User talk:TonyBallioni/Archive 24

This is an archive of past discussions about User:TonyBallioni. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 20

←

Archive 22

→

Berachampa Deulia Uchcha Vidyalaya libel concern

Hi Tony. I hope you're well. I would like your advice on whether the content of this revision to Berachampa Deulia Uchcha Vidyalaya should be hidden? I looked into hiding it myself, but noticed that the potentially libellous option on the menu of reasons is marked as being for use by oversighters only. What are your thoughts? Cordless Larry (talk) 09:04, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Cordless Larry! I hid it under RD3 as no specific accusations were made, but I agree with you that it’s borderline on the libel front. If this had been about a BLP I would have suppressed. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:19, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Umm....rev-del my reversion, please. ∯WBG^converse 16:33, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Done thanks for pointing that out. Sorry I missed it. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:37, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Tony and Winged Blades of Godric. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:59, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Photo request petition - please sign

Hi! Can you please sign the petition to TASS and RIAN requesting them to release certain historic photos (many of them from WWII, others of cosmonauts, women aviators, and historic events) for Wikimedia by adding your signature to the signature section? Also, please do spread the word to other Wikipedians. Thanks, --PlanespotterA320 (talk) 03:01, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

ARBCOM?

You've been an excellent admin for over a year now, as if you were born for the role. Would you be interested in running for ArbCom this year? We're short on good candidates, and we're short on candidates, period. Please think about it, and the deadline for (self-)nominations is a few days away. Cheers, Softlavender (talk) 13:39, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

+1 Hhkohh (talk) 13:53, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

+1 Smallbones_(smalltalk) 15:32, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the vote of confidence. I’m going to be busy IRL for about the next 10 months and I don’t particularly relish a spot on ArbCom. A few people have asked me to consider at this point, though. I’m open to the possibility if more candidates don’t jump in, but it’s not exactly a dream of mine if that makes any sense. I suppose the answer to your question is “we’ll see”. Thanks again for the note. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:57, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Nonsense. It's everyone's nightmare.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:44, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Heh, true. It ranks above goblins and ghouls on that list. Speaking of dreams, have I mentioned that it'd be one if DoRD came back to run? Or at least to tell me I'm crazy for even suggesting he put himself through it. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:55, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I miss DoRD, too.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:04, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

If DoRD came back I'd be popping corks and making it rain. There would be SPI pixie-dust glitter strewn from one end of Wikipedia to the other.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:07, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Why did DoRD go away? Or was he (whispers) "sent away"? Softlavender (talk) 01:38, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Not quite sure. Didn't get the chance to ask him, which is sad. He was one of my closer friends on Wikimedia projects. We'd always make fun of my classmates and There'sNoTime's tastes in alcohol together. Hopefully he'll be back, though I certainly don't begrudge him for leaving: this place can wear on you. Anyway, I'm drinking my Malbec to DoRD currently. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:46, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

I came by here to suggest this, it would be nice to see some new blood on the committee and you're an obvious choice. Though I can't blame you for not wanting to. Anyway, hope all is well. Swarm talk 01:02, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi all, thanks for the kind words again. I had debated a last minute entry this morning, but decided against it a few minutes ago when Joe Roe entered. We have enough good candidates now, and options for new blood on the committee as well.

My personal life is going to be a bit crazy the next 12 months, and while I appreciate people who have reached out here, at this time I don't feel I'll be able to make the commitment and more importantly I don't think that I'd have the emotional energy required to serve on ArbCom in 2019. It's something I may do in the future if there is a need, but this year I think it's best for me to serve Wikipedia and the Wikimedia movement best in the capacities I already have.

On a personal note, while I don't plan on doing a voter guide, I don't like the practice, I'd encourage anyone who values my thoughts to give a look at Joe. He's a less visible admin on dramaboards, but he reminds me a lot of Premeditated Chaos, who I also harassed into running last year: sane admin who gets why we're here and will seek to serve the community as a whole while on the committee. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:55, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm disappointed to hear it but I totally understand. And, Tony, you flatter me with the comparison to Joe Roe :) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:16, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

MonsterHunter32

Since you are familiar with this editor and also because the time is coming near for him to appeal his block, I wanted to inform that he abused multiple accounts recently on English Wiki and VALIDALTguy (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/VALIDALTguy) was probably him. Although I am not sure what can be done here for bringing this to attention of admins who will review any of his block appeals in the future. Lorstaking (talk) 12:12, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Lorstaking, I'll look at it later. If I recall, DoRD was the CU who was most familiar with it behaviorally based of behavior in the unblock IRC channel, but he's not around so I'll see what I can do. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:01, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

MakaveliReed

The editor MakaveliReed have been blocked by Fish and karate for disruptive editing in January 2018. The reason for the block because the editor keep changing recording dates in album-related articles without explaining why [1] [2] [3]. It appears the editor is back again using another account and still doing the same thing [4] [5] [6]. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 23:54, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Checkuser master stale

Hi there. You recently declined a checkuser request on an SPI on account of the master being stale. Fair enough, but I wanted to know what are the criteria for a master being stale? Is it purely a time period or are there other factors? Just want to use it as a learning opportunity for myself in the future. While I'm an admin, and as a result should probably know this, the SPI process etc is not something I've been very involved in. Cheers for the assist. Canterbury Tail talk 12:39, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Just the time period: 90 days.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:42, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Ah okay, cheers Bbb23. I'll try to remember that in future. Canterbury Tail talk 12:48, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Canterbury Tail, yeah, just time like Bbb23 said. Also, if you’re confident enough you’re free to block behavioraly on your own without waiting for someone else to assess the SPI. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:19, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

A Query about OTRS Volunteering

Hi there,

I was wondering about applying as a volunteer to OTRS, but thought it better to ask a current volunteer before going directly to an application.

Taking a look at the "what do we look for section", I feel I do satisfy the base 4 requirements but in terms of specific traits I only tick a couple of their boxes - just have my experience working with new editors (mainly via helping out in the AfC process, as well as some relatable work with newcomers who get dragged into the various deletion processes), as well as the level of BLP and basic copyright knowledge - what I would say is the "competent editor" level rather than being a specialist.

Obviously I wouldn't be able to (currently or in the near-future) resolve either complicated requests or ones requiring advanced permissions. However I was wondering whether you think I could help out with the lower-level activity and thus both resolve some of those issues and free up other editors for more focused tasks.

Would you say go for it, or is a more specific skill set/admin rights necessary?

Cheers,

Nosebagbear (talk) 22:20, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

I mainly got OTRS (info-en and its sub feeds as well as permissions) because people kept asking for 2nd opinions on how to handle more complicated ones, and I couldn't look. It's never been something I devoted too much time too, but I try to help out when I can. I now mainly use the system for oversight request.

Re: the type of queries you'll get: if you only want to handle simple ones, you only have to handle simple ones. I try to pop in on occasion and get quick responses in to the low-hanging fruit because it helps with our image. So, that's to say, the tickets in info-en I actually respond to aren't that difficult. If you get more confidence and want to handle the harder ones, it'd certainly be something that could be of value, and OTRS is always in need of more volunteers. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:25, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Cheers, once I've got a few spare moments I'll give it some further thought and decide. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:22, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Nosebagbear, please do it...we really need the help. Tony, what are the chances of creating a more user friendly interface at OTRS? Is that something our own WP techs can do, or do we have to go through WMF? ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 16:24, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

OTRS can be modified in certain ways using packages. According to wikitech:OTRS some changes have already been made this way. I believe it only requires an OTRS administrator to implement. The developer manual has some more information, but isn't terribly clear or concise (I guess that should be expected). --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 18:45, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Thx AntiC# - my knowledge of code doesn't go much beyond AppleScript, Calendar and Alexis. 😂 I can make suggestions (and I have plenty of them!) but don't have a clue how to implement them. Notice that when I post on Tony's page, he ducks out of sight until the coast is clear. 🏃‍♂️ 🙀 ^[FBDB] ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 21:40, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

@Atsme: - cheers, just doing it now. One quick question (for any OTRS person listening in) - when I send the emailed application with link, asking for my age, is that it wanting me to prove my age (passport copy etc) or just literally what it says? Nosebagbear (talk) 21:21, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

When in doubt, Nosebagbear, always choose literally. ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 21:32, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Done, many thanks :) Nosebagbear (talk) 21:49, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Just chiming in to say AppleScript is dope and I miss using it. Rock on. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 02:04, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.15 16 November 2018

Chart of the New Pages Patrol backlog for the past 6 months.

Hello TonyBallioni,

Community Wishlist Survey – NPP needs you – Vote NOW

Community Wishlist Voting takes place 16 to 30 November for the Page Curation and New Pages Feed improvements, and other software requests. The NPP community is hoping for a good turnout in support of the requests to Santa for the tools we need. This is very important as we have been asking the Foundation for these upgrades for 4 years.

If this proposal does not make it into the top ten, it is likely that the tools will be given no support at all for the foreseeable future. So please put in a vote today.

We are counting on significant support not only from our own ranks, but from everyone who is concerned with maintaining a Wikipedia that is free of vandalism, promotion, flagrant financial exploitation and other pollution.

With all 650 reviewers voting for these urgently needed improvements, our requests would be unlikely to fail. See also The Signpost Special report: 'NPP: This could be heaven or this could be hell for new users – and for the reviewers', and if you are not sure what the wish list is all about, take a sneak peek at an article in this month's upcoming issue of The Signpost which unfortunately due to staff holidays and an impending US holiday will probably not be published until after voting has closed.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}18:37, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Best place?

Hi, Tony! What do you think is the best place to discuss a possible native advertising question? (relating specifically to this proposed copyvio rewrite) I'm a little reluctant to post at WP:COIN because I don't want to imply any wrongdoing by the editor (who seems to have behaved with exemplary rectitude). But I'm also reluctant to move company-written copy into our encyclopaedia without at least some prior discussion. Any ideas? – my mind is a blank. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:22, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Justlettersandnumbers. My suggestion would be to delete the copyvio version and then move the proposed rewrite to draft space (as it stands, I wouldn't add it to mainspace either: it's refbombed to death...) That way it can go through the regular AfC process. Another editor seems to have copied it from a sandbox somewhere? Maybe you can just find that sandbox and submit it to AfC so the scripts don't get confused. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:30, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Check of Draft

Can you compare Draft:Zheng Yecheng to Zheng Yecheng which was deleted as a sockpuppet creation? Comment on the Draft please for other reviewers use. Legacypac (talk) 19:53, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

I'll get to this tomorrow. Offline for the day in a few. Just didn't want you to think I'm ignoring this. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:27, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Legacypac, different in that it has much more prose. The IP creating it is a proxy, though, so I think its fair to assume its commissioned given the creation pattern. I've range blocked the proxy (and haven't look at the case from CU). Up to you how to deal with the draft. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:47, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Perfect. Just decline for now since I can't G4 it. Legacypac (talk) 02:52, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, TonyBallioni. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Question about a block

Hello, Tony,

I came across an IP account that you had blocked for a year with the reasoning "colocationwebhost" (the account is 41.242.139.7. I'm not familiar with this reason and was hoping you could fill me in. It's unusual to block an IP address for such a long period of time unless there has been persistent vandalism and that didn't seem to be a problem with this account. Does this have to do with sockpuppetry? It was a range block that affected this account. I didn't find any notices on the talk page and only this note in the blocking edit summary. Thanks! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:41, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Liz, this is an open proxy/webhost, which we typically block for 1-2 years when we discover them. {{colocationwebhost}} is one of the templated block rationales that can be used for webhosts or colocation services. I used this service to help determine that, and behaviorally the range highly suggests proxy use as well (dating back a year you have Ghanan IPs adding promotional content on East Asian subjects). The ISP also provides VPN/hosting/public IP services in addition to regular ISP services, so given the GetIPIntel's findings, which I've generally found reliable, I thought there was enough to block. If the tool produced a false positive and we're seeing collateral damage, let me know and I can look at it again

. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:38, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you so much, Tony, for the detailed explanation. It sounds like this information is something you'd see as a Checkuser. I appreciate you taking the time to explain this to me. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:44, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Not a problem, Liz. I did a collateral damage check on it right now after your message based on some other things I saw when looking into this, and I'm actually going to lower it to anon-only because some of that makes me think that GetIPIntel might be producing a false positive that could impact logged in users. There's enough promotional content dating back a while that I'm comfortable with a longer range block, but it doesn't hurt to be cautious here. Thanks again for pinging me, and if you have any other questions feel free to reach out in the future :). TonyBallioni (talk) 02:59, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

"Weltraumagentur" - another account

Hi TonyBallioni ,

Please be informed that in the German Wikipedia another account has been blocked, which is a sock puppet of the "Weltraumagentur". It is User:Sailorway.

Maybe it is of use to check if other accounts are active similar to "Sailorway".

For the check-user procedure at de.wikipedia.org see this link: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Checkuser/Anfragen/Sailorway_und_der_Sockenzoo_um_Timon.Straub,_Luuuuuka_%26_Consorten

Best regards
Atomiccocktail (talk) 10:23, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Atomiccocktail, thank you for the message. I have confirmed it on en.wiki along with another sock already blocked on de.wiki. Another potential account with edits came up in the check, meta:Special:CentralAuth/Kubibabu. I did not block it however because I felt that the behavioral evidence needed to be evaluated by another admin. You can see my findings at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Luuuuuka. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:43, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

CopyVio - PlayStation Portable

Hi TonyBallioni,

Sorry to bother you, I'm hoping you can point me in the right direction. I have recently started a WP:GA review of PlayStation Portable; which came up with some potential copyright issues when using Earwig's CopyVio test. The test brought back 5 different websites that are all above 40% likely to be copyvio, with one at almost 100%.

Sadly, I'm not very experienced with copyvio matters, as they usually come back clean, and I don't want to cause issue with this, if it is a Copyleft issue, or if the sites are mirrors, or copyright isn't infringed or whatever; before simply denying the article for copyright issues. I saw you were listed as an admin willing to help with copy violations; so I didn't know who to contact to take a look for me. Is there a WikiProject, or specific people I can contact, in the same vein as WP:GOCE?

Thank you for your time. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:52, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Lee, at first glance it does appear to be reverse copyvio (i.e. they took from us) but you'd have to do a bit more digging to see. Additionally, some of the matches (such as the CNet article) flag as "copyvios" because they are properly-attributed quotations. I think the biggest one to check would be 8-bit central, because there's such a huge percentage - try to find a web archive of the site and try to compare when the text was added to the website vs when it was added to Wikipedia.

Given that our article was started in 2004, it's very likely that they're all reverse copyvios, but you'll need to do some legwork. You can get some additional eyes by posting at Wikipedia:Copyright problems. Primefac (talk) 20:08, 27 November 2018 (UTC) (talk page stalker)

Re User:Cryptocurrency es beanie baby y tulip mania

Cryptocurrency_no_es_rolex._crypto_es_beanie_babie_baseball_cards. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:27, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Writ Keeper thanks. They were operating on a different range than the first one but Beanie baby crypto and tulip bulbs also existed. Both blocked. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:35, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

TGS block log

FYI, the permalink no longer works - I guess because of subsequent revdels at AN.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:20, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I know what caused the suppression and I don't have a problem with it. I'm not going to reblock to add a new permalink: I just always include one in my unblock log entries so people can audit me if there's ever an issue with it. The link still works for oversighters, so if someone needs it in the future, one can be flagged down to find the discussion in the archives. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:24, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

About Move Review being a noticeboard or not, is confusing me.

How is Wikipedia:Requested moves page is a notice board, while move review is not? In requested move, a user is "requesting" for a page move. In move request, a user is requesting for a review over the page move. Thus both pages work on requests. So what makes requested moves a notice board and moves review not a notice board? Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 05:05, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

I personally don't think it is either, but that's neither here nor there. A better comparison would be WP:DRV, which is not listed despite XfDs being listed.

I think there are some good reasons not to list review areas: the first type of communication when contesting a deletion or a move is talking to the closer, who if they are worth their salt, will either agree to relist or will refer the individual to move review. We don't want people without experience in the area taking a move they disagree with to move review without talking to people first, and listing it on a noticeboard banner that is listed on some of the most prominent pages on Wikipedia would do nothing but increase the number of requests going for formal review that shouldn't go to formal review. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:12, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni:That is true, about unexperienced editors bringing irelivent or easily solvable requests to a big page. However there is a problem with that ideology, for example, a page was moved after a discussion in 2010 and lets say now someone wants to contest that move. Well with that big of a time gap there is a chance where the closer could be retired or no longer come to Wikipedia at all. That user would just get lost, and end up placing a request at the ''most known incorrect place of putting requests when you are just lost where to put the request as you can't find the place, which is either ANI or Administrator noticeboard main. Those requests end up getting deleted or removed and the user ends up with a topic ban. Rarely do the lost think of using the talk pages of those pages, where people give helpful advice.

But then again, the same issue occurs if this is listed at a very highly seen place, as you had said above in your reply. Where is move request actually listed though? Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 05:27, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

That also isn't what move review is for. In the case you described, the move is stable for almost a decade, so a move review would not be appropriate. They would ask for a new move and having a link to move review would actually be counterproductive.

I'd also strongly encourage you to stop messing about in project space. Absolutely zero of your project space contributions today have actually had a positive impact on Wikipedia and at best can be described as time wasting. You're new here, that's fine. We're glad you want to get involved, but adding periods to headers and adding links to things that you have no clue about is not helpful. I would really encourage you to spend more time understanding how things work before trying to tell others how they work. The best way to do this is to get experience editing articles in main space.

Also, the request at AN that led you to made these changes was a request for a G6 deletion, which is a completely acceptable request to make at AN (even though WP:RM/TR or a CSD tag would have been simpler.) People ask admins to do odd tasks with tools there all the time. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:37, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni:So my two comments on AN main regarding ban appeal are time wasting? :( On another note thanks for telling me about the people asking admins for the odd tasks over at AN main, did not know that it was allowed. Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 05:53, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

I missed the first contribution to the ban appeal there, and the second was after I posted. I wouldn't necessarily call those time wasting, but I don't think your comments there were particularly helpful either, as they were an overly formal reading of a policy that didn't really look too deeply into the specifics of the circumstances.

What I was referencing was the going through headers and finding periods to replace, commenting about the page move and giving advice to an editor who has been here over a decade, and going around trying to publicize the existence of move review, a page that is publicized enough already and where there are good reasons for not giving it a higher profile.

Look, your hearts clearly in the right place: that's not in dispute here. The advice I am giving you is that when you are a relatively inexperienced user and you start explaining how Wikipedia works to users with tens of thousands of more edits than you have, you’re likely to come out of it looking bad for one reason or another.

This isn't saying you can't participate in AN or other project space areas, but instead that your comments will be more thoughtful and well-informed and people will take you more seriously if you get more experience building articles and working on the content side of Wikipedia rather than trying to make the dramah boards run well. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:05, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Joseph Kalimbwe

Hi Tony, I see you immediately deleted the Joseph Kalimbwe page I created. I have established that the subject is notable, and that when it was created previously, the page was done poorly, without notability being established. For this reason I specifically asked the person who closed the previous deletion discussion if he would accept for me to recreate the page, and he told me that I should. I would request that you reconsider the reason for your deletion, because the page I created was not the same as previous versions. The person in question is an author, subject of many news articles in Namibia, and clearly meets notability, having been covered in core, mainstream African websites like AllAfrica. I would kindly ask that you take account of these factors, which I am not sure you did when seeing that the page had been deleted previously. --Jwslubbock (talk) 16:27, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Jwslubbock, the page I deleted was worse quality than the one deleted at AfD. I’m willing to restore it to your userspace so you can work on it, though. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:36, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

I do not believe it was worse quality but please do restore it so I can submit it for review. Do you mean restore it to my sandbox? Thank you.Jwslubbock (talk) 18:28, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Jwslubbock see User:Jwslubbock/Joseph Kalimbwe. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:37, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you @TonyBallioni:. There are a reasonable number of good sources for the subject, so I'm sure that it can pass WP:N eventually. Have a nice weekend.Jwslubbock (talk) 19:12, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – December 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2018).

Administrator changes

Al Ameer son • Randykitty • Spartaz

Boson • Daniel J. Leivick • Efe • Esanchez7587 • Fred Bauder • Garzo • Martijn Hoekstra • Orangemike

Interface administrator changes

Deryck Chan

Guideline and policy news

Following a request for comment, the Mediation Committee is now closed and will no longer be accepting case requests.
A request for comment is in progress to determine whether members of the Bot Approvals Group should satisfy activity requirements in order to remain in that role.
A request for comment is in progress regarding whether to change the administrator inactivity policy, such that administrators "who have made no logged administrative actions for at least 12 months may be desysopped". Currently, the policy states that administrators "who have made neither edits nor administrative actions for at least 12 months may be desysopped".
A proposal has been made to temporarily restrict editing of the Main Page to interface administrators in order to mitigate the impact of compromised accounts.

Technical news

Administrators and bureaucrats can no longer unblock themselves unless they placed the block initially. This change has been implemented globally. See also this ongoing village pump discussion (permalink).
To complement the aforementioned change, blocked administrators will soon have the ability to block the administrator that placed their block to mitigate the possibility of a compromised administrator account blocking all other active administrators.
Since deployment of Partial blocks on Test Wikipedia, several bugs were identified. Most of them are now fixed. Administrators are encouraged to test the new deployment and report new bugs on Phabricator or leave feedback on the Project's talk page. You can request administrator access on the Test Wiki here.

Arbitration

Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee Elections is open to eligible editors until Monday 23:59, 3 December 2018. Please review the candidates and, if you wish to do so, submit your choices on the voting page.

Miscellaneous

In late November, an attacker compromised multiple accounts, including at least four administrator accounts, and used them to vandalize Wikipedia. If you have ever used your current password on any other website, you should change it immediately. Sharing the same password across multiple websites makes your account vulnerable, especially if your password was used on a website that suffered a data breach. As these incidents have shown, these concerns are not pure fantasies.
Wikipedia policy requires administrators to have strong passwords. To further reinforce security, administrators should also consider enabling two-factor authentication. A committed identity can be used to verify that you are the true account owner in the event that your account is compromised and/or you are unable to log in.

Obituaries

Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (Raymond Arritt) passed away on 14 November 2018. Boris joined Wikipedia as Raymond arritt on 8 May 2006 and was an administrator from 30 July 2007 to 2 June 2008.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:37, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

UTRS #23449

Hi,

Could you please take a look at this unblock request from Huggums 537? I'd really appreciate your input on it as you were involved with them previously as to whether or not I should take this to a community discussion.-- 5 albert square (talk) 00:58, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Convenience link: utrs:23449 SQL ^{Query me!} 01:09, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Odd mistake I made

Just to let you know if you were wondering what I meant, I mistakenly remembered your name when it should have been another highly respected admin. No offense was intended to either of you, but I'm sure it appeared odd. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 04:55, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

You're fine. I was planning on looking it over in the morning, so I hadn't noticed anything odd yet :) TonyBallioni (talk) 05:30, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

SPI for Wil93948?

Hey, TB, do you recall an SPI for Wil93948? Serena Berman popped up today with the recreation of Cavis Appythart, which is pretty clearly the same MO. Given the age of the account, this might justify a sweep for sleepers (I assume they're waiting to get autoconfirmed), but I don't remember an SPI to add them to. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:11, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Writ Keeper, the SPI that the CU log shows is Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/PornSexAssButtPiss. That sock is

Confirmed to the last group I blocked there as well as MrMenFan94 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki), whom I have blocked. Feel free to file an SPI if you want for the record. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:58, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Done, thanks for the help! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:10, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Range Block unblock

Thanks! Leaky Caldron 17:51, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Did I execute the MfD properly?

Hi Tony - please see User:Ianwikramanayake/draft - in retrospect, I realize it might have been done differently per this diff. I tried to save time and effort doing it the way I did (combining AfC/NPP/OTRS in one felled swoop) but if that's not the best way, then next time I'll leave the ticket # on the TP of an admin and move on to something else. I'm open to suggestions. ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 18:35, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

TonyBallioni - just checking to make sure I'm not typing with invisible ink. ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 19:27, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
- Hi Atsme, sorry for the late response. I think that’s fine. I’m not sure of a better way would be unless it met G12 or one of the other speedy criteria. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:33, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

👍🏻 ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 16:28, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Query

Hi. I blocked Special:Contributions/Chuck_E._Cheese_the_Handsome as very obvious block evasion - are CUs necessary/run for this sort of very WP:DUCK evasion? Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:44, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

You can always file an SPI or ask a CU directly to do a sleeper check. In this case another CU has already looked so there’s not a need to look again :) TonyBallioni (talk) 14:27, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

RM

I am strongly disagreeing with your decision to move Süleyman the Magnificent back to Suleiman the Magnificent. I am not going to propose an RM so your protecting the page is frankly beyond the pale. It is incredibly disrespectful to go over the head of an editor who and to endorse one side of a dispute by an administrative action. A discussion is not required for every move and a move that has been stable for several weeks should not be reverted without discussion. I'm not willing to invest time in a project where administrators are not willing to follow the policies they expect regular editors to follow.Seraphim System ^(talk) 20:56, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

It'd been less than a month since you moved the page that has been stable for over a decade, which is close enough that any request to revert to the stable title and require an RM should be honoured. You had also used the extendedmover permission to move war with editors who were just following basic procedure with moves.

I was not favouring either side of a dispute and frankly don't care what the title is: this was an administrative action to restore the status quo ante, and the protection was justified especially as you have the ability to move war despite any redirect that may exist. If you disagree with my actions, feel free to request a review at WP:AN or if you feel they are especially egregious, the Arbitration Committee. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:04, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

No I don't feel it's espectially egregious, I just feel that it is disrespectful to me to undo it as "routine housekeeping" without even attempting a discussion with me. And I frankly don't give a shit about the status quo ante on an article from which I had to clean out references to a fiction novel. This assumes there is something worth protecting in the status quo. I made a decision based on my understanding of policy that an undiscussed move was allowed under the policy. I also stated that I was willing to move it back if it had been discussed with me. You can call it "warring" or whatever you think it is, but I'm not going to allow this community to abuse me. I have other things I can spend my time on. Based on my experience, I think it will be very difficult, with how things work here, to broader the range of viewpoints and backgrounds of editors working on this project due to how they are treated. I don't think you guys really appreciate how critical that is for the future of the project. In any case, I am extremely upset—would you mind also blocking my account for at least 6 months? I need a self-imposed break. Seraphim System ^(talk) 21:12, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

G6 to restore the stable title is the norm. We don't force an RM at the new title to restore to the title that policy says it should be at because of the header of the CSD policy. It's a technical deletion, which is why G6 applies.

I'm not willing to block you as you're currently angry at me. You can request Bishonen block you if you are serious about it, though. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:15, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Proof

Hi! This is the established editor Diamond Blizzard. User:24.5.8.227 is actually me. Sorry for the issue this has caused. Diamond Blizzard talk 06:40, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Diamond Blizzard, thanks. I looked at this with another admin and agree that you aren't the same person. TonyBallioni (talk) 07:36, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! I was pretty worried for a while. I do understand why I would seem suspicious to you. I don't know that much about this case, but from what I gathered, the sockpuppeteer had sockpuppets that were making seemingly "good" edits. Pretty sneaky. Of course, I'm a totally different person in reality; I'll be making sure to log in before editing from now on. Diamond Blizzard talk 07:42, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Whoops

I registered it and then went to go feed the cats and forgot to do anything with it when I got back, lol. Oops. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:10, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

🤷🏼‍♂️ TonyBallioni (talk) 06:26, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

P much ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:52, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

I have to ask...

Why the Triscuit? 28bytes (talk) 05:51, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

In memory of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Triscuit (2nd nomination), which pissed off Premeditated Chaos and I enough we bugged Drewmutt to make us a top icon. #neverforget TonyBallioni (talk) 06:03, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Haha... wow. Hard to imagine anyone would want to delete Triscuit, much less twice. Then again, I see Vegetable Thins are no longer with us, and no one's even tried to create an article for Wheatsworth (a favorite of mine), so I guess the anti-cracker cabal is more powerful than I would have expected. 28bytes (talk) 06:11, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Oh, I see veggie thins was a victim to Dysk’s “We over cover US food brands compared to UK food brands so let’s prove a point about it” deletion kick. To be fair, I’d probably merge it with wheat thins and redirect to that. Heh. It’s a PROD, might as well restore history. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:31, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Well, not to go all WP:OSE but if we can cover spotted dick we can certainly cover Triscuits, I'd think. 28bytes (talk) 06:51, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Why do British foods have the weirdest names? Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:57, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

I've always meant to go back and see if I can find enough in-depth sources to get Triscuit to GA status, just out of mild spite. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:01, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

New essay: on community loss

See User:TonyBallioni/Community loss. Inspired by multiple recent events from multiple users. Probably could use some tweaks, but it's my thoughts as of now. Feel free to let me know what you think. TonyBallioni (talk) 07:09, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

It is a wonderful and kind essay, and reflects the idealism that makes this project a success, despite our many flaws as a community. Thank you, Tony. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:20, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Happy new year

	Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2019!
	Hi TonyBallioni, Sending you a warm greetings for New Year 2019 and may this new year bring you joy and laughter. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 15:49, 13 December 2018 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Complete improvement

hi

user:TonyBallioni can you kindly help move this article https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User:Jwslubbock/Joseph_Kalimbwe as created by user:Jwslubbock into main space. It had been created but was moved into John's space for needed improvement. Since then, with the help of the editor experienced in Namibian content user:Pgallert, it has been significantly improved to actual urls and has its neutrality tone improved as the subject has been subjects to arrests and prosecutions. The issue of him being a notable author and youth activist have also been significantly outlined in that regard and believe it now fits to be moved 41.182.25.94 (talk) 07:19, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.16 15 December 2018

Hello TonyBallioni,

Reviewer of the Year

This year's award for the Reviewer of the Year goes to Onel5969. Around on Wikipedia since 2011, their staggering number of 26,554 reviews over the past twelve months makes them, together with an additional total of 275,285 edits, one of Wikipedia's most prolific users.

Thanks are also extended for their work to JTtheOG (15,059 reviews), Boleyn (12,760 reviews), Cwmhiraeth (9,001 reviews), Semmendinger (8,440 reviews), PRehse (8,092 reviews), Arthistorian1977 (5,306 reviews), Abishe (4,153 reviews), Barkeep49 (4,016 reviews), and Elmidae (3,615 reviews).
Cwmhiraeth, Semmendinger, Barkeep49, and Elmidae have been New Page Reviewers for less than a year — Barkeep49 for only seven months, while Boleyn, with an edit count of 250,000 since she joined Wikipedia in 2008, has been a bastion of New Page Patrol for many years.

Query

Hey Tony. I am here to ask if my unblock had any mandatory conditions. I realize in my appeal I made some voluntary conditions, but I left it far too ambiguous, as “controversial” can unfortunately be used to describe arguably anything that involves debate at a talk page. The point was to avoid drama for my own sake, not have to step on eggshells when I am trying to make good-faith edits or discussion. Can you clarify this for me so I do not cause any issues? Thanks.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:24, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

I interpreted it as you describing how you would act. I don’t think a formal restriction on “controversial” things would work because that’s essentially anything on Wikipedia and has no easy definition. I think my close was clear that if you were disruptive you’d likely be blocked again, but it’s not a topic ban from controversy or anything of that sort. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:33, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Tony. Editors were just worried I was breaking an editing restriction. This will alleviate their concerns.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:36, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

It does not alleviate my concerns, that's for sure. In that discussion, TheGracefulSlick, you made the following commitment to the community: "I will remove myself from controversial topic areas of Wikipedia such as present-day politics for the next six months, then honestly evaluate my progress with an administrator". You didn't mention present-day politics in your message to Tony. I find your recent political editing behavior very troubling. Please tell the truth and stick to your promises. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:45, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

I did not mention it because politics were used as an example of any controversial thing. If there is actual conditions in place, I would like to know them. Am I excerpt from politics? How broad is that? Or any controversial thing, as I said in my appeal?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:51, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I think it would be wise for TheGracefulSlick to avoid anything that a reasonable person would consider controversial, but I don't think there's a formal restriction here. I'd call it a use your judgement situation, while recognizing that the community will likely not be patient if something is brought to ANI that could reasonably be considered disruptive. I hope that makes sense. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:52, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

My strong recommendation is that you keep the promise you made to the community to the letter. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:54, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Welcome back [[User:TheGracefulSlick]. I missed your positive contributions. Legacypac (talk) 08:06, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Happy Saturnalia

		Happy Saturnalia
		Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and troll-free. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:11, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Ealdgyth, thank you! I think I mentioned last year on Iri’s talk that this (fondly) brings back this somewhat terrifying memory from high school Latin :D TonyBallioni (talk) 18:16, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Merry Merry

		Happy Christmas!
		Hello TB, Early in A Child's Christmas in Wales the young Dylan and his friend Jim Prothero witness smoke pouring from Jim's home. After the conflagration has been extinguished Dylan writes that Nobody could have had a noisier Christmas Eve. And when the firemen turned off the hose and were standing in the wet, smoky room, Jim's Aunt, Miss. Prothero, came downstairs and peered in at them. Jim and I waited, very quietly, to hear what she would say to them. She said the right thing, always. She looked at the three tall firemen in their shining helmets, standing among the smoke and cinders and dissolving snowballs, and she said, "Would you like anything to read?" My thanks to you for your efforts to keep the 'pedia readable in case the firemen chose one of our articles :-) Best wishes to you and yours and happy editing in 2019. MarnetteD\|Talk 19:16, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Plagiarism?

Hey, this text didn't look like it had been written for Wikipedia, so I did a bit of Googling and found two sources that apparently included segments of text identical to ours, although since Academia doesn't make searching easy I am relying on the Google preview and may be neglecting that the source was actually quoting us. (The other source definitely uses the "distinction of being" sentence but given the context they might have plagiarized us (the double space in "competition has" is suspicious, though).

Not being able to verify that the plagiarized text is plagiarized, it seemed like a waste of time to go back to the page history to figure out who plagiarized and when, and was going to wait to ask you for revdel until I could do at least that, but then I figured asking you if you knew some better way of checking would probably be more effective.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:39, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Hijiri88: According to Wikiblame, the content was added in this edit by Shiprajohar (talk · contribs) at 07:44, 22 April 2014. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 02:46, 21 December 2018 (UTC) (talk page stalker)

Okay, that solves the problem of when it was added, but given that that editor (both the sock and main account) was blocked in August 2017 I don't think they'll be very cooperative if we ask them where they got the text from, and I'm still not 100% sure it was plagiarized... Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:54, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Deleting two remaining user pages and talk page

Hi, I would like to know about my two remaining Wikipedia user pages which I have for a while have been trying to get deleted. Those being User:Retiredwrestler and User:Psyloarchy (this one still has a talk page). I would liked to have them either blanked or deleted, but I would rather have them deleted as I have said before I have learned my lesson and have not re-offended. Please see what remaining steps must be taken in order to do this, as I have been trying to do this for quite some time now. Davidgoodheart (talk) 14:39, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Davidgoodheart, you will need to ask DeltaQuad, as she is the CU who tagged them. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:01, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

I have asked her, but she doesn't often respond. Can you please contact her and get a response for me since she doesn't often respond to me. I find this incredible frustrating since I have been trying to do this for what seems to be a long time. Davidgoodheart (talk) 18:07, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Davidgoodheart, I asked Amanda about this, and she said that she doesn't see a reason to delete them as we do not ordinarily delete sock userpages and there doesn't seem to be a reason to make an exception here. I understand that this is not the news you wanted to hear, but the answer is unlikely to change, so while I get your frustration, I think it is best for you to move on from this. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:13, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

Best wishes for this holiday season! Thank you for your Wiki contributions in 2018. May 2019 be prosperous and joyful. --K.e.coffman (talk) 22:30, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Noël ~ καλά Χριστούγεννα ~ З Калядамі ~ חנוכה שמח ~ Gott nytt år!

A cup of coffee for you!

Thanks for your prompt, quick, and highly insightful answers to the issue at WP:Event coordinator permissions. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:47, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Verdicts

Hi. What if a verdict is not reported in reliable secondary sources? Is it a rule of thumb that the facts can't be here Until they are reported by a reliable secondary source, and THEN perhaps the details of the primary source can be included? It is strange that verdicts don't have their own rules. They are reliable primary sources, unlike transcripts or depositions or something. Welcome your response. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcfnord (talk • contribs) 21:26, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Mcfnord, I left a message on WT:BLP. In my view, if they are not reported in reliable secondary sources, they should not be included in Wikipedia as it would be undue coverage of negative aspects of a BLP that reliable secondary sources have not considered important enough to cover. This would shift Wikipedia from a tertiary source to a secondary source concerning things involving BLPs and crime. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:00, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

You're assuming verdicts are always adverse to subjects. :) Recognize that every time we describe anyone as a felon, the verdict is the reliable primary source. If no reliable secondary sources mention it, then we don't describe them as a felon? Verdicts and plea agreements are different from all other court documents in my view. Court verdicts are necessarily a neutral point of view. Perhaps someday I'll find one of substance that hasn't been in the NPOV press. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcfnord (talk • contribs) 22:06, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Mcfnord, Wikipedia is first and foremost an encyclopedia, which means we are a tertiary source: it is not our place to report what the reliable primary source says about something as major as a felony conviction. That would require us to analyze the impact it has had on someone's biography. Instead we rely on reliable secondary sources to do the analysis for us, and we report what they say giving it due weight. Just because someone is a felon does not mean we should report it. If the sources don't consider it relevant to their biography, neither do we.

In the case of a verdict being an acquittal: per WP:BLPCRIME, if the person is non-public, we wouldn't be covering the trial in their biography to begin with even if there were secondary sources, so no need to mention the acquittal. If it was a public figure, well, I suppose we could include it, but I also would be hard pressed to find a case of a public figure where there is no coverage of an acquittal. (also cc: Iridescent who usually has good thoughts on the BLP policy and legal stuff. You might also want to comment on the policy talk as well.) TonyBallioni (talk) 22:13, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

User:Iridescent, fixing ping. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:13, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

I find it impossible to imagine a circumstance in which we would ever be covering a verdict that received no coverage in reliable sources. If something isn't covered in independent reliable sources, then by definition it's not something that should be mentioned on Wikipedia, whatever the topic may be. There are circumstances where it would be appropriate to include a court report as an external link for the benefit of readers who might want to see the exact wording, but that should without exception be in addition to the usual multiple, independent, non-trivial, reliable sources. ‑ Iridescent 22:32, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Mcfnord, quo vadis? Drmies (talk) 22:21, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Drmies Hi, I'm focused on differentiating charges from verdicts. I learned about a BLP and find the difference important. The tenancy is to cover details as they emerge, including legal details, but accusations (even by prosecutors) are usually not proper in an encyclopedia, especially so after verdicts or plea bargains exist. It's an interesting way to clean up articles by cutting to the chase (verdict or plea).

Sarah Summer Rose EDIT

Hello

This video is well known to people around the world through INSTAGRAM and has been reported by many mainstream media like BBC NEWS, ABC NEWS, Washington Post and Euro NEWS.

This is a public incident about this person, the real happening to this person, anyone has the right to know about it. When you google this person's news, all the searches are about this video. When a person has such a big event, you can't selectively ignore it, which goes against the wiki's neutral treaty.

I represent all who are affected by this incident. Issue opinions on racially discriminatory justice.

I would like you to weight your opinion on the section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 王天翰 (talk • contribs) 05:09, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi 王天翰, you should take your concerns to the talk page. I protected because there was an edit war involving potential violations of our policy on living people, and I thought setting it at extended confirmed to allow more experienced editors to still edit was best. You should raise your concerns on the talk page of the article. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:22, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

	Wishing you and yours a Merry Christmas and a happy, healthy and prosperous New Year 2019!
	Hi TB! Thank you for all the hard work and effort you put into Wikipedia. God bless! Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:36, 22 December 2017 (UTC)