User talk:TonyBallioni/Archive 11

PE?
Could you please check out Artemest. It was marked as patrolled by a reviewer, but a look at the authors editing history raises concerns of making enough edits to get confirmed and then dump an article that is at best a directory listing and has all the hallmarks of PE. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:01, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Godric dealt with it. I Primefac originally blocked it as promo, and I upped it to a hardblock for spam and UPE. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:18, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

NgochueBot
is a Haiyenslna sock. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 07:45, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 * , I hard blocked for the Bot combined with NOTHERE behavior. I'm not familiar with that sockmaster, and on first glance can't see the overlap (but of course I just your judgement.) I'll note my block at the SPI and let clerks figure out what to do with the tagging. TonyBallioni (talk) 07:50, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Your block message says hard, but autoblock is disabled. has the closest behavioral overlap. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 07:56, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Odd that it was disabled: the Twinkle presets include it as autoblock for that setting. I've noted it at the SPI and will let the clerks deal with the tags: that's my standard for sock farms that I'm not particularly familiar with, and the clerks are good at figuring out what to do in these circumstances. Thanks for letting me know about the block settings being off. Much appreciated. TonyBallioni (talk) 08:01, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for updating the block. I'm not worried about tagging. Happy Holidays! —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 08:07, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Harassment
I'm being harassed, but since I'm the target cannot block. Please assist! evidence of clear stalking (with no edits to explain how they found where I just levied sanctions, other than their comments on that recent AN thread) &mdash; Coffee //  have a ☕️ //  beans  // 18:18, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 * , sorry I'm just getting around to this: was not on-wiki most of yesterday. It looks like they have moved on, so I don't think blocking now would do anything other than enflame the situation. I hope the wedding in Indonesia is fun. Feel free to email me if you need anything. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:54, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Question for you
Quick question for you. Before I put myself up as a fool, would you judge me a good candidate for pending change reviewer? Thank you for your (pre) consideration. Ventric (talk) 06:54, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I’d say wait another few weeks of active editing and apply in mid-January. We tend to give our PCR very liberally, but as you’ve only really started editing again this month, I don’t think you meet the criterion You have an account, and routinely edit. Thanks for asking, though, and feel free to stop by if you have any other questions about Wikipedia. TonyBallioni (talk) 07:19, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I will continue to edit and get back to you. Happy holidays. Ventric (talk) 07:22, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Rochelimit
He doesn't seem to be learning. I asked him several times to be more open about what he is doing, since his doing "thorough checks" himself comes across more as trying to cover up the problem than sincerely trying to fix it (which would be telling us that he legitimately didn't understand copyright and that the problem extends to every article he contributed text to going back to such-and-such date). With the hounding and meatpuppetry concerns I previously expressed, he at least tried to claim it was just a coincidence, but this time he hasn't even tried to make such an excuse. (He did claim he was busy because of Christmas -- a claim not borne out by his edit history -- but that wouldn't explain why he took the time to post but not explain himself.)

And given how piecemeal his "thorough checks" have been (largely consisting of plugging unsourced nonsense in between the copy-pasted text), I seriously doubt just letting him alone to fix the problem would be a good idea, even if we assumed that his motivator was not covering his tracks.

Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 02:19, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Ugh. And then I remembered what day it was and realized that messaging someone about a procedural issue without also wishing them happy holidays would make me look like a WP:DICK. Merry Christmas, Happy Hanukkah, Supremely-awesome Saturnalia, etc., etc. ；） Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 08:50, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Ha! You’re fine. I’ll likely not get around to this today, though. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:01, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
 * , could you advise on this one? I haven't ever been too involved in CCIs. Hijiri 88 has already filed a request there. Thanks for your input. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:11, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Sigh, another editor who compensates for a deficiency in written English by copying and pasting, with the side effect of not being able to understand local policy fully. There are two suggestions I have for this editor: contribute to the Indonesian Wikipedia by translating text from English to Indonesian and/or read Close_paraphrasing. How much text is being dumped at one time? I haven't decided whether to take administrative action yet; I've left the equivalent of a final warning. MER-C 20:49, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Notability
Does this look notable enough? And wishing you a Merry Christmas and a prosperous 2018:) Winged Blades Godric 12:27, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
 * , I'll try to have a look at this in the post-family-I-need-alone-time later today, and if not, tomorrow. If I don't get back to you by Wednesday, feel free to prod me again. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:56, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
 * No problems:) Enjoy your time Winged Blades Godric 14:57, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
 * , I haven't looked too closely at the sourcing, but this company is almost certainly notable just based on the size alone. I found some sourcing, but I think part of the difficulty in finding sourcing online will be that New Look is a pretty generic turn of phrase when it comes to fashion, etc. Based on what I have seen and how large the company is, I say we're good to keep it. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:57, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I had the same feelings based on size etc. but the phrasing was throwing up problems, when searching for online-sourcing. Winged Blades Godric 17:01, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Interestingly, when doing a google news search, all the good results about the company are in page 2. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:08, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

"Support per Kingsindian"
How am I to read this comment? Uncharitably, I might read it as grade Z trolling (you didn't get a single response, including from me). Charitably, I might read it as you confusing me with Mr rnddude, who actually opposed on "principle", not me. Indeed, my comments were all about concrete cases, and not about "principles". In the following, I'll try to read it charitably.

Here's what I see: at the time I made my initial "oppose" vote, the T-ban proposal had 10 supports, 0 oppose. Since I made my comment, the proposal has had twice as many "opposes" as "supports" and I'm pretty sure the proposal won't be implemented. I'd like to think that my well-reasoned comment had something to do with this state of affairs, though it could just be a coincidence, I suppose.

Where did you get the idea that I oppose any type of restriction on any action on Wikipedia on principle? Is railroading someone into a t-ban a legitimate way of hav[ing] a conversation and treating people like human beings with feelings? By opposing the railroading, I am encouraging more toxicity? Are all the people opposing simply opposed to any type of restriction on any action principle? Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 07:08, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Your edits to that thread convinced me of the need to support rather than to remain neutral as I had intended. That is how you should read it. TonyBallioni (talk) 07:25, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * You made 6 edits to that thread after Tony's comment 15 hours ago in that thread, and now you are responding here? Is it safe to say that you wanted to respond from the beginning, but wanted to wait out for more oppose votes (hence the including from me part is quite contradicting, in this context; if you were confident with your "well-reasoned comment", why didn't you refute in the first place? And if you couldn't care less, why are you here now?). I can't speak for Tony, but my intention when I comment on anything in general is not to elicit a response, but to state what I think is the best for the project and to contribute on the formation of a consensus. In this case, the consensus has changed considerably since January, and for anyone that have read the January discussion (I am assuming you did), it was apparent that this has always been a divisive issue, and the opposing rationale has always been clear; there is nothing wrong with it, it was bound to come, which is why I said sanctions are unlikely to happen before the discussion started rolling. We should always treat each other as human beings with feelings, but that cannot be a one-way road. Alex Shih (talk) 07:46, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Is it safe to say that you wanted to respond from the beginning, but wanted to wait out for more oppose votes No, it's not. I still haven't responded to Tony in the AN thread (nor do I intend to), because I happen to believe that WP:DENY is the best response to trolling. I only addressed arguments which, in my opinion, had some merit or superficial plausibility (I also address 's point, who "opposed"). And I was right in my strategy: count the number of people who addressed my arguments (whether to agree or disagree) vs the number of people who addressed TonyBallioni's (non-)argument. Something to keep in mind for people who believe that Andrew D.'s comments are "observationally indistinguishable" from trolling. So why am I here? Because this is a quieter venue to talk things over directly without distracting the the main thread. However, I see that Tony is disinclined to "have a conversation", since they didn't bother to respond to anything I said. Which is completely fine with me. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 08:12, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * "Strategy"? "Right"? This is not a game. A conversation cannot begin with question fallacy. Nobody wins here, but I am sure you are aware of it already. Alex Shih (talk) 08:28, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks to Alex for the comments. Kingsindian: you are free to view my answer as trolling if you want. I don’t view it as such and already explained to you why I made it: you convinced me not to sit the discussion out, and I felt that your comments presented very strong case in favour of a topic ban. Everything beyond that were my own thoughts and were not directly aimed at you, but at how these conversations typically go. My edit summary matched my initial comment without the extended reasoning. TonyBallioni (talk) 08:38, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

While you're online
46.134.146.83.Regards:) Winged Blades Godric 08:53, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * You caught me between my short down time from insomnia and getting up from work. Alex seems to have taken care of it, though. TonyBallioni (talk) 11:06, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

My mistake
Hi Tony. I think I may have spaced out and accidentally violated a TBan you gave me. Would you please check on this and advise me what to do? I think you TBanned me at AE from the Roy Moore article for a month. However, I got the idea in my head that you only TBanned me until the recent election was over. Anyway, no one has complained or even mentioned this to me, I just realized it a few minutes ago. Can you please advise, thanks.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:12, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi ! Thanks for the message! I put you on 0RR on that article, not TBANed, so you're good from what I can see. Hope you've had a Merry Christmas/whatever holiday you celebrate, and best wishes for a Happy New Year! TonyBallioni (talk) 16:20, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Yup, the holidays are still going well, thanks, and for you too I hope. Can you please tell me again when the 0RR expires?  I think I may have accidentally violated the 0RR, and if so I apologize.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:24, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Ha, looking at the DS log, it ended either yesterday. So you're good . TonyBallioni (talk) 16:27, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Slow down
As a new admin, you seem quite overly eager to topic ban users right away, to the point of coming across like an inappropriate censor. Perhaps consider slowing down on this stance. Also, we discussed via email similar matters, which I thought would be confidential, but apparently, you don't think this way. As such, you should at least consider recuseing yourself from such quick judgments against me on boards. That's what I would do. Or, if you want to continue to make such brash judgments, apparently without actually looking at diffs and article content, then don't email me anymore.

You seem to automatically blame both users on boards from the start, without actually looking at page Revision histories regarding the actual content in articles. You also recently based your judgment upon a user's false conjecture and personal theory on some page, but that ideation was entirely incorrect, subjective, and false. I don't like this, and it's absurd to then try to qualify your theories upon an already false judgment. Poor form at best. Sorry if this seems harsh, but you're an admin now; look at it as constructive criticism.

Restoring drive-by content removal and adding sources to that content to verify it, relative to the significance of the content, is typically the right thing to do. North America1000 20:57, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry if you feel I revealed information you sent to me via email. I would never do so intentionally, because I do treat it as confidential, but if I have done so, I apologize. I also did not base my view on DGG's incorrect assertion in August, but on the interactions between the two of you that I have seen myself. on 27 December and 28 December you have reverted SwisterTwister at least 21 times in mainspace, and have reached 3RR on some of the articles:, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , (the count might be off a bit because I had to do it by hand, and only did your last 500 revisions. The interaction analyzer I think picked up a few more as well that I didn't get by hand). Some of those pages you edited first, but others SwisterTwister did. You think he's removing things that shouldn't be removed, and he thinks the opposite. That's fair. My concern is that you seem to be devoting a lot of time to following his actions around and undoing them. Even if you are right, that doesn't look good for an administrator to be doing.You also edit warred with them on their talk page to restore their warnings (despite WP:OWNTALK allowing them to be removed), and then when you hit 3RR on that, you started templating them before reporting them to AIV for something that is clearly not vandalism. That isn't good. We'd ordinarily warn a non-admin not to act in that way in regards to user warnings and not to use AIV to try to get a block for a more complex behavioral issue.I am open to cricitism, but in this instance, I would ask that you consider my outsiders take on this: I try to be fair to everyone and despite what I've said in regards to this matter before, do like both you and ST still, and think highly of you for your work here. I think though that when you interact with ST that you for some reason seem to focus in on him and that the two of you both talk past the other using edit summaries. That isn't good for Wikipedia, and I hope that you consider just ignoring him in the future. He's a controversial editor, so there are plenty of people watching what he does. If you feel that his actions are disruptive, I think it would be better for you to take him to ANI rather than engage in reverting all of his actions from a month ago and edit warring with him about warnings on his talk page. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:15, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Haven't reached 3RR on any of those; that's not how I roll. 3RR is over a 24-hour period, not forever. So. I have restored article content for years, adding sources all the while, particularly when reliable source coverage is readily available. Check out the Article rescue squadron. It's rather easy. For the New Year, I will be working on creating new articles. You spend much time researching edits, but do you ever contribute to articles? Regardless, my edits are pure, as are my intentions. North America1000 22:21, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Also, I specialize in Food-related articles, with many watchlisted. That's part of what I do. ANI is a waste of my time at this time; I'm not here to chastise, rather, improving articles for readers is my focus. However, sure, maybe it's best to just not care about drive-by content removals. That way, then brash, drive-by content removals will become the norm. Just copy and paste a WP:NOT rationale from some cheat sheet, the homogeneity of which can apply to anything. Yay! This weakens the encyclopedia on many levels. North America1000 22:35, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, you do amazing work on food articles. I always enjoy them. Beer can chicken was a fun one to review for DYK. My specialization is the early modern papacy. I just got Papal conclave, 1655 to GA status, and it is up for a fun DYK in my opinion (pranks always being fun). I'm working on getting the 17th century conclaves series up to good topic status, which should be fun.Back to the topic at hand, many of the reverts above were edits ST made over a month ago that you just now reverted. You also did hit three reverts on an article twice today in addition to ST's talk page: The Halal Guys and Settlemint. You didn't break 3RR, but when combined with the other reverts, I think that is edit warring behavior, which is not confined to 4 reverts. I see that you are angry about this situation, and I can sympathize, especially because you do such good work on food articles, but I think that you are approaching this the wrong way. ANI would be the best way forward if you think ST's behavior is problematic, not going through articles he has edited and reverting his edits on some, and edit warring with him on others. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:38, 28 December 2017 (UTC)


 * At this point, I'm walking away from this discussion, but you can still email me if you'd like. I understand your opinions, but the notion of me being "angry" is quite comical. Nothing could be further from the truth. At this point, I cannot agree with your armchair judgments about my cognition; it's wrong. Furthermore, armchair behavioral judgments from you will be judged just as what they are: subjective conjecture. You don't even know me, and we've never actually spoken plainly. I will be working on improving articles after this; which is what Wikipedia is all about. Just be sure to leave a note on my talk page if you email me, as I prefer to not check emails. Thanks, North America1000 22:46, 28 December 2017 (UTC)


 * , you will likely be interested in Sockpuppet investigations/Trampton as it relates to this. Hopefully this will be the end of it all. Happy New Years to you, and I hope that we still have a good relationship moving forward . Seeing the harassment they aimed at you from multiple accounts makes me sad. I was only looking at it from the angle of one account, and I would have blocked them personally if I had known about it. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:30, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Wow I have been around for a while so I'm not easily shocked. But this I did not see coming. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:24, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Neither did I., I hope you know that I was acting in good faith here and was trying to be neutral between what I saw as two good faith editors having a dispute over time. The socking to harass you was unconscionable. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:29, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I've been trying to pick my jaw off the floor for a good few hours now, I can't believe he'd throw it all away for that. This isn't going to help AfC's backlog woes. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  03:31, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Wow - double wow for it being over years . Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:30, 29 December 2017 (UTC) Actually not really over years - only two months actually, despite the account age. Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:38, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Same feelings as Galobter.The sole silver lining, (to some extent) is that this long-going editorial-feud is coming to an end! Winged Blades Godric 04:59, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * YGM. Winged Blades Godric 09:35, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Yu Darvish
Hi Tony, can you help here, either with a block or page protection? Thanks and happy holidays from 99, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:43, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi 99, NeilN blocked and I semi'd. Have a Happy New Years! TonyBallioni (talk) 15:46, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you, to you and, Cheers, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:49, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

BambooHR
Many editors at Articles for deletion/BambooHR raised concerns about BambooHR being promotional or written by an undisclosed paid editor. I would like to rewrite the article from scratch as an uninvolved editor and restore it to mainspace. Would you be okay with this approach? Cunard (talk) 18:00, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * , sure. Not a problem. It might go to AfD again, but I trust that you will be able to create a version that does not meet the G4 criteria and is in line with NPOV and NOT. I suspect we've interacted enough that you know I much prefer the "recreate and let it into mainspace for the community to judge" approach to this than formal review via AfC or DRV, so feel free to simply move to mainspace from draft or publish a version that you think addresses the concerns of the AfD without consulting me. TonyBallioni (talk)
 * Thank you, TonyBallioni. Cunard (talk) 18:12, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Princess Beatrice of York
Hi Tony. I wonder would you care to have a quick look at the recent edits at Princess Beatrice of York? Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:23, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Martinevans123: page protected. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:43, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll try to remove the offending addition again. I wasn't sure if any further action was warranted with the IP editor. A strange mixture of edits there. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:46, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes. I was confused on them too: a fair amount of good edits combined with those... If they cause any other damage elsewhere, let me know and I'll block. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:48, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Backlog drive announcement
Sorry to bug you, but the backlog drive announcement needs to be sent out as a mass message sometime in the next 24 hours (it is at the top of the page HERE). Feel free to modify it however you like. Just making sure that this is on your radar. Cheers. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  20:16, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ see New pages patrol/Coordination/Backlog drive January 2018 for the page I sent it from. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:31, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  20:44, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

A bit confused...
Ok...so when an editor nominates a page in the NPP queue for AfD, it is automatically checked as reviewed. Are we supposed to unreview it or leave it as reviewed? My understanding is that we uncheck it so that it isn't indexed. Atsme 📞📧 23:54, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * , you should leave it checked. The deletion tag prevents it from being indexed, and if the AfD ends in keep, then it should be indexed. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:11, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Good thing I asked! Thank you. Atsme 📞📧 00:14, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Protection at ANI
Since, ANI sees considerable amount of good faith editing by newbies, would Pending Changes be better than ECP? Regards:)  Winged Blades Godric 06:35, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Any admin is free to undo it, but for the last 48 Hours we’ve been seeing aged sleepers game autoconfirmed and constantly spam ANI, to the point where PC would cause many more problems than it would solve. CU has been consulted and tried range blocks and it hasn’t worked for several reasons. The only thing that has worked has been ECP. The last ECP lasted 12 hours, which followed 5, which followed 3. If you look at my talk history, you’ll see the reaction each time before (who is a badass if you don’t know him) protected the page. I’m working under the assumption that someone will unprotect something like 13 hours in, but the next level up from 12 is a day, so I went with that option trusting my colleagues would have the judgement to know when to unprotect. TonyBallioni (talk) 07:07, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I've seen this vandal before. I believe he's been obsessively creating socks via script for some time now, and it's impossible to track sleepers due to account age. What seemed to work in the past is not setting an expiry date for protection. If you set an expiry time, this person simply waits it out. If no expiration is set, then after a few days he'll lose interest and protection can be lifted. Indefinite doesn't have to be forever. Sro23 (talk) 07:30, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * , there have been thoughts this is SGK raised to me in private. I agree with your statements here and have consisted it. At the same time, I’m personally not comfortable setting ECP of ANI to indef. Any other admin is of course free to raise it. TonyBallioni (talk) 07:37, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Netwealth Investments Ltd
What's your immediate impression on seeing an article like this? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:03, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Seems to be near-certain UPE.Will be prob. taking to AfD. Winged Blades Godric 14:07, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * definitely looks commissioned at first glance. Also looks like it has some substantial coverage. This is one of the harder borderline cases, IMO. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:16, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Yep! I too feel that it's borderline and based on covg. levels etc., a good case could be seemingly made for it's inclusion! Winged Blades Godric 15:48, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Almost certainly a product of the sockfarm that created Unacademy based on a staggering number of metadata and formatting similarities. Rentier (talk) 23:18, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * , would you mind filing the SPI on this one? That is one of the few I am not familiar with. Feel free to email me as well if there is anything that is off-wiki. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:00, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I will file it along with a number of other accounts. It may take me a while to get to it. Rentier (talk) 23:41, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Cut/Paste move, rather than renaming
Hi. Came across a new dab page, Eena Meena Deeka, which was incorrectly created. The existing article should have been moved to Eena Meena Deeka (film), and then the redirect turned into a dab. Instead the editor created a new page for the film and cut/paste the contents, thereby losing the history. This isn't something I could correct. Could you please take a look and make any corrections you deem necessary. I'll clean up the dabs. Thanks. And Happy New Year.  Onel 5969  TT me 15:34, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * , should be fixed now. Thanks for letting me know. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:44, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Forgot to thank you
for doing a mass rollback for me a few days ago. So thanks! Doug Weller talk 16:36, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Not a problem. I can do click buttons. Thanks for catching it, Doug. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:02, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Regarding Vimala's Curryblossom Cafe
I'm sort of in NA1000's camp right now on the merits, but I'm deigning not to weigh in so far. I would like to say I'm very impressed with how this new editor engages, if not the exact way they do so. I tagged the editor's latest work this morning and was pleased by the collegial way they responded. They seem to be here to be a part of our effort and I'm encouraging that spirit. Thanks again for all you do. BusterD (talk) 21:31, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * , thanks. I'm familiar with both that town and the media region because of stuff I do in real life, which is why I'm not overly impressed with the sourcing: it's literally just the social justicy Indian joint on a block with three Indian joints. I'm impressed with the editor too, but I think they're trying to fit a lot of things famous in Chapel Hill, North Carolina into Wikipedia based on local sourcing. I respect it, but it isn't my view of what Wikipedia should be, and assuming that we clarify NCORP in the coming months, the article will almost certainly be deleted in the future if it survives this one. Right now, I think DGG gives the most succinct explanation of how we in practice apply standards to this type of restaurant, but I can't blame the new editor: our notability guidelines are a mess and are confusing. I'm glad they are engaging in Wikipedia, even if I'm on the opposite side of the fence from them now. Thanks for your note! TonyBallioni (talk) 00:34, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

History of cannabis: We now have four people supporting the page move and none opposed
Please see: Talk:History_of_cannabis

Is this sufficient consensus to move the page? I have my draft Draft:History of cannabis ready to move into that namespace as soon as it becomes available. Thanks! Goonsquad LCpl Mulvaney (talk) 18:30, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Goonsquad LCpl Mulvaney, looks like someone else has already done it. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:58, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Perms request
Hi TonyBallioni, could you please re-add my PC, PM, and NPR perms? I had them removed awhile back because of Life Issues(tm), and ready to get back to work. :) Also, would you please re-add me to the AfC Participants list? Thank you! Waggie (talk) 00:56, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ TonyBallioni (talk) 01:08, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Question about 1RR
Hi Tony. If I am editing an article subject to 1RR, is it fine for me to make several non-consecutive edits in a single day removing material, as long as different material is removed each time (i.e. it's not the same material removed over and over again)? Does it matter whether the material is longstanding in the article? Thanks for any explanation.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:07, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi, it is fine to remove things that would be ordinary editing in non-consecutive edits. The rule of thumb I use is that if I can't tell who added or restored the content in question without using Wikiblame, I consider it ordinary editing: this means that longstanding material that you remove doesn't typically won't count as a revert. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:21, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply. I don't have access to WikiBlame as far as I know, and I don't know how it works.  So, if another editor keeps removing longstanding material all day long, I can only stop him once without violating 1RR?&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:26, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * WikiBlame is just a tool that lets you find who added specific wording. If an editor removes longstanding material, that is typically considered ordinary editing. As an example, see my cleanup of a papal conclave I brought to GA. That isn't a revert as most admins would understand it. If someone is removing longstanding material from different sections, it would likely be best for them to discuss it on the talk page if there is a clear consensus for it's inclusion, but if the article is under 1RR, you can only revert them once. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:37, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks for explaining your position about it. It seems to conflict with the language of WP:3RR which says, "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period."  You seem to be saying that it makes a big difference whether it's the same or different material.  Consider this hypothetical....At an article there's a neutral longstanding editor "A", and along comes a non-neutral editor "B".  Those are the only two editors at the article.  Editor "B" decides to selectively remove one longstanding thing after another that he dislikes in the article so that the article will be completely non-neutral.  Editor "A" reverts the first removal citing WP:NPOV.  But then Editor B keeps on removing stuff, even though Editor A makes various intervening edits inserting new stuff.  So at the end of the day, the article is almost completely slanted to the liking of Editor B.  You're apparently saying that Editor B has not broken 1RR, but Editor A will be blocked or topic-banned if he gets in the way of Editor B more than once, and this is because you want to read "the same or different material" as "the same material".  Is that correct?  It's a very frustrating situation, and it's not much of a solution to say that Editor A should go to the NPOV noticeboard given that this type of situation happens so often that the NPOV noticeboard would go nuts.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:48, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Edit warring tends to focus around content that has recently been added and is in dispute. The interpretation I have always heard was that you have to be undoing the actions of a specific editor rather than just generally editing a page. If we were to interpret it as any removal of content was a revert, then we'd have editors violating 3RR on articles they are actively editing with other users all the time. if either of you could give thoughts here, I would appreciate it. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:10, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Edit warring often involves recent content that's in dispute. But removal of longstanding content is often removed by a single editor in non-successive edits, and all I can do is fume rather than break 1RR?&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:16, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't call it edit warring in the hypothetical above per se, but rather a content dispute that should be sorted out on the talk or DRN. It's disruptive for the article to have two editors in disagreement over what is written, whether it's one sentence or various sentences throughout. With this said, if editor "A" added something, then editor "B" deleted it, then "A" readded it, then "B" left it for a few hours and then removed it along with other content, then it'd be 1RR (because B has removed it twice, even if removing the other content hadn't have been done before). Cheers,  Anarchyte ( work  &#124;  talk )  06:23, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It’s easy to say to sort it out at the talk page, but what’s the incentive for editor B to do so, if he’s already able to unilaterally delete all the material he dislikes? The only possible incentive would be if editor A starts acting like just as much of a POV-pusher by deleting all the material that editor A knows editor B likes.  So next time I get into one of these situations, that’s what I should do?  It sure would make me look bad (plus I would be removing longstanding content that I actually believe should be kept), and a much more preferable thing would be for me to say at the talk page that editor B has already made a controversial reversion of longstanding content, so admins would apply 1RR to any further such reversions by editor B.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:41, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It's never a good idea to retaliate. Editor B had removed longstanding content and had been reverted. The next step is to discuss. If B won't discuss the issue (and A has obviously tried (posted/pinged them on the talk them and contacted them on their user talk)) then A (or B, I guess) can take it to WP:DRN where more sets of eyes will be able to look at it. That's the incentive. No one wants to be dragged to a board where their edits will be scrutinised and possibly receive punishments (as I'm getting the impression B is pov-pushing). Let's wait for Ad Orientem and Drmies to weigh in.  Anarchyte ( work  &#124;  talk )  07:21, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

I think Anarchyte gives good advice here, and was what I was thinking as well. If you feel and editor is POV-pushing you can bring it to WP:DRN or WP:NPOVN for more eyes. I don't think that simply removing different bits of longstanding content would be viewed as a revert at WP:ANEW, however, and I would certainly be hesitant to block for edit warring over it. If this is a content dispute, discussion is ideal, and that discussion can happen on the talk page or one of the noticeboards. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:20, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Here is my cop-out: I tend not to get involved in 1R or even 3R because the technicalities are bothersome and unclear, at least to me. My blocks in such areas are always in cases where it's abundantly clear or where it is clearly edit warring as a behavior rather than something countable on this or that side of some bright line. I placed a "bright line block" a few years ago, I think (or maybe supported one?), and then discovered that either a rule had changed or the interpretation of a rule had changed--so I stay on the clear side of it, and place only the "easy" blocks (some fool reverting four, five, or five dozen times) or the "difficult" blocks (for edit warring, based on longer-term behavior). EdJohnston and Bbb are the math experts. Drmies (talk) 16:38, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Agreed, probably worth bringing them in here. It's an issue that's plagued me in the past. ? Admin discretion is essential, but still also find it too unclear. Doug Weller  talk 17:00, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Sometimes a pattern of edits 'doesn't look like an edit war.' Intuition is sometimes used when enforcing the edit warring rules and this is hard to completely get rid of. You might get some impression from reading the edit summaries or talk page as to whether changes are likely to be consensual. When studying a complaint, I would sometimes check that it appears to be an edit war and then try to do the calculation as to whether a specific rule has been broken. If a case seems to be on the edge, an admin can try warning them and see if they'll agree to back off for a while. In many cases such an agreement can be as effective as a block in stopping the war. EdJohnston (talk) 17:32, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I lost the ability to count when I was on break. I'll say the same thing I usually say, especially to experienced editors who are concerned about violating #RR. If you think it might be a technical violation of the rule, don't do it. You can't rely on all administrators to evaluate it in the same way, so it doesn't seem worth the risk to me.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:02, 3 January 2018 (UTC)


 * My 2¢ I tend to approach enforcement of 1RR and similar editing restrictions with restraint. If someone is trying to do a bunch of POV pushing on an article that is subject to ACDS, or they are already under some kind of editing restriction and it looks like they are trying to get around it on technical grounds, then you do what needs to be done to stop it. In my experience, more often than not just dropping a strongly worded warning that the editor is skating on thin ice tends to bring the questionable behavior to a quick halt. But these are usually going to be judgement calls and sometimes you gotta do what ya gotta do. If there is a reasonable possibility that others might look at the same facts and come to a different conclusion, then I'd suggest getting a second opinion, or kicking it to ANI unless the situation is time sensitive and immediate intervention is required. I don't think I need to point out that there have been a number of high profile challenges to admin imposed sanctions of late. All of which said, I am admittedly reluctant to drop the hammer (obvious NOTHERE cases being an exception) and have occasionally been criticized for it. It's also worth noting that in the year and some days I have been on the job I have imposed ACDS editing restrictions on an editor exactly once. But I view blocks and other sanctions as a last resort when other lesser measures have either failed or again, common sense indicates a need for quick action. Your mileage may vary. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:13, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the feedback everyone. Sometimes I feel very warlike but don’t do anything, and so an article gets steamrolled like the Dodo bird got steamrolled; there was no war, the newcomers (pigs and macaques) simply wiped them out.  So I’ll be at an article talk page having already made my one daily revert, objecting to one nonconsecutive reversion of longstanding content after another by a newcomer, but am as helpless as a Dodo.  No war, no fuss, no muss.  Yuck.  Now read what WP:3RR actually says, and you see its words do actually bar this kind of thing.  So do the words of WP:Consensus and of WP:NPOV and WP:PRESERVE.  But they’ve apparently been watered down quite a bit in actual practice.  Maybe I’ll try Dispute resolution noticeboard at some point, but am not optimistic about that.  Cheers.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:17, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Edaham (talk) 00:59, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Some ideas. You could do a couple of things here.
 * 1) in the page's history, before the edit war begun, grab the link of what you think is the last stable version of the page, make what ever edits you want to this version and then publish it. This will have the effect of weeding out what ever was going on during the whole edit war, if one was going on. Then talk to the people involved in the edit war, and/or report them if they were in 1rr vio.
 * 2) in the page's history, before the edit war begun, grab the link of what you think is the last stable version of the page, put that link on the talk page and suggest that regular contributers to the article compare it with the current version and save back to it if necessary. Start an RfC if you don't get any replies after a couple of days. (although in my experience most 1rr articles are highly trafficked so this shouldn't be an issue)
 * 3) when you perform your reverts in this manner, start a talk page thread on the subject so it's clear that you are inviting involved editors to join the BRD process.

moved to draft
Draft:Euroexam_International

should I have just prodded this? - I moved it to draft because there's tons of stuff online about it, but after skimming as many pages as I could manage before I got bored, I noticed that they are all commercial sites which do not independently confer notability. Based on it's current state of primary sourcing I decided to move it to draft. It's text isn't taken verbatim from its site, but it's heavily based on its own corporate sales materials. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edaham (talk • contribs) 00:49, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * If you think there's something salvageable, then a move to draft is a good idea. If it's just going to languish and be eventually G13'd, then a PROD might have been more appropriate. No harm in having it in the draft space for the moment, though. Primefac (talk) 01:50, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * cheers for the advice that's exactly what I was thinking. Have a great day. Edaham (talk) 02:57, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

COI/PE
You may find this interesting. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:16, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

new images
Morning Mr B I have some new images today, that I am permitted to use on wikipedia using a commons licence. I'm unsure how this works, should i just try and see what happens? PDM888 (talk) 10:06, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Did you take the photos or did you find them? If you took them just upload them directly to Commons here and if you weren't the author, you'll need to demonstrate that they've been released under one of these licenses (by linking to the source. make sure to include a license review template).  Anarchyte ( work  &#124;  talk )  12:49, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello Anarchyte. No, i specifically asked for images that could be used on Wikipedia without copyright issues. The lady who gave them to me, took the images. They are ok, but not portrait pictures. I will take a look. thank you. PDM888 (talk) 14:06, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * In that case you should ask the author to email OTRS. See this for instructions.  Anarchyte ( work  &#124;  talk )  14:27, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

I need some help
Recently new admin Muboshgu‎ has created a new page about the Michael Wolff book "Fire and Fury" now due to hit the shelves tomorrow. So when checking, that editor sees an older article Fire and Fury which is about an older out of print ACW wargame rules. He sees little in the way of sourcing, so he tags it and eventually puts it up for AfD. Along I come and defend the wargame rules, and provide sourcing. A couple of other editors come by an agree with me. Here's the thing: we're getting very high page views on the game system page, as folks come along and type in "Fire and Fury" into their search window. At this point I've suggested to Muboshgu‎ that they withdraw the nom, we get an uninvolved admin to close the process, then we move the game page to Fire and Fury (game) and move the book Fire and Fury (book) to Fire and Fury as primary topic. I've queried process participant BOZ and the nominator Muboshgu‎, and they seem down. Could you act as uninvolved admin and help us close the process quickly? Thanks one way or the other. BusterD (talk) 22:04, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * closed the AfD and moved the game. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:08, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Dude. Thanks. BusterD (talk) 22:08, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:43, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Question
Thank you for adding the extended confirmed right it just hit me that it doesn't give me the confirmed right. So I am able to edit 30/500 pages but not semi-protected. Can you add that too or should I request?? TheDoctorWho Public (talk) 02:20, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * , I’ve confirmed you for a week. If you don’t hit 10 edits by then, you can ask again. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:23, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Once again thank you!! Like I said I don't know why that didn't hit me the first time. TheDoctorWho Public (talk) 02:25, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

WikiExperts socking
posted on meta that (Rudra.shukla sockfarm) is a WikiExperts operator. His userpage (snapshot) takes credit for creating several articles. One of them Jenn Vix was created by a sockpuppet of. The AfD for same was also visited by who also had several socks identified just a few days ago. Not sure what to do with this since Murphy sockfarm became inactive some time ago. And as of now Masterknighted is independent of Murphy, but 's question-and-answer session here makes it clear this isn't all. Is it useful to tag the accounts, try to tie the farms? ☆ Bri (talk) 16:43, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Another claimed owned/managed article is Zensar Technologies which possibly leads to yet another two-dozen-plus sockfarm through, blocked June 2017 by Berean Hunter. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:11, 1 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Caroline A. Murphy sockfarm
 * Rudra.shukla sockfarm
 * This possibility ties two sockfarms. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:31, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * , sorry, I've been busy IRL today and will be tomorrow, but will try to get around to it Wednesday or Thursday. I'll defer to the CUs as to what to do on this, but I can take a look and give my thoughts later. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:02, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Cool -- I went ahead and filed at Sockpuppet investigations/Rudra.shukla. I didn't mention Zensar Technologies because it's fairly tenuous at this time. ☆ Bri (talk) 03:30, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * SPI result: they will be merging two existing cases to Rudra.shukla & Masterknighted not; no new checkuser was performed. I'm thinking about initiating an LTA page for WikiExperts–a little surprised that one has not been opened yet. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:20, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * , sorry I haven't responded until now. Been distracted by too many other things on-wiki this week. I agree with you that starting an LTA page for WikiExperts would be good. You are unquestionably the person who is most familiar with them, and documenting it for others to spot would be helpful in my view. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:29, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Will have very little availability for a few days myself. If you like, check out User:Bri/WikiExperts LTA. I'll probably move it to WP space next week ☆ Bri (talk) 02:32, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

AE Query
Can you please clarify for me which of 's edits violated his tban? You reset his tban, but you didn't state which of his posts violated his tban and at what time he made the posts. And please don't say Scarborough because he's not a politician. Sir Joseph (talk) 21:00, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, Scarborough was the unambiguous violation: he quite clearly falls in the category of living American politicians, and related topics, broadly construed  as a former member of congress who has become a cable TV political commentator. Additionally, I will note that it was the consensus of administrators who commented that the topic ban should be reset, and that I would not have done so without agreement from my colleagues. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:10, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * On the 30th day of the topic ban. 4 days before the complaint was filed and a BLP.  You're an involved person that excused yourself for implementing the fuckwit prohibition in the first plae.  There was no AP2 violation in the this "new"  dipshiat sanction.  --DHeyward (talk) 21:41, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I typically prefer not to hand out AE sanctions against editors (and in fact I only do it when specifically asked to handle it by other administrators). In this case, I had two of my colleagues specifically ask that I close the filing, and I have only ever had administrative interactions with you. The previous AE I filed instead of taking direct actions was to avoid any sense of impropriety since you were actively working on an arbcom case where I was the filing party, so out of an abundance of caution, I took it there for other administrators to review. That is not the case now. I do not consider myself involved in regards to you, and I was implementing the consensus of other uninvolved administrators that the topic ban should be reset, given what appeared to be past confusion, I also agreed with two other colleagues that it should be made broader. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:53, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Bulllshiat. You've given me 2 AE sanctions and brought me unsuccessfully to AE on a violation.  Don't bullshiat with "I typically prefer not to hand out AE sanctions" when in 30 days you did those things.  Getting smacked down in your first AE filing should have caused you to withdraw as involved.  As it istands, you are staking this new, broader ban from a different ArbCom case based on an edit 31 days into your TBAN on article that is A) arguably not covered and B) a BLP violation determined by consensus on that talk page.  You can fix your mistake.  --DHeyward (talk) 22:14, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Both times at the request that I close another editor's AE filing. I dreaded it when I was pinged last night in regards to this. My actions were consistent with the consensus of uninvolved administrators at AE. I do not intend to change my sanction. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:19, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Moving forward, you should probably not conclude specific language in a sanction like "articles about American politicans" with the extremely vague "broadly construed." I hope you'll take the time to reflect on the needless disruption such administrative actions cause. 2 AE cases for User:DHeyward, a case for User:MONGO, a case for User:The Rambling Man, and a couple threads at AN, with the end result of editors retiring from the project. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:11, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your feedback. While I do appreciate your thoughts, this is standard phrasing that is used to avoid WikiLawyering. I will continue to use it. Incidentally, I think this was a TBAN violation even without the broad construction: a former congressman is a politician, narrowly construed. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:14, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Tony, the whole point is that you did not use "standard phrasing." You made up your own phrasing. The "standard phrasing" would have been the standard AP2 topic ban. You've explained several times that you tried to come up with a sanction that would let DHeyward still edit certain areas, which I commend you for, but started specific and ended vague. Thanks for taking my feedback into account. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:22, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * , yes, I agree with your criticism. That is why this new topic ban, which I strongly believe was merited based on the evidence presented at AE, was made AP2. I'll admit on the first one I was a young admin on this who was trying to give DHeyward more flexibility. It didn't work. I won't make the mistake again. That doesn't change my view that this was at least one flagrant topic ban violation in the narrowest sense of the ban. The broadly construed part is standard wording, and since the criticism here has been that I tried to tailor it to much the first time, I don't think making future sanctions narrowly construed will help.At the same time, as I mentioned above, I really hate AE, and don't plan on being there that much at all. I was only involved here because I came across the Roy Moore articles at the height of the scandal in the election and applied DS to them to try to prevent disruption. I was asked to handle it by other administrators when it was brought to AE, so I did. I think both the original ban and the new one are justified. I know you disagree with that, but I hope you do see that I have no grudge here and I am honestly acting in good faith. I knew that this would be a mess the second Kingsindian pinged me, but I also respect the consensus of my colleagues, and agreed with them in substance. I'm honestly only here to try to build up the encyclopedia and keep it a reliable resource for the world. You might disagree with my actions, but they are always aimed at helping the reader first and foremost, and not based on some ego trip or personal vendetta. Anyway, I hope you are looking forward to a great weekend. All the best, TonyBallioni (talk) 18:38, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Bullshiat. Your character is badly showing. The scope was outlined here on December 9: .  See 's comment at the bottom before you hastily closed it.  You didn't clarify the TBAN.  I've operated under that understanding of that comment.  Sandstein: The topic ban was phrased as "topic-banned from articles about ... politicians and related topics". This means that the ban encompasses only politician-related articles, not politician-related edits. While the edits here are related to politics, the article as a whole is not related to any specific politician. If that was not the intention, the topic ban was poorly worded. You then IAR closed your own sanction request Withdrawing this myself per IAR and Sandstein's comments. This is causing more confusion than it is clarification, and apparently my wording wasn't as clear as I thought it was. Apologies to all involved for wasting any time and anything construed as being personal.  Now you sit by and let others argue that I was supposed to interpret differently than that despite your acknowledgement of Sandstein's interpretation.  You have no integrity. --DHeyward (talk) 19:06, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Joe Scarborough is unambiguously an American politician as a former member of congress: that was the bright line. The other actions were borderline, but I agreed with my colleagues that taken as a whole, we had several potential violations and one clear one. I explained my reasoning at AE, which is far more nuanced than you are letting on or portraying. I've already explained myself here, on your talk page, at AE, and at AN. I have no intent of getting into further arguing as I doubt it will be useful to anyone who has already decided I was wrong, and those who are undecided can see my views. The community will decide whether or not the consensus of administrators at AE was correct, and if they decide otherwise, then I won't be mad if it is lifted. I will not be lifting it myself, however. I hope you have a great weekend. All the best, TonyBallioni (talk) 19:12, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Scarborough is not a politician. What you are doing now is digging in, and it is unfortunate that you becoming "one of those types" of administrators. Your horribly worded TBAN caused all this mess and rather than deal with it, you create a new TBAN for 30 days which is not the original TBAN just to save face. That is a shame. Sir Joseph (talk) 19:27, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * You are free to think that, but I and every other administrator who commented at AE disagreed. Thank you for your feedback. It is appreciated and taken on board, even if we are in disagreement here. All the best, TonyBallioni (talk) 19:29, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Well to be fair most of the admins commenting didn't understand your topic ban either. It just goes to show how nearly impossible it is to change an administrator's mind, even when they are clearly wrong. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:46, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Nullshit again. When your Dec 9 AE filing didn't yield the interpretation you wanted, you IAR closed it down with no clarification.  If you are so petty that you cannot see how it could A) be a reasonable interpretation that Scarborough is no longer a politician just as he is no longer a lawyer and no longer a college student or B) that introducing statements that invite conspiracy theories is a BLP violation and C) thinking that an AE filing unrelated to Scarborough after the expiration deserves a broader sanction when the edit still stands is punitive.  This looks like it is headed to ArbCom which, despite your pleadings to the contrary, seems to be your sole purpose here.  I had hoped you would be reasonable.  --DHeyward (talk) 20:48, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I assume "Nullshit" is supposed to be "bullshit" and "bullshiat" is also supposed to be "bullshit". Is this something to do with filters, or typos or something? SQL Query me!  22:05, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion nomination of manish om singhania
Hi,

My page was deleted. How can i retrieve the page back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhiwebby (talk • contribs) 05:00, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi TonyBallioni,

My page "Manish Om Singhania" was deleted. How can I retrieve my page? Just let me know as soon as possible.

Thanks in advance. Abhiwebby — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhiwebby (talk • contribs) 06:15, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi,, unfortunately I will not be able to restore the page as it was unambiguous advertising, and would be eligible for deletion even in your user space. I can provide you with an email copy of the text if you want, though. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:39, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi TonyBallioni,

Now I want to create the page with the same name(Manish om Singhania) then how to achieve that. Could you please help me on this.

Thanks in Advance, Abhiwebby — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhiwebby (talk • contribs) 15:10, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * , you are free to recreate it so long as it addresses the issues that caused to to be deleted (namely being promotional.) I would suggest you submit it as a draft through the articles for creation process this time. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:16, 6 January 2018 (UTC)