandwagon just yet. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:32, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Ta for that - interesting - there are some parts of regional admin loss which I find quite problematic - but that's a complex interaction between understanding local languages and contexts. So it is where a project/country base where the loss of admins or activity by ones still on the books but not active, leaves areas where watchlist coverage is obviously not on many radars. Hmm just thinking about it - smells of a wikimania presentation as to why and how some areas degrade due to the lack of attention or presence of watchlists... and seeing you mention it when the bots work in some areas - it is very good to see when there's not an admin in sight... - thanks for your reply - good to see you remain positive - I remain very wary from my watchlist areas... JarrahTree 05:41, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

For what its worth, I'd support you at RfA just from general impression. Haven't dug too deep, but you've always been sensible and a nice human being. I'm trying to spend more time doing other hobbies these days to distract myself from work during the COVID (I'm teaching myself Spanish by translating the Spanish subtitles of Money Heist), so I'm probably not the best person to ask for a nom right now, but I'd happily support with a fairly detailed rationale. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:51, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
Ten years ago I was asked regularly - but following the process of watching others going through the hoops, and watching the process then and now, I think that the idea of admin gauntlet process of dealing with idiots en masse gives me the beegees hola! My first second language has given me brain things that have stuffed spanish acquisition short of being stuck in a 3 year retreat with only a spanish book... Nah - what concerns me more is the critical mass of others who have certain watchlists and capacities - thanks for the thought anyways. JarrahTree 06:02, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping. The admin newsletter lists desyoppings, resysoppings and new admins. But I suspect the biggest change is between active and inactive admins. I find the edit history of list of administrators the easiest way to follow that (supposedly we have about 500 active admins and a slightly larger number of semiactive ones, I suspect the truth is that we have 400 active administrators and 600 who count as active for one month of the year). Gaps in watchlist coverage are certainly a problem, but I suspect from the thanks I get for my typo fixes that most watchlisters are not admins - we have an active community of several thousand of whom perhaps a tenth are admins. Given the many changes in the community and one big change in technology I think we have a viable and surprisingly stable community that can keep the project going for quite a few years to come. Hopefully for long enough for either PCs to come back into fashion or for the WMF to make the mobile editing interface more attractive/functional. In the era of ex[pmential growth, anyone with internet access could edit Wikipedia. In much of the world we are now in an era where the dominant internet access is by mobile device, and with a very few exceptions, to our mobile users Wikipedia is a searchable site not an editable one. ϢereSpielChequers 07:25, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
Thanks very much for your responses - I see a couple of projects where editors are able to lord it over a project where admins have dried up and the editors are able to practically change context of articles, and categories without as much as either a check of an experienced knowledgable admin with the project content on watch or even much as a community response because of the manner of grinding down different opinions... maybe there are some subject areas where there are adequate checks and balances, hope the situation is not repeated too much across the broader project. JarrahTree 08:01, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Question about reporting obvious sockpuppetry

If I see obvious sockpuppetry, should I ask a CheckUser about it? Username6892 01:32, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Depends on the situation. If there’s never been a check done and there’s indications there could be other accounts, sure. If it’s just some long-term abuser, then report them as you would any other vandal and we’ll eventually do a range sweep. If it involves an established editor, yes, I wouldn’t suggest blocking without CU. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:42, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi, can I report an obvious case of using multiple accounts: Albin369 and William3699. Overlapping edits with only minutes difference, same activity and also misleading edit summaries, not to mention the "369" - [3][4], [5][6], and see here [7][8] with the new account returning to make the same edit which was contested. Please take necessary action. 137.97.167.2 (talk) 18:41, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Huggums537 @ UTRS.

https://utrs-beta.wmflabs.org/appeal/31965 Hello, you have extensive knowledge of this user's concerns and have UTRS access. My limited discussion with them has been unproductive. Thanks, --Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:50, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

@Deepfriedokra and Boing! said Zebedee: I’m about involved up to my eyeballs here, but I’ve never met a more paranoid user on this website. Just glancing over the UTRS, I also see he hasn’t really changed much in terms of lawyering and splitting hairs. Anyway, I’m not a Huggums fan. I’ll just say that. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:21, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
I think the best approach is probably just to restore TPA and allow a public unblock request, and I have made it so. Buck passed. Over and out. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:38, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Yeah. I think that makes sense. Let it be public. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:48, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
@Boing! said Zebedee: Fantastic! Gotta say I agree with Tony's view. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:45, 10 July 2020 (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. Jerod Lycett (talk) 06:17, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious
Three years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:25, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Ok?

But why block if I'm improving a page? 🙄 Kozmik Pariah (talk) 22:35, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Kozmik Pariah, you aren't blocked. You're editing on a network that is used by a disruptive user. You're logged in now, so you are free to edit. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:45, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Protection request

Hello, can you please protect Ali Mansur as it hijacked a lot of times by long term abuse? Thanks on advance --Alaa :)..! 18:44, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

And this one under Cross-wiki spam Draft:Ali Mansour (actor), plus see Draft talk:Ali Mansour (actor) please. Thanks --Alaa :)..! 19:13, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
علاء, both  Done. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:21, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
TonyBallioni, Thank you 💐 --Alaa :)..! 19:22, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
Hey, here again. Thanks --Alaa :)..! 13:22, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, done by GeneralNotability --Alaa :)..! 17:47, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Please see

User:Smallbones/Proposed commercial editing policy

Smallbones(smalltalk) 02:06, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

ARCA closed

I have closed the AE appeal at ARCA to which you were listed as a party. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 23:28, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

(My apologies, the correct link is Special:Permalink/967383051#Amendment_request:_India-Pakistan.) Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 18:00, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Ping

Hi. I left you a ping attempt at ANI that may have been defective. The post is here. SPECIFICO talk 16:11, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, could you point to the diff people are referencing as Levivich’s analysis? I have been critical of him in the past, and I saw that MastCell recently called him out on using misleading statistics in a ban review discussion, but I’m not familiar with this discussion as I don’t have ANI on my watchlist and try to stay out of the AP2 area in terms of content. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:29, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
Levivich's diff to support TBAN of @Soibangla: and then a rebuttal by an editor who actually took an uncommon amount of care to the links and their contexts and a further rebuttal. The whole thread is kind of a horror, but in a nutshell my view is that a content dispute was precipitously and needlessly escalated to ANI whereupon ensued a pile-on. SPECIFICO talk 16:52, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
It's probably polite to ping Levivich over here too. Lev, apparently that post was just too well-formatted for it's own good. Mr Ernie (talk) 09:00, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
If I had commented I was going to link. I really don’t want drama on my talk page, which is why I personally didn’t ping him. I typically don’t when people in disputes ask for advice on my talk. If people disagreeing over ANI comments want to argue, they can do it at ANI, not here. If people want to draw my attention to something, I’ll look but might not actually comment. I don’t think I said anything above Levivich isn’t aware of. TonyBallioni (talk) 12:49, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Suggestion

Question about special notice

I noticed you placed this new template [9] at the top of the Racial Views of Joe Biden AfD. I found it strange that you added "You additionally may not edit, remove, or alter comments by other editors for any reason as a page specific discretionary sanction." (emphasis mine). I know our policy is Never edit other's comments, but there are certain exceptions (listed there) and when someone adds a blatant attack on my twelve year edit history, I think I have a right to remove that. I also was not looking to escalate this either, but since you placed the notice there, I now must ask what your reasoning is and what I now must do if someone restores it or places a similar attack.--Rusf10 (talk) 03:47, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Rusf10. Yes, the sanction was worded that way intentionally: it's saying the normal exceptions don't apply. AP2 is a high temperature area, and have people editing others comments on the grounds that they're attacks, having others revert them, and then eventual reversions of the reversion doesn't help lower the temperature there, even if the comments removed are personal attacks.
In terms of what you can do, the first thing would be to approach the other editor on their talk page. If that doesn't work and you believe that another user has violated the behavioural standards of discretionary sanctions, you can request administrator intervention at WP:AE. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:07, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
That is what I was trying to avoid. I already been told I file frivolous AE requests (something I do not agree with) and it certainly does not help if you are now telling me to file at AE over a single comment. It is especially difficult when the person making the personal attack is an admin. (as is the case this time). The normal exceptions exist for a reason, I do not think it is good policy to allow someone to add a personal attack and then put in place a barrier to its prompt removal.--Rusf10 (talk) 04:17, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
Well, it wasn't just you. By my count five editors have been involved with either removing or restoring comments claimed to be personal attacks. If you count the editors who made the comments that were altered, it raises it to seven. Each of them is previously involved in the AfD. I think its a fairly uncontroversial statement to say that individuals who are involved in a heated discussion in a controversial topic area usually are not the most unbiased judges of what is and isn't an attack. I also think it is uncontroversial to say that removing or altering a comment that another user does not view as an attack is unlikely to promote dialogue around the merits of the article.
When there's this much activity surrounding editing others comments and disagreement surrounding what is and is not a personal attack in one of the more controversial topic areas on the English Wikipedia, in my view placing a sanction that basically requires individuals to either come to an agreement amongst themselves or to seek outside review of the behaviour is necessary and proportionate for the smooth running of the project. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:30, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

AN

I've asked for a review of your threats and inappropriate close ignoring my comments and ignoring blatant WP:NPA violations at AN. Since I can't actually take any of the behavior to AE/Arbitration as an IP, that's the only thing I can do. 52.119.101.2 (talk) 06:30, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Not a problem. I have no problem with the community reviewing my comments. As I said, any uninvolved administrator is free to undo my close, and I did not say I would block you myself, though I do think whomever reviews the thread should. Anyway, thanks for bringing the situation to wider attention. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:53, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Improper DS

You imposed this DS, but I am not sure that it is proper. If someone posts a BLP violation in their comment are you saying they can be sanctioned for removing it? BLP instructs editors that such comments "should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." I wasn't able to see any exceptions for DS type restrictions. Mr Ernie (talk) 06:56, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't think any of the comments that were altered on that page related to BLP. If someone was calling a living person a pedophile or something of the sort, we'd obviously remove it, and I don't think anyone would question removing an allegation like that because of a DS banner.
The fighting over whether or not comments were personal attacks and whether they should be removed, however, needed to stop. This stops that, and I don't think a narrower sanction such as You may not edit, alter, or remove any sanction you perceive to be a personal attack would work as well. If you want to contest the page level sanction, getting review at WP:AE is probably the best bet. I don't mind it (seriously), and maybe someone there could think of a better phrasing, but this was the best I got. TonyBallioni (talk) 07:13, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
I get why you did it, I'm not worried about that. I was just saying that the wording didn't jive with BLP. Technically if someone removes a BLP violation they could be sanctioned per that DS (though naturally I doubt any admin would do that.) Mr Ernie (talk) 07:57, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, and I’m dead serious to being open to better wording. The annoying thing about DS is that you have to word them broad enough not to be lawyered over (think “The sanction prevents removal because of personal attacks, not trolling, and that was trolling.”) while also not restricting people from doing things like removing serious BLP violations. I guess I went with the assumption that no admin in their right mind would block someone from removing a claim about someone being in the Klan or the like. TonyBallioni (talk) 08:00, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
Just add something like "other than clear BLP violations or obvious vandalism." Newyorkbrad (talk) 08:11, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
@Newyorkbrad and Mr Ernie: updated with NYB’s wording. Also glad (?) to see I’m not the only COVID insomniac... TonyBallioni (talk) 08:17, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
Thank you NYB and Tony. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:30, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Rusf10

Hi Tony. I noticed that you placed restrictions on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Racial views of Joe Biden. I am requestion that Rusf10's WP:TOPPOST here be relocated, either below his comment or in chronological order, per WP:TPG. It's very inappropriate for someone to elevate their own comments above everyone else's in this manner. I assume you have already noticed that Rusf10 has taken to deleting comments from other editors.[10][11] There is a bit of disruption in all this. Thank you. - MrX 🖋 17:45, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi MrX, yes, he and several other editors had been removing comments from others claiming them as personal attacks. The sanction was meant to limit the back and forth there. Rusf10, would you mind listening to MrX’s concern here and moving your comment into the body of the AfD? He does raise a good point that we ordinarily do not allow top-posting. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:48, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, TonyBallioni. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 16:17, 22 July 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.

——Serial 16:17, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

A Barnstar for you!

The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
This is for your valuable efforts on countering Vandalism and protecting Wikipedia from it's threats. I appreciate your effort. You are a defender of Wikipedia. Thank you. PATH SLOPU 16:44, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Adventist hospitals

@TonyBallioni: Can you also look at Adventist Health Sonora, Adventist Health Ukiah Valley, Adventist Health White Memorial and AdventHealth East Orlando please.Catfurball (talk) 19:03, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Redirected one of them and relisted one. The others I'll let get more comments. Generally, I think the "redirect and discuss what if anything to merge" method is probably the best way to address your concern about watering down the main article, though. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:06, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

About Checkuser

Hey! How are you? I wanted to ask you something. I made a request here for a possible sock, but I think I might have done something wrong in the process, as no one has answered this request in days. Can you help me in this case? --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 20:15, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Solavirum see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Գարիկ Ավագյան. You can also file via Twinkle's ARV model (its how I always do it.) I deleted the RfCU since we don't used that anymore. I'm about to log off for a bit, so I haven't looked at it outside of re-filing it for you. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:34, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
TonyBallioni, thanks a lot! Cheers! --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 21:08, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

A Possible Troll

You might not be interested in this thread that was filed at DRN which I closed as possible trolling. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Wikipedia However, you might want to be aware if this editor, whom I don't recognize, decides to bother you and needs to be ignored or blocked. This appears to be a grudge from 2016. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:23, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Yeah. It’s an LTA. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:26, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

A possible essay for The Signpost

Tony, I was looking at a WP:essay for this next issue (next Sunday) of The Signpost and ran into Wikipedia:Not compatible with a collaborative project. I usually pick one that has been around for awhile, but this one looks pretty good. What do you think? Smallbones(smalltalk) 19:42, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

If you want to put it in the signpost, I’m fine with it :) TonyBallioni (talk) 19:43, 26 July 2020 (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.

-- MelanieN (talk) 18:32, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Self-block

Hi Tony. I saw you listed at this category and wondered if you would be willing to consider my request.

I am taking a wikibreak and will be on simplewiki. I request you to block me until 20:20, 30 August 2020. Thank you. Also, please do not answer this request until 20:22, 29 July 2020 (UTC) or after. ◊PRAHLADbalaji (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 19:50, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

 Done TonyBallioni (talk) 22:29, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Help

I'm User:Prahlad balaji's public account, and I'm wondering if you could help me out. Please remove the line importScript('User:Prahlad balaji/Enforcer.js') from my common.js. I accidentally set it to a number way higher that I was supposed to, and since you're an interface admin, you could help me out. Thanks! Prahlad balaji.public (talk) 20:34, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

 Done TonyBallioni (talk) 22:26, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – August 2020

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

Administrator changes

added Red Phoenix
readded Euryalus • SQL
removed Jujutacular • Monty845 • Rettetast • Madchester

Oversight changes

readded GB fan
removed Keegan • Opabinia regalis • Premeditated Chaos

Guideline and policy news

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:21, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Quick question about recent SPI

Just a few hours ago, you posted the results of an SPI. While the results were "unlikely," a brand new editor has just jumped into the exact same dispute with a lot more knowledge of Wikipedia that I'd expect of a typical new editor. Would it be appropriate to add this editor to the same SPI or would I have to open a new one since the existing one is waiting for a close by a clerk? ElKevbo (talk) 02:20, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

You can add it to the SPI and note it in the comments by other users area. For clarity about what  Unlikely means here: it’s two different countries, but transit between the two cities wouldn’t be unthinkable in non-COVID times, especially given that the overlap is in higher ed. That being said, from a technical perspective it is unlikely, but not unlikely enough for me to rule it out given the context of academia. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:25, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
Got it. Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 02:28, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
I went ahead and checked. This account is the original master. The  Unlikely account isn’t. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:30, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Your recent sockpuppet investigation close

Hi @TonyBallioni: I'm extremely confused about your recent sockpuppet investigation close. At least three sockpuppets of WildlyAccurate have now spontaneously appeared for the sole purpose of defending PurpleDeskChair. Two of these sockpuppets were on the actual sockpuppet investigation for PurpleDeskChair. Doesn't that strike you as an obvious sign that PurpleDeskChair is being operated as a sockpuppet of WildlyAccurate? --Drevolt (talk) 02:42, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Not when they’re in two different countries on non-VPN ISPs. People generally can’t bilocate :) TonyBallioni (talk) 02:44, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
@TonyBallioni: And there aren't any possible workarounds that could be in use here? As detailed in the original sockpuppet investigation, PurpleDeskChair is a brand new account that picked up exactly where the various other sockpuppet accounts left off with the same exact pattern of targeted editing, so it seems virtually impossible that they aren't at all related. --Drevolt (talk) 02:49, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
Hey Drevolt. Would you mind stopping with trying to delegitimize me? I am only trying to offer constructive edits to wiki pages. I realize they oppose your views but I don’t think it’s appropriate for you to continue harassing me about this. I have been nothing but civil. PurpleDeskChair (talk) 02:53, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
They might know each other. They’re not the same person, though. CU isn’t a perfect tool, but I don’t see any effort at evasion here. The data’s pretty clear and normal: not the same person. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:57, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
@TonyBallioni: Wouldn't that still qualify as sockpuppetry per the definition given here then? --Drevolt (talk) 02:59, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
I think you’re referencing WP:MEAT. That’s a bit of a vague policy, and we usually look at the entire context of an SPI while enforcing it. In this case we have two people in different countries who may know each other, or may be two people with similar views. I don’t know. It’s not enough to block over, though. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:02, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
@TonyBallioni: What strikes me as especially suspicious is that several confirmed sockpuppets were made just to comment on the sockpuppet investigation for PurpleDeskChair. Even if we assume that they are in fact two different people, PurpleDeskChair would have had to explicitly tell WildlyAccurate to get involved in the ongoing sockpuppet investigation in order for that to happen, which would be an especially egregious instance of WP:MEAT. Based on the activity of the confirmed sockpuppet accounts, t's virtually impossible that they aren't intentionally coordinating this. --Drevolt (talk) 03:13, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
@TonyBallioni: Hi. I am the user in question. I am responding because these allegations are completely untrue. I have no clue who these other users are. But I will say Drevolt has caused enough drama over at the UChicago article that I think others have noticed— I would not be surprised if that is how they got involved. Drevolt has been making accusations like above on several talks. Thanks so much for your professional handling of this. PurpleDeskChair (talk) 03:18, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
No worries. We try to be fair to people at SPI, even if the process can be stressful or take a while. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:22, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Well, there’s nothing to assume here because they are in fact different people. I’m not seeing a reason to block. Sorry. There’s really no “appeal” of SPIs closed by a CU without action. I guess Callanecc could take a second look at the case when he’s on and if he or another CU wants to block I don’t mind, but it’s not something I’m going to do, and I don’t really see a need to keep the case open. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:22, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
@TonyBallioni: Sorry to keep on dragging this out, but that's not what the policy documents say: "CheckUser cannot confirm with certainty that two accounts are not connected; it can only show whether there is a technical link at the time of the check" (from here) and "An editing pattern match is the important thing; the IP match is really just extra evidence (or not)" (from here). Closing it on CheckUser grounds alone doesn't seem appropriate based on the relevant policies. --Drevolt (talk) 03:27, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
@Drevolt:: if a CheckUser finds no evidence the suspected accounts have something in common from a technical point of view, you can hardly fault them for not finding that they are socks--what they have found is evidence that suggests they are not. I don't quite understand what the problem is here: apparently the CU was not convinced of your behavioral arguments, and saw no technical evidence that the two were connected. There is no more you can ask for. Drmies (talk) 03:33, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
Hi @Drmies: I want to be clear that I'm not trying to fault TonyBallioni for anything, and I'm sorry if it came off that way. Dealing with this ongoing sockpuppet problem has been a pretty frustrating experience, but I don't feel any personal frustration with TonyBallioni or with any other admins over this. However, my concern is not that the CU thought that the behavioral arguments were unconvincing; it's that the behavioral arguments have been ignored completely and the close only mentioned the CheckUser report. I didn't even request a CheckUser to begin with, and at this point I would expect WildlyAccurate to be engaging in subterfuge in order to get around having so many sockpuppets blocked, so I'm concerned about the fact that the overwhelming behavioral evidence has been ignored because of the CheckUser report when policy specifically says that the CheckUser report should always be secondary and can never provide a definitive answer in a sockpuppet investigation. --Drevolt (talk) 03:43, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

No worries. Re: the check, CUs often run checks even if one isn’t requested. Sometimes we see things you don’t or think it would be helpful. Generally, I would agree with what everything you said. CU cannot prove someone is not a sock. For a variety of reasons that is beyond its scope. What it can show is that one account is on a normal ISP in one country that is one of the least spoofed ISPs around and is virtually never used as an open proxy, and that the other accounts are in another country using an ISP that is similarly not known to have compromised hosts or to provide web hosting services. Now, there are ways to do that in theory, but when they’re done we’d expect to see a very different set of underlying CU data than we have here. It’s not just the locations: it’s the specifics of the technical data that makes it extremely difficult for any behavioural evidence to overcome it.

I see you’ve asked ST47 to weigh in and I’ve pinged Callanecc. If either of them disagree with me either on the technical bits or my analysis of SOCK/MEAT, I don’t mind them blocking. I just personally don’t see it. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:50, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni: Please know I am willing to defend myself however possible. These accusations are completely superfluous. Please let me know if there is anything I can do to further prove I am an independent user. PurpleDeskChair (talk) 03:53, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
I’ve already checked you. There’s no technical evidence suggesting you are related to the other accounts blocked today. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:54, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
@TonyBallioni: Alright, that sounds like a very reasonable way of handling this. Thanks again for your help. --Drevolt (talk) 03:58, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
@Drevolt: (edit conflict) I have reviewed the behavioral evidence as well and while the CU-results definitely stand for something and technically aren't showing a match, I see many of the same connections you see to the prior sock puppets and am also concerned. This isn't an off the wall or unjustified SPI request, I think that this is just definitely a very unique situation that we will have to wait and see on. -- Dane talk 04:06, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
@Dane: Hi Dane! I am the accused user. I want to reach out and let you know that I am an independent user. I created this account recently— but it is my first account. I initially helped contribute to the UChicago article because I have worked with the institution and have background which I hope to lend towards. I am not the only one who has made edits to the lead paragraph— in fact several users (beyond the sock puppet ones mentioned) have reverted Drevolt’s edit warring. I am only trying to preserve civility and neutrality on an article that I care about. I am more than glad to answer questions you have. PurpleDeskChair (talk) 04:18, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Break

Okay guys, if another CU wants to comment here, I don’t mind it, but I think I’ve about explained it as good as I can, so I don’t think much more discussion here will do much good. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:22, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

  • I've checked some of the accounts here and there is a distinct difference between WildlyAccurate and their confirmed socks compared with PurpleDeskChair. I'd say it's quite possible that the two operators may know each other but I don't think I'd characterise it as obvious-enough meatpuppetry to warrant a block. I may have been more tempted to leave the result as technically unlikely but unrelated is a perfectly legitimate and reasonable result too. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:42, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
@Callanecc: Sorry for the delayed reply, I must have missed this earlier. I just wanted to say that this seems like a very reasonable conclusion to reach based on the evidence, and obviously I'll abide by it. Thank you for taking the time to look this over. --Drevolt (talk) 04:43, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Drevolt, I am an SPI clerk (but not a CU), so I'll comment on the behavior. I get that your biggest concern is the WildlyAccurate socks showing up to "defend" PurpleDeskChair. I obviously can't say for sure, but it could be what we call a joe job, which (in this context) is someone engaging in sockpuppetry and pretending to be a different user with the intent of getting the unrelated user blocked. A joe job here would be WA seeing that a new sock was reported (since they're clearly aware of the existence of their SPI page), knowing the sock wasn't theirs, and then intentionally engaging in socky behaviors with more accounts to try to get PDC blocked anyway (to troll us, I guess). Again, this is all conjecture on my part, but if the two are unrelated that's the best story I can think of that fits the behavior and the technical data mentioned by CUs above. GeneralNotability (talk) 13:05, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
@GeneralNotability: Thanks for your reply. Right, that seems like a plausible alternate explanation. But what still bothers me is that if that were the case, it would still be very hard to explain the observed editing pattern, where WA took a break from creating sockpuppet accounts for a few days while PDC (within a 24-hour span) suddenly created an account and picking up exactly where WA left off. And PDC had extensive knowledge of the history of editing on the page just a few hours after the account was created and had an entire premade user page ready to go as soon as the account was created, which at least strikes me as very suspicious given the ongoing sockpuppeting campaign on that article for the past several months. All of which is to say, it still really seems like WA and PDC have to have been closely coordinating their actions if they aren't the same person. But I recognize that this is probably going to be a case where reaching any verdict with certainty is pretty much impossible, and I think that the joe job theory definitely holds water. --Drevolt (talk) 21:17, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Sockmaster no longer stale

Hi, in this sockpuppet investigation[12], you were unable to check CU data because the suspected sockmaster was stale. However, the sockmaster just returned, which might make it possible to check CU data?[13] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:16, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans, appears to be Red X Unrelated to that sockfarm (though I guess I could go with very  Unlikely.) @NinjaRobotPirate, GeneralNotability, and Ritchie333: I think all of you have been involved with this to some degree. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:56, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
TonyBallioni, I'll be honest, that's not the result I was expecting. Would you like me to handle the requisite clerking to move it to whichever account is oldest (RaymondCHedges, I think)? GeneralNotability (talk) 19:03, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, a few thousand miles away and on different devices. People can travel, but technically I wouldn’t bet on it. Unless NRP disagrees, I’d move it to a different case page. The oldest other account there works fine. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:09, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
Same country but otherwise unrelated. A technically skilled (or extremely lucky) person could get around the CU tool or even make it say whatever they wanted. But most people can't even figure out how to make a ping work properly. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:41, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, my thoughts as well. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:43, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
"But most people can't even figure out how to make a ping work properly": Or maybe that's just what they want you to think! ;-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:44, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
I'm no computer scientist, but even I can think of a very simple way the sockpuppetry could be accomplished. which I'd rather not discuss here as I wouldn't want to give bad actors any ideas. Any involved admin who cares to ask can email me. Carlstak (talk) 01:53, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
Sure. No CU would tell you otherwise. Most people are lazy, though. Also in this case, it’s pretty clear that no attempt to hide data is occurring. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:00, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
Whatever his other attributes are, Wink is anything but lazy when it comes to WP adventuring, but it wouldn't require any effort at all, is trivially easy, and yields exactly the same results that seem to confound you guys. So simple I'm sure that a good deal of WP person-hours is spent dealing with it. Hiding data isn't even a consideration, and Occam's Razor applies. Carlstak (talk) 02:17, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
And yes, I'm tripping hard on mushrooms. Carlstak (talk) 02:31, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
It’s fairly unlikely that he can be on a normal ISP thousands of miles away from other accounts also on a normal ISP. We’re talking different ends of a continent here. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:33, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
That's surprising. On the basis of the circumstantial evidence I provided, I thought there was a 50% chance that Winkelvi was MetaTracker, but the added evidence by other editors (including User:Calidum and User:MrX) made me 90% sure. Could the CU data not come from intentionally using a device that they never used before and using a VPN? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:54, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
This wasn’t a VPN. It’s one of the few ISPs I’ve never seen anything fishy on in regards to surprising geolocations, etc. Sometimes there actually are two people in the world with the exact same oddly specific interests... TonyBallioni (talk) 20:25, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
I would defer to the CU results especially since Tony just confirmed that a VPN wasn't used. In my opinion, the behavioral evidence was not conclusive. Interestingly, I also gave it about a 50% chance even looking at all the evidence, thus my comment "Winkelvi could be the master." - MrX 🖋 20:35, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

What to do with sockpuppet-likely behavior, but no clear sockmaster suspect?

This editor[14] screams sockpuppet (and all their edits since 23 July is just stalking me across several pages), but because the editor has so few edits, it's impossible to build a convincing case that they are the sockpuppet of a specific sockmaster. Can a CU check be done without a suspected sockmaster-sockpuppet relationship? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:21, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Yeah; I’m pretty sure that’s Architect 134, so I went ahead and blocked him and then passed the account on to the list so someone who is more familiar can do a sleeper sweep (for LTAs we all have “our cases” and this one isn’t one of mine.) In general, yeah, you can ask a CU on their talk page or via email or on IRC. The standard is reasonable suspicion of abuse of multiple accounts, and the policy explicitly says we don’t have to know who the master is. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:23, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure this user is also Architect 134.[15] The account is pretending to be my sockpuppet (by commenting on posts as if they were me).[16] What is the template that I can post on user talk pages to request a CU analysis? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:34, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
I blocked it. If you think you know who it is, filing an SPI is best. We all watch the pages of the cases we work on. {{checkuser}} generates the template used at SPI and makes clicking on some things easier, but it’s also not exactly hard to run a check on an account. I can do it from user contributions. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:40, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

PathSolutions decision

Hello : I received advice I need to go to you as the administrator that made the final deletion on PathSolutions; I want to restore PathSolutions since the deletion was made without my consensus. 1. Original deletion was based on the premise that the only news source InfoWorld is old; but this policy says as long as a source exists, the source's age does not matter WP:NTEMP 2. the discussion ended without anyone giving credit for the company's recent coverage and frequent appearances at TWiT.tv a large and independent news agency. There are more occurences of PathSolutions at Twit.tv that I could list. Goldenrowley (talk) 20:24, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Those are your views, but generally they weren’t the view of the discussion. I don’t feel particularly strongly, but I think it was the right close still. If you want, you can take it to WP:DRV for review. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:55, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
Ok thanks for your perspective. Goldenrowley (talk) 17:48, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Singapore)

Hi, may I ask if you could revert the deletion of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Singapore)? I remember seeing the existence of this page that references things related to Singapore but got deleted when a user interacted with it. Thanks. Gandalfett (talk) 08:43, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

I can email you the text if you want. I don’t feel comfortable restoring a fake guideline without consensus written by a sock. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:00, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Sock? Not sock?

Hi, I encountered a couple of edits by these two users, Lee Hsien Dragon and Lingshennabian, on Lee Hsien Loong with only contributions to wikilink, but having irrelevant edit comments. Some of the Chinese ones translated as below :

Original Translated
当选李显龙不必做了,要下台的 Lee Hsien Loong no need to be PM, going to hand over
PAP不好的 PAP not good
李显龙来投票了 投给革新党啊 Lee Hsian Loong came to vote for Reform Part
9.30 杀死人 10.00 飞虎队还是很多 9.30 kill people 10.00 still got a lot of SWAT/SpecialOps

While I am sure that they are not here to build wikipedia, I am not sure if they are socks. Should I leave these accounts alone and monitor for further contributions? Or would a CU be necessary? – robertsky (talk) 12:13, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Email log

Hi Tony, hope you're well. Would you be able to check the email log for Sarbashis Kumar Paul? I just removed email access per a post on my talk page and wanted to make sure my response was proportionate. Best, — Wug·a·po·des​ 00:24, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TonyBallioni/Archive_36&oldid=973942443"