User talk:TonyBallioni

WP:BOOMERANGs at WP:AIV

Thanks for the vote of confidence - I've done one or two boomerang blocks at AIV recently, and numerous other declines. I don't like doing them as blocking a good-faith contributor always runs the risk of them retiring and you looking like a total chump, but provided I do them "by the book" with the full weight of the blocking and edit-warring policies behind me, it can be a good learning exercise. People tend to remember why they were blocked, and if they understand it (which gets them unblocked), it probably sticks in their mind. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:11, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Ritchie333, not a problem. I think something a lot of people don't realize is how many admins actually do view every AIV report and decline to block without noting it. I think your doing so helps show the *actual* state of the backlog at AIV. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:24, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

A year ago ...

papal conclaves
... you were recipient no. 1682 of Precious, a prize of QAI!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:45, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Gerda, thank you so much (and thanks for your peer review comments as well, even though I haven't acted on them yet... I will, once I get more time.) TonyBallioni (talk) 04:20, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Huggums using email to recruit meatpuppets?

That ANI thread got me suspicious.

It turns out Huggums attempted to email at least one editor who didn't have email activated, and so messaged them on a sister project instead. The message specifically complained about the procedural issues behind the close. This fact makes me strongly suspect North8000 (talk · contribs) received the same email that couldn't be sent to that user. IMO the actual action they took in Huggums's stead was not a problem on its face, and I don't for a second doubt North8000's good faith, but I'm really wondering if email access should be revoked since the editor has now all but admitted (on a sister project, so it's not WP:OUT) to using email to contact people to act in his stead.

Messaging you despite knowing that you're busy since this is probably more about you than me at this point (you were the "ANI nominator" being talked about); if you don't want to pursue it I'll probably follow suit.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:20, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

He's free to appeal at WP:UTRS, and en.wiki doesn't generally accept 3rd party appeals, so his emailing isn't going to be of much use. I don't think its a technical sock violation (banned users contact admins on meta frequently.) Bbb23 closed the thread recent, so he might be interested. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:25, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Well, I'm a little concerned that he seems to be contacting not only editors he has had positive interactions with in the past (such as North8000) but editors he has never interacted with and who are only interested because they have had negative interactions with me. James500's showing up on Huggums's talk page in order to request he be unblocked in response to my opening the ANI thread on Dream Focus was super-creepy, "enemy-of-my-enemy" behaviour, and Huggums's contacting him within the last few days is just as worrisome; if he's emailing other editors I conflict with that means that even if he can't get unblocked user behaviour any problems I encounter will automatically be aggravated, and honestly I'd prefer an unblocked Huggums who harasses me directly than a blocked Huggums who emails random editors about me. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 20:34, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

I received your ping above. I'm not going to engage in any big discussion, but other than the May general request at their talk page which I was pinged to, I can tell you absolutely that nobody asked me to do anything. If you want my take (just from looking at the ANI) Huggums did something wrong against Tony which they were genuinely apologetic and contrite over. And Huggums and Hijiri88 seem to have been engaged in a long term slugfest and from the little that I saw at the ANI it appears to be 2-way. A 2 way disengagement is in order, (if not the ideal of shaking hands) and then move on to enjoy Wikipedia. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:59, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Article about deleted articles

Thought this would interest you. [[1]]. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:22, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Interesting, though I’m hardly sympathetic. VC investors rarely get the coverage needed to meet our inclusion standards, and most of the coverage they do get is hardly independent. Though, maybe HighKing is worthy of an article now that the Telegraph is covering his work? This article is much more substantial independent coverage of him (even if not mentioned directly) than most of the subjects he sends to AfD receive. Obviously joking on that, but I consider the article a sign that our efforts as a community to crackdown on promotion are working. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:45, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

True - and ironically, like the Streisand effect, if this gets more coverage for the folks deleted, that gives them more notability. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 00:40, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes. I also thought of that: notable for not being notable! TonyBallioni (talk) 00:49, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Article was deleted

I am trying to get help with a deleted article. I was going to add some references to the article but found out that it was deleted. the article is https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Christopher_Scott_(choreographer) So based on all of the standards that I am aware of and all of the similar articles, this article seems to meet the standard. This choreographer has just been nominated for his third Emmy award. That is why I was going to add this information. Is there a way for the article to be available for improvement? I really don't understand the deletion. ANy help you can give me will be appreciated. Thanks. 2606:6000:6783:4C00:F995:298F:69AB:BBC2 (talk) 22:03, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

See Draft:Christopher Scott (choreographer) you can work on it there and submit it for review through our articles for creation process. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:53, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you.2606:6000:6783:4C00:F995:298F:69AB:BBC2 (talk) 23:58, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

DF and "illlegal Latinos"

DF is still making disruptive edits, but per Cullen's warning I can't revert them or ask him about them without fear of being blocked solely for the action of interacting with him (even though the ANI close specifically stated that we are not subject to an IBAN). Would you mind taking a look at, for example, this edit? The source has "US citizens" but he changed it to "US-born legal residents" (or "counterparts"), which strikes me as incredibly inappropriate/offensive. The insistence on always referring to undocumented immigrants as "illegal immigrants" despite the sources, and extending this to ugly turns of phrase like "illegal Mexicans", "illegal Latinos" and "illegal groups", apparently by means of a find-and-replace function without looking at the context, also seems questionable. A number of editors said at the end of the first ANI that more eyes would be on him, but since Cullen's block expired it doesn't look like anyone's been making sure he doesn't make the same kind of problematic edits that were my original concern with him. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:27, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

I would agree, but that appears to be the status quo of the article and they were just undoing an edit by an IP, and I also don't know what the MOS says about this terminology (I could give you AP style, but that isn't that helpful on Wikipedia. Also, I'd note that they moved that article to its current title apparently without an RM in September. I see EEng now is involved, and I'm sure he'll look at the article as a whole. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:37, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Just clarifying that I'm neutral on "illegal immigrant" vs. "undocumented immigrant", but a number of other things the IP changed were clearly problematic before the IP's edit, and DF's edit restored them: any style guide that recommends describing natural-born citizens as "legal residents", for example, definitely should not be used, as doing so would be clearly racist (no one outright rejects the notion of citizenship and refers to all citizens as "legal residents"), and "illegal groups" sounds like it refers officially proscribed criminal gangs and terrorist cells, not groups of people who happen to be undocumented. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:29, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Hijiri88, I did not threaten to block you "solely for the action of interacting with him" but rather for engaging in disruptive behavior in your interactions with him (or anyone else). You need to do one of two things: learn how to interact with the other editor without excessive combativeness, or ignore the other editor. I do not know how many times I need to tell you the same thing phrased in different words, but I guess that you have your own learning style. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:09, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

I'd go back and check if I didn't really want to disengage at this point, but I'm pretty sure one of your messages to me or to DF, or a comment on the ANI thread or something, said we should not be looking at each other's contribs and you would block either one of us the next time that happens. My only two interactions with the other editor in the last two weeks were this comment, which was not "excessively combative", and my response to his request on your talk page that I be blocked (and that was clearly what it was) for the mere action of interacting with him in a non-combative manner was ... well, I would probably be happier had I not done it, and I don't intend to do it again now that you have clarified that your previous statements were not meant to indicate that you would block me for the act of interacting with him in a non-combative manner. Thank you for clarifying that that was not what it meant. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:21, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Let me be crystal clear on this point, Hijiri88. Read the beginning of that thread on my talk page again: Dream Focus did not request that you be blocked, and did not hint or imply that. If by some miracle, the two of you learned to interact in a collegial fashion, then I would have no problem with that and neither would any other productive editor. Barnstars and cheers all around. My concern as an administrator is ongoing, disruptive, combative behavior indicative of a battleground mentality. I gave you friendly advice yesterday when you came to my talk page in a friendly way. Now I need to be more direct. Stop this behavior now. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:52, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Fine. I don't acknowledge that there was anything combative about the message he requested you do something about in your capacity as an admin, but I don't care enough to argue over that any further. My responding in a combative manner by wikilawyering over how you are not allowed block me for violating an IBAN I'm not subject to, etc. was motivated purely by a fear of a block. Now that you have clarified that you are not going to block me for that, I am happy to apologize for the tone of my two responses on your talk page. I am sorry for that. Thank you for clarifying. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:14, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Hijiri88, I'm glad that you and Cullen328 have worked on clarifying this out. Hijiri: you and I get along well, and I know that you only have the best interest of the encyclopedia at heart with whatever you do, but I also understand a lot of Cullen's exasperation with the dispute between you and Dream Focus (it is part of the reason I suggested an IBAN.)

I've told you several times to just ignore Dream Focus: if his behavior is so problematic that it needs to be taken up to noticeboards, someone else will do it. Cullen has already shown that he is willing to make blocks here if the need arises, and I trust his judgement in difficult situations like these. @EEng and John from Idegon: have also commented at Cullen's talk, which means that other experienced and respected users are aware of the situation.

At this point, given the previous number of ANI threads, I do think that there is a possibility of an ArbCom case about this in the future, which is not something that I think anyone wants. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:51, 15 July 2018 (UTC)