User talk:TonyBallioni/Archive 22

Be Aware
AO is currently on vacation and I think an administrator should be aware of this editor: User talk:Paulclark67. – Conservatrix (talk) 16:06, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

You have me confused
with another IP editor. I have never been to Connecticut. I am in Montreal, Canada.96.127.243.251 (talk) 20:45, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I find it odd that there’s another IP editor who edits educational institutions, is familiar with the Jzsj drama and has extensive views on it, and started editing 3 days before the latest range block on the /16 from Connecticut. I’m normally very pro-IP, but it stretches the limits of my good faith a bit here. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:51, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * There are about 5 million people between Montreal and Connecticut, so your reasoning is a bit weak. I make valuable contribs as an IP, as do tens of thousands of other IPS, and deserve the same respect as any other editor, unless you have some evidence to the contrary. 96.127.243.251 (talk) 21:20, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * You’re lecturing one of the most pro-IP admins out there. I’m just saying it pushes good faith to the extreme in this particular case. Being an IP means you get treated with the same respect as other editors, not that we throw valid questions out the window. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:45, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Well your first words to me were basically a personal attack, what do you expect? Anyway, moving on. 96.127.243.251 (talk) 00:11, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * See my response to you above. You’re asking a lot of us to believe here. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:14, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Whatever.96.127.243.251 (talk) 00:18, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Situation
Hi,. I'm wondering if I could ask for some advice regarding this:. I've run into this kind of sentiment before, but it's not typically so blunt when it comes from an administrator – and it certainly doesn't typically come with a threat of blocking. I assume we have no rule against, e.g., unregistered users assessing articles for WikiProjects. 142.160.89.97 (talk) 22:36, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi, I obviously don’t have access to all the same information you do, but this IP has been around for well over a year and tends to do gnome work. They’re an established good faith contributor even without an account. I haven’t looked that deeply into the situation, and they certainly can be a difficult personality at times, but I just wanted to let you know I’ve been aware of them for a while now (if it makes any difference.) I don’t spend much time in the wikiproject assessment area, so it’s entitely possible you’re aware of some guideline I don’t know about. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:50, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * If you or another user agrees with the changes the IP made, fine. Otherwise, I don't much care about their contributions. They shouldn't be doing this sort of thing without an account. It's the kind of activity that should only done by experienced registered editors. If you disagree, feel free to revert me.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:12, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I’m not familiar enough with the content to make the assessment. Thanks for the response. If you object to it on this article, I’m not willing to revert you unilaterally without better understanding the subject matter. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:18, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Question
Ok, so how long do I have to go without 'not thinking before I edit' before I am ready for rollback? Month?? 2 months??. I have studied the guide to rollback and I will continue to study it when I am not busy to get a grasp of it. I don't doubt your decision to deny my request (I probably would have done so if I was a PERM granter), but I would never have used rollback unless I was 100 percent sure it was the right move. I mean in a month or 2 months I should be able to have a trial period at the very least. I would think that self reverting would be seen as a sign that I recognize what I did wrong and that I am improving upon it (most of my self reverts happen within a minute or seconds). Just give me a time frame. I give you permission or some experienced editor to give me a daily report on my edits so I can know I am at least making progress. I have reported over 80 vandals to AIV, SPI. I have over 80+ thanks for my vandalism reverts. I really need a time frame and maybe a way to let me know I am making progress each day or week. Thank you  JC7V  -constructive zone  17:13, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * And yes I would like those diffs of me 'not thinking before I act' so I can know exactly what I need to fix in future edits. In one month or month in a half I should be able to be granted rollback, even for a limited time. I wouldn't abuse it at all if I get it then. I need a clear path to getting it so I don't look like a fool if I am denied again. I mean I know you have a strict guidelines, but come on. JC7V -constructive zone  17:31, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Long enough so you aren’t rude to people and know the basics of communicating in a collaborative project. I’ll finf the diffs later today: I’m busy currently, and won’t be on until later tonight. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:34, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Who was I rude to? I communicate very well and collaborate with others probably better than most. I had 2 recent issues (one with an IP and one with Chrissymad's revert of me which I self reverted with a stupid edit summary). Can you point to any others?? You are the one being rude and casting aspersions and persoally attacking me. I believe people like Shellwood, Abel, Drmies, Donner60, Cbratbyrudd, Knightrises10, SA Bro13, Megalibrarygirl, the new editors I've helped improve the articles of and many others would disagree with your assessment that I can't communicate-collaborate, or that I am rude. Cherry picking at best. Seriously, I communicate very well with everyone 99 percent of the time. No editor is perfect. I communicated about my self revert on the talk page of the windmill article. I think you were rude to the IP above. I constantly save or try to save new articles from being deleted at NPP, sometimes suggesting they are put in draft space.I always communicate with everyone I revert. Seriously ,why don't you ask all the people who gave me 'thanks' if i am a 'rude' 'uncollaborative' editor. Go on do it. Ask them. And you wonder why this site can't retain new editors, it's because people like you who can't AGF. JC7V -constructive zone  17:51, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, the paragraph above is the absolute definition of polite and collaborative. SQL Query me!  17:56, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Putting aside the issues of civility and collaboration, I would not grant rollback privileges to any editor who'd only been here a month. It's too soon (and don't ask me when is not too soon). I also have trouble believing this is your first account at Wikipedia. The areas you've involved yourself in and the very large number of edits you've racked up in a short space of time are highly unusual for a newbie.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:22, 20 August 2018 (UTC)


 * first, please don't email me claiming that I made personal attacks on you. I did no such thing: I classified your behavior as rude, which was in part motivated by your approach on this page (as points out above.)PERM is very much a whole person  thing and we look at everything, which is why as my friend  points out, I can't really give you a hard number, but I note that you also don't have that much experience, and I agree with him on his assessment there. I normally say "Come back in a month or so." to leave it open ended. The fact is, I don't know how you will act on Wikipedia going forward.In terms of diffs that I was referencing, I'll kill two birds with one stone with your ridiculous treatment of : instantly reverting him as being "bitey" when all he did was type out a hand written warning to you (also, it goes to Bbb23's point above that this is clearly not your first account: anyone who can cite WP:BITE isn't new). You then apparently had a change of heart and decided to revert yourself and reply a few hours later . This is odd, as he was warning you for basically doing the exact same thing to .If you want more examples of your frankly erratic behavior of reverting then self-reverting seconds later (or similar behavior such as self-reverting warnings and reports to UAA), here you go:, , ,, , , , .There are many more similar edits, but I think the above shows a clear pattern. There is nothing wrong with self-reversion, but making mistakes these self-reverts as quickly and as frequently as you do doesn't inspire confidence you know what you are doing. There is no way I would ever give someone who thinks they make mistakes in warning and reverting people that frequently access to Huggle (which is mainly what rollback is useful for if you're a non-admin who works in vandal fighting.)I'm sorry for the long post and the quite direct reply, but no, you do not get to come here making demands of me and then accusing me of personal attacks for calling you out for being rude. If you don't fix these issues (both the erratic behavior and the way you interact with others) you're more likely to be blocked than be given rollback. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:08, 21 August 2018 (UTC)


 * For any applicants for minor user rights who  may  be in  doubt, the 'entry thresholds' are  a basis, mainly  to  avoid applications from  totally  unsuitable applicants, and when appropriate,  hat  collectors, and occasional trolls. Those 30/500 or whatever they  may  be, are not  an automatic qualification. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:28, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

United Daughters of the Confederacy
There is a growing issue on the United Daughters of the Confederacy article. – Conservatrix (talk) 21:55, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * As far as I can see from the history, Conservatrix, the growing issue is that you are edit warring against multiple users. Bishonen &#124; talk 22:08, 20 August 2018 (UTC).

Question on Payment21 Page Deletion
Hi, I understand the sanctions taken against the users who posted the entry about Payment21 in June 2018. These users got blocked and/or banned for valid reasons, and as a result, no form of appeal seems to be possible, even though the actual content of the article, that was affected by blocking these users, has not been reviewed with regards to its worthiness for publication. To what extent are other Wikipedia-admins allowed to publish a new article about this officially licensed Swiss-based payment gateway? I have analyzed a number of crypto-related entries on Wikipedia and realize that many of such crypto-currency-entries meet fewer inclusion requirements than this site. IMHO, it is indeed a genuine site and appears to be noteworthy in comparison to others. So I would like to check with the community whether or not Wikipedia needs an article about Payment21. Currently, I hesitate to move forward because of your earlier actions. Let me know if you are in the position to discuss this matter. Your guidance would be highly appreciated. Thanks for your consideration.

WhatAboutKrypto (talk) 14:04, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * was the deleting admin there. You should talk to him about it. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:08, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Llarson, again
Please see this. I can't see any purpose here except to harass me about an article he knows I am deeply involved in and feel stewardship towards, perhaps trying to entice me into breaking 3RR. I really think this is WP:Poking the bear. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:29, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Harassment by jd22292
See this. The 2DABS guideline has to do with primary topics; It's not a reason to delete something. Nine Zulu queens (talk) 21:21, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * , that’s not harassment, even if wrong, and it’s also almost a year old. No admin would do anything here. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:43, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oic. I recently got a notice that I had received a new message. This message was on the bottom of my talk page, so I got confused. Nine Zulu queens (talk) 22:14, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * You do so all the time, and I ought to have sent one of these ages ago. Writing to make clear that no irony was intended here, although I did mean to send this star to Bearian.  Editing while jetlagged.  I'll log off now until I get some sleep.  E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:02, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

A continuing issue
Hi, I see you're aware of the issue between WCM and WIR and I believe the issue might be continuing. You also may have gotten a ping from another talk page about what I'm writing about.

I don't know if you saw their AfD comments (ex. 2) targeted toward the wikiproject, but ever since this AfD, they've gone from very rare AfD participation since May 2016 to 9 delete votes in the past two weeks, all on women's biographies, so I'm pretty sure they're stalking the Wikiproject's article alerts (their AfD record). Since they don't seem to be familiar with notability policy past GNG (no knowledge of WP:ATHLETE, or WP:AUTHOR), they're not very effective at trying to get them deleted (or maybe they're trolling or just doing it to feel better?), but it really doesn't seem healthy or productive.

For full disclosure, I had this ...discussion? with them here on this subject, where they stated "Sigh, when did wikipedia abandon its policy of assuming good faith?" although I don't think any of this voting is in good faith. So! I'd really appreciate any advice! Cheers,  originalmess  how u doin that busta rhyme? 11:47, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * It is interesting that not person from your project has ever reached out to me on my own talk page. It's also interesting that I have always been the first to start talk page discussions.  Its also very interesting that I keep seeing you and others lobbying against me on various admins pages.  Amy Siskind is a Twitter personality, I don't believe she merited an article on wikipedia and said so. Katherine Monbiot is an arm wrestler and I don't believe merits an article. What is however is plain as I said previously is a complete lack of good faith on your part.  That's the continuing issue.  WCM email 13:25, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * And 2 AFD? How many articles have been nominated since then?  WCM email 13:26, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I apologize, I'm still a fairly new editor and thought the discussion on that AfD was enough. I respect your decade-plus of quality content creation, and there's no need for the passive-aggressiveness; it's fine if you don't believe something merits an article, but from an outside viewpoint, the sudden rash of non-policy-based delete !votes just seem very targeted - but as Tony said, disagreements with a wikiproject are fine. God knows I don't agree with the policy to include the rash of stubs on every minor football player who's played in a single national league game. Also, I'm sorry you feel targeted, but I don't exactly keep track of what everyone else is doing; it's just a good launching point to find people to write about and a great community that's taught me a lot about writing and DYKs. Please note that I asked for advice and not any action to be taken against you. I'm not familiar with every recently closed arbcom case or anything, so I thought an admin would be able to clarify. If he'd told me to talk to you about it, I would have. Anyway, I'm going to get off his talk page, but feel free to leave me a message if you'd like to talk about anything at all. Cheers,  originalmess  how u doin that busta rhyme? 01:32, 28 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Yeah, this isn’t really something I want to get involved in. It looks mainly like a content dispute. In terms of the rhetoric: people are allowed to have disputes with WikiProjects (we just had an ArbCom case where basically one editor had an issue with their view of WikiProject coverage of a subject.) Those concerns should avoid being personalized, but I see nothing actionable here. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:48, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for clarifying!  originalmess  how u doin that busta rhyme? 01:32, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Can you email me the contents of the random user pages?
Hi, this is a curious thing. Why do people insist on creating a userpage for me? Can you send me a copy of the pages? I want to read them. Is it just nonsense? --- Coffee  and crumbs  21:14, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * They were blank. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:18, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks! --- Coffee  and crumbs  04:07, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

TFL notification
Hi, Tony. I'm just posting to let you know that Cardinal electors for the papal conclave, March 1605 – a list that you have been heavily involved with – has been chosen to appear on the Main Page as Today's featured list for September 17. The TFL blurb can be seen here. If you have any thoughts on the selection, please post them on my talk page or at TFL talk. Regards, Giants2008  ( Talk ) 22:25, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Heads-up / Signpost
Heads-up that I used your words at the about-to-be-published The Signpost Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Discussion report. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:24, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * , thanks for the heads up. Just as a minor request, could you clarify in some waythat I am not one of the administrators that has been approached. I've never received any compensation related to Wikipedia, and while I don't think testing a tool for a researcher is covered by the disclosure requirements, I'd rather avoid any doubt when the topic has been debated. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:13, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Roger that ☆ Bri (talk) 04:21, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

WP:3X
Hi Tony, I'm bring this issue up here because this is "your" fault.. It specifically has to do with the banning of User:RobThomas15 by. I wasn't sure the best venue, but I didn't want to discuss it at the sockmaster's Talk page.


 * closure of amendment to policy

Unfortunately, there's a disconnect between the amended language, the closure above it, and implementation to date (that I've seen). I knew this amendment would come back to bite people, and I've seen editors and administrators who are a bit too eager to impose the ban. The problem with the amendment is the use of the word "should", a weasely word that implies "not required", i.e., this key sentence: " Publicly documented CheckUser evidence should typically be involved before a user is considered banned in this way." My understanding and interpretation of that language is that "should typically" really means "must". For example, in the non-admin closure, which should (sorry) never have happened in my view, the closer says, "The CU evidence must be publicly documented." Moreover, I don't see how an administrator can impose a community ban on a sockmaster who has, as in this case, never had any publicly documented CU evidence of socking. Every account was blocked behaviorally and tagged as suspected. Ian also, in his usual thorough way, has explained to the user what the whole thing means, so not only should the tag be removed, but the user would have to be reinstructed. Oh yeah, I'd like to reword the policy.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:04, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * , I’d suggest being bold and just updating the language: it’s a change that will make things clearer and help work out the kinks in the new policy. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:14, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * , as the one who closed the discussion (because it was sufficiently one-sided for a NAC), I typically allow for some editorial changes by local-consensus, as to framing of the exact wording but in light of my own emphasis on two particular points, I've no idea as to the substitution of of must by should.I've changed it, accordingly.Best, &#x222F; WBG converse 14:18, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I've tweaked it a bit.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:45, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

User sending link malware is back as IP
Thanks for handling the user spreading link malware just now. The user is apparently back now as an IP. See Special:Contributions/41.44.62.223. I am pretty sure this is an IP sock of Nate Speed so they may start jumping IPs. Thank you. Aoi (青い) (talk) 20:18, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * And now Special:Contributions/41.218.212.173. Thanks again for helping to clean this up. Aoi (青い) (talk) 20:24, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Hey Tony
If you're awake, would you be able to revdel this please? Thanks, Lourdes  00:30, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ TonyBallioni (talk) 00:32, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * and thank you. Hope you're doing well. Warmly, Lourdes  00:33, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Zeke
I'm not sure if you meant to do this, but Zeke Essiestudy is trying to come clean, per my advice on his talk page. Brad v  04:03, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I did mean to do that. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:04, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Tony is absolutely right here. He beat me to the block by maybe a minute. Zeke is globally locked. His case is beyond the competence of AN. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:10, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * My apologies, Tony. I thought I was doing the right thing and giving him the best advice, and now I feel like a jackass. Perhaps I was being too sympathetic. Brad  v  04:35, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Never feel like a jackass, well, at least not for trying to be kind Sorry I was a bit short above. I'd just reverted you at AN and was trying to respond while talking to someone IRL. Yeah, en.wiki generally only accepts appeals from the main account (there are very rare exceptions, but this wouldn't be one.) If the main account is locked, they need to appeal the lock since we won't usually consider the appeal until it is made locally with the named master. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:40, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I for one don't think there is anything to apologize for. There are a lot of vices worse than being kind hearted. And I was not unsympathetic when reading his rather breathtaking confession. But again, this just was not something anyone at AN was going to be able to fix. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:42, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Practice, policy and interpretation...
Your comments or thoughts will be immensely welcome over this thread :-) &#x222F; WBG converse 04:25, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I gave my musings on policy, not the topic itself. I do my absolute best to stay out of the content on American politics, and unfortunately gun violence is a major topic in American politics. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:44, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Stop banning Nazis
I have noticed in the past few days that you people are actively persecuting Nazis by banning them. Please stop this censorship. There are many others with a POV that can be described as people with far-right or other unacceptable POV for leftist. Nazi means national socialism, they are not all racists. I am not revealing myself because I support some neo-Nazi views too, except racism. Stop this! I will repost this to whoever I find involved in banning Nazis. 185.243.76.9 (talk) 15:43, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't know if you're trolling or just completely unaware of how the world works but on Wikipedia, if you can tell an editor is a nazi or believes in parts of nazism, then they're violating WP:NPOV, so "censorship" does not apply. CHRISSY MAD  ❯❯❯  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  16:02, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Agreed, if someone is making their bias clear in their edits (especially after being instructed to remain neutral), then they don't understand Wikipedia's policy of having a neutral point of view, and as such are eligible for a block. Waggie (talk) 16:07, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * And you're right that there can be other meanings for national socialism, but there is only one meaning for Nazi. The philosophy that Hitler chose to call National Socialism included many abhorrent ideas and actions that are unacceptable to any modern person. We can't block or ban a person for holding Nazi ideas - their thoughts are their own - but we may very well block or ban them if they try to insert those ideas into Wikipedia --MelanieN (talk) 16:16, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree, ideally we would ban all editors who make their bias clear in their edits, but then we would have no editors. However, NPOV is somewhat more nuanced and also takes into account how a subject is discussed in reliable sources. NPOV only requires that all significant viewpoints are discussed with weight given based on discussion in reliable sources. I think it is an error to explain this as though the block is being imposed because the community believes the viewpoint is "abhorrent". We cover many viewpoints that many editors find equally abhorrent because NPOV requires it based on discussion of those topics in reliable sources. The content in Wikipedia is not determined by what editors, even a consensus of editors, feel is abhorrent. Arguments to include Nazi apologist content usually fails because it is false balance and editors who WP:IDHT after this is explained are usually blocked for disruptive editing. I think blocking on these grounds would satisfy the handful of editors who raise objections on procedural grounds when these blocks occur, but the objections are not very vigorous because there is usually a good justification for the block even if support for it is not well-articulated by the participants at ANI, Seraphim System  ( talk ) 16:25, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

We block for disruption. Placing a black sun or swastika on a userpage is a disruptive action because it’s announcing to our editors and readership that you don’t think 70%+ of them shouldn’t exist. That’s disruptive, so we block. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:35, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

• There are many troubling or problematic views where there may be 'grey areas' or where the principles of NPOV/NOTCENSORED or even the belief that freedom of expression is so valuable that we must allow expression regardless. However advocating, or even expressing, support for Nazism is a good place to draw a line as to what we as a community will accept. Nazis and those who support them have, as far as I am concerned, severed themselves from the society of humanity and we have no obligation to treat them with fairness or tolerance. No further justification need be given beyond "You are a Nazi and neither you nor your views are welcome here" followed by an indefinite block. Jbh Talk  16:42, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * My 2 ¢ We are giving this way more attention than it deserves. This was a troll. The troll has been blocked. End of story. (See also "don't feed the trolls.") -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:45, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

He's back
He doesn't seem to have ever followed through on the "use English sources on Indonesian Wikipedia" advice as he said he would, and over the last six months or so he's come back onto en.wiki and is still doing the same close paraphrasing. See, for example, this, where he took a source that said an occasion to which numerous Palembang people bore witness [...] In 1970 the building underwent a drastic renovation during which additional office space was created. and wrote an occasion to which numerous Palembang people bore witness [...] In 19790 the building underwent a drastic renovation where additional office space was created.

Virtually everything in the article that is directly verifiable in the source is closely paraphrased, and that which isn't closely paraphrased is either unsourced or wrongly attributed to the closely paraphrased source: the details included in the clause immediately preceding the above quote, a group of youth consisting of former military officers raised the flag of Indonesia on the four corners of the Palembang City Hall's water tower clearly come from some other source, or from Indonesian popular historical memory.

And it doesn't stop at that one article: I don't have access to the source he cited here, but the GBooks snippet search implies he was lifting chunks of text way too liberally.

Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 00:14, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi,, I will look at this more closely in a bit, but I would suggest sending the article to WP:CP for now. sorry to bother you, but would you mind looking at this and seeing if a CCI is needed. (Also, JLAN, feel free to ping me in this case if RD1 is needed after CP or fixing it.) TonyBallioni (talk) 00:33, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't for a second blame you for forgetting, but the CCI you endorsed back in December is still "pending". I really don't know if there's any point having processes on this site that work as slowly as CCI, but I do know trying to "fix" the processes is an even bigger time sink than just trying to remove all the plagiarized text manually and give the offending editors stern talkings to. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 00:37, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I'd forgotten that you had filed that. I've blocked them indefinitely for copyright violations. That was direct lifting of text, and when a CCI has been filed and they keep adding copyrighted text, they've had enough warnings that they need to be able to convince us that they understand copyright. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:50, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Chen Yao (actress, born 1994)
This draft was created a couple of days ago. Are you able to check if it's identical to the pre-G5 versions of Chen Yao (actress) and Sebrina Chen? TIA Timmyshin (talk) 14:38, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The G5’s were two redirects and an article. The article prose contains more text, but also contains some lines that are identical and several of the same sources. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:41, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Notice Draft:Bambi Zhu and Draft:Lareina Song have also appeared right after you deleted Bambi Zhu and Lareina Song. Timmyshin (talk) 19:16, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

The has been a breach of the 1RR rule on the Jeremy Corbyn Page
User:Avaya1 has reverted the same passage twice the same passage in under 24 hours, ignoring discussions on the talk page. ~ BOD ~ TALK 16:56, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * They did not. Their last edit (revert or not) was on 31 Aug, and the revert is from 2 Sep. Bodney on the other had has just reverted content that misrepresents a non-RS (Morningstar), and used several primary sources in contravention of BLPPRIMARY - content that in its present poorly sourced form (as opposed to an abstract well sourced voting record for which there probably will be consensus to include) - there is no consensus to include.Icewhiz (talk) 17:34, 2 September 2018 (UTC)


 * My error, I misread, sorry their edit was on the 31st. We have discussed both WP:PRIMARY regards the voting record and The Morning Star on the talk page and have agreed we can use both to provide much need NPOV to the overall section.  ~ BOD ~ TALK 17:41, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * No such consensus on the talk page in regards to the specific content (or Morningstar previously), and in any event a local consensus can not contravene BLP or RS policy - both of which arw violated here. You might want to self revert and start a RfC.Icewhiz (talk) 17:47, 2 September 2018 (UTC)


 * I am not sure if we should be having this discussion here Talk:Jeremy Corbyn and Talk:Jeremy Corbyn/Archive 13. ~ BOD ~ TALK 17:54, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Jeremy Corbyn
Hello Tony, you blocked me for breaking 1RR which I'm not disputing but I wanted to clarify what's happening on some of these related pages. The edit was restoring information which was agreed on the talk page which you can see from this edit as per User:Bodney, User:Garageland66 and others.

Rather than contributed on the talk, these edits are to their version of page , ignoring the consensus on the talk which you can see. RevertBob (talk) 20:15, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * This is a reply to everyone re: Corbyn: I’ve full protected it for 2 weeks. Sort it out on the talk page, and if I’ve protected the wrong version, demonstrate consensus for a change and another admin will review making the change. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:59, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Jeremy Corbyn 2
Hi :) why have i been blocked from editing this page? ~ BOD ~ TALK 21:23, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * See above :) I’ve full protected it for 2 weeks. Only admins can edit it, and they will only do so when a clear consensus exists. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:25, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

...ooops sorry i see above ...is everyone equally blocked ....I dont know all the rules...one or 2 folks involved in the debate have admin status, do they stop as well...(a break from the instant news update is good though). ~ BOD ~ TALK 21:28, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, everyone who is not an admin will lack the technical ability to edit the page. Admins are not allowed to edit through protection to impose their prefered version of an article, even if they have the technical ability to do so. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:33, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Drop to ECP
Tony, I understand why you protected this, but I can't remember the last time I saw a high-traffic article full-protected for a fortnight. Could we drop it to ECP? If the problem is that confirmed editors are warring with each other, then I think blocks are the best option for the project as a whole. I realise that's making the article a de facto 0RR, but I still think that's the least worst option we've got. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  09:29, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * , feel free to remove it alltogether if you think things have cooled down enough that it isn’t needed. My goal was to give it enough time that whatever the differences were could be worked out without having to reprotect. I’ve seen high visibility articles protected this long before, so I don’t think that’s an issue in itself, but I also get your view. Do whatever you think is best TonyBallioni (talk) 12:23, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Past socking blocks
You blocked an editor recently for his past socking and your reasons does seem policy based and contrary to rising trend.

What is your opinion about a situation where an editor had abused multiple accounts for an AfD in 2017. Do you think that they can be blocked today for that? Lorstaking (talk) 18:07, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
 * No. That’s stale. I blocked two editors recently for evading previous indefinite blocks after knowing they weren’t supposed to. If an editor is still evading a block, then yes, they should be blocked, but if it was just vote staking in an AfD that happened once in 2017 and then stopped most admins aren’t going to be interested in blocking. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:46, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Channel Awesome
Hello, I see that you have handled this page previously in an administrative capacity. I would appreciate your continued attention to the page, at least to review what's happened in recent months. Various editors (including, repeatedly) have continued to add controversial claims to this article sourced to things like Tumblr and Twitter. It seems that people connected with the events are intent to use Wikipedia to air their issues. I'm attempting to deal with the content disputes through normal channels, but I'm asking you if further use of RD2 is warranted. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 14:40, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
 * And he re-added the same content. I'm requesting that you have a word with him because he just keeps reverting and suggesting that I "join the conversation". --Spike Wilbury (talk) 12:58, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

TARGET_instant_payment_settlement
Dear TonyBallioni, Thank you for having rolled back the fund transfer definition page. May I ask you an advice on another page I’m editing since a while? It is the Draft:TARGET_instant_payment_settlement. This page describes an instant payment system for the Euro area similar to several other systems around the world. According to the comments received I’ve tried to use a neutral language and provide a set of trusted third party sources. TIPS is an initiative proposed by the European Central Bank which is a public authority like Federal Reserve System, Bank of Japan, International Monetary Fund etc. All these Institutions are independent, reliable and not aimed at making profit from their activities, so I presume can be considered as valid references for Wikipedia. I hope you could have time to review that page and provide me some good hints ;-) Thank you all and best regards,Nicola Caione (talk) 15:52, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi, thank you for declaring your conflict of interest with that draft and creating it in draft space. It really is appreciated that you are trying to follow our rules. I think the problem is that it doesn't look to have independent sourcing and some of the language is still promotional. I'm pinging , who works with business articles and conflict of interest to see if he has any ideas. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:57, 8 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi, , thank you for helping me in this article editing & review.
 * The point related to independent sourcing is very triky because the ECB it is the primary source of information on this topic and many other articles are "cut & paste" from ECB's press releases and web pages.
 * This is the reason why 9 out of 15 sources are from the ECB.....many time I have preferred to use the "original" source instead of one "independent" that was reusing ECB's words.
 * Some times I've used third party news like notes 3, 4 and 5 which are from: (3) International business times, (4) is from Financial Times (5) from Business Insider, while the original news is this ECB news: https://www.ecb.europa.eu/press/govcdec/otherdec/2017/html/gc170623.en.html
 * Would that be a way to manage this issue?
 * Regarding the use of promotional language I kindly ask you to provide some examples, I'll do my best to rephrase (but please consider that I'm not native English speaker). I wonder if this rewording could be done by the Wikipedia community after the publication.
 * Thank you again. Nicola Caione (talk) 19:51, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Dear, did you receive any feedback from ? In the mean time I've updated many pages related to payment systems like ApplePay, Alipay and similar. Kind regards, Nicola Caione (talk) 15:51, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Did You Protect Bibi Bourelly's Page? American-German Isn't Accepted
Good afternoon TonyBalloni.

Have you heard anything about Bibi Bourelly a German singer from Berlin? She wrote Riri's Better Have My Money which was originally supposed to be for her eighth long player Anti along with FourFiveSeconds and American Oxygen.

In addition to that, she released two extended plays both titled Free The Real and was dropped on the dates of May 6 and November 11, 2016.

Are you the one who created her page when she released the lead single Riot from Part 1 came out? Currently, the first sentence after her name said that she is an "American-German singer and songwriter signed to Def Jam Recordings."

It should be "a German-American singer and songwriter signed to Def Jam Recordings." If she was born anywhere in the US her date of birth should be written in the MDY format like this: July 14, 1994.

Lastly did you also protect her page? It has never been like that since it got invented. The release dates for her EPs should be done in DMY layout.

Sincerely,

67.81.163.178 (talk) 19:54, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I have no clue who you are, but I believe User:Iridescent said they were going to give you a vacation from Wikipedia if you kept randomly asking admins questions like this about pages that aren't protected. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:49, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Only warning issued; I won't be around for the next few days, but since nobody else seems to be using this IP block away if there's any more crap from it. &#8209; Iridescent 21:13, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The next message was to me, which brought me here. I was close to blocking even before I saw this. I've given them one week, as that seemed the minimum necessary considering their contribution history; feel free to increase or reduce that. Vanamonde (talk) 02:20, 17 September 2018 (UTC)—
 * Thanks, Vanamonde. Lovely to see you in these parts of the woods TonyBallioni (talk) 02:43, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Cheers. :) Vanamonde (talk) 02:56, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Cheers. :) Vanamonde (talk) 02:56, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.13 18 September 2018
Hello, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

The New Page Feed currently has 2700 unreviewed articles, up from just 500 at the start of July. For a while we were falling behind by an average of about 40 articles per day, but we have stabilised more recently. Please review some articles from the back of the queue if you can (Sort by: 'Oldest' at Special:NewPagesFeed), as we are very close to having articles older than one month.


 * Project news
 * The New Page Feed now has a new "Articles for Creation" option which will show drafts instead of articles in the feed, this shouldn't impact NPP activities and is part of the WMF's AfC Improvement Project.
 * As part of this project, the feed will have some larger updates to functionality next month. Specifically, ORES predictions will be built in, which will automatically flag articles for potential issues such as vandalism or spam. Copyright violation detection will also be added to the new page feed. See the projects's talk page for more info.


 * There are a number of coordination tasks for New Page Patrol that could use some help from experienced reviewers. See New pages patrol/Coordination for more info to see if you can help out.


 * Other
 * A new summary page of reliable sources has been created; Identifying reliable sources/Perennial sources, which summarizes existing RfCs or RSN discussions about regularly used sources.


 * Moving to Draft and Page Mover
 * Some unsuitable new articles can be best reviewed by moving them to the draft space, but reviewers need to do this carefully and sparingly. It is most useful for topics that look like they might have promise, but where the article as written would be unlikely to survive AfD. If the article can be easily fixed, or if the only issue is a lack of sourcing that is easily accessible, tagging or adding sources yourself is preferable. If sources do not appear to be available and the topic does not appear to be notable, tagging for deletion is preferable (PROD/AfD/CSD as appropriate). See additional guidance at WP:DRAFTIFY.
 * If the user moves the draft back to mainspace, or recreates it in mainspace, please do not re-draftify the article (although swapping it to maintain the page history may be advisable in the case of copy-paste moves). AfC is optional except for editors with a clear conflict of interest.
 * Articles that have been created in contravention of our paid-editing-requirements or written from a blatant NPOV perspective, or by authors with a clear COI might also be draftified at discretion.
 * The best tool for draftification is User:Evad37/MoveToDraft.js(info). Kindly adapt the text in the dialogue-pop-up as necessary (the default can also be changed like this). Note that if you do not have the Page Mover userright, the redirect from main will be automatically tagged as CSD R2, but in some cases it might be better to make this a redirect to a different page instead.
 * The Page Mover userright can be useful for New Page Reviewers; occasionally page swapping is needed during NPR activities, and it helps avoid excessive R2 nominations which must be processed by admins. Note that the Page Mover userright has higher requirements than the NPR userright, and is generally given to users active at Requested Moves. Only reviewers who are very experienced and are also very active reviewers are likely to be granted it solely for NPP activities.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:11, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

For a special you....

 * Thank you, Atsme! It is appreciated! TonyBallioni (talk) 18:38, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Apology
I should not have made the comments I did at your CUOS candidacy - I should have done so on the editor's talk page, or in private. I've brought additional, needless drama to your candidacy, and I regret doing so - sorry - TNT 💖 06:55, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * No problem, and no need to apologize to me. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:13, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Why did you protected The Walking Dead: The Final Season?
Why did you protected The Walking Dead: The Final Season? I don't like it. Benjaminkirsc (talk) 10:29, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * New Accounts were consistently adding information against consensus. You can request any edits you want made on the article talk page, though. TonyBallioni (talk) 11:34, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Undelete request.
Hi there, back in February you closed an AFD and deleted Mackenzie Harvey, a young cricketer who hadn't yet made his debut at senior level (didn't meet WP:CRIN). He's making his debut in senior list A cricket today (http://www.espncricinfo.com/series/8626/scorecard/1150097/victoria-vs-western-australia-10th-match-jlt-one-day-cup-2018-19). Could you please undelete the article. If you'd prefer to move it to draft or my sandbox, I'll update it later today. The-Pope (talk) 23:40, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Done. Sorry Tony, I happened to be around. Drmies (talk) 23:42, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Dang, I was really hoping to see Tony have a conversation with the Pope. Natureium (talk)
 * Hmm I can see your point. Sorry. But they can still talk, and maybe about something more exciting than cricket. Drmies (talk) 23:45, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * This would be a much more satisfying reply in these circumstances if I could call you reverend doctor instead of good doctor. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:05, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm a minister in the ULC... Drmies (talk) 00:29, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I was guessing a bishop in the Union of Utrecht, ordination standards are about the same and its Dutch. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:34, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks all, but there is nothing more exciting than cricket. The-Pope (talk) 09:54, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Nothing better than watching the Pope bat Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:00, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Misunderstanding
On my request for rollback, what did you mean by "specific days"? I was just wondering because I may have misunderstood what you meant there. StarlightStratosphere (talk) 23:53, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I meant that there 3-5 days that constituted most of your activity. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:08, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

SPI
Sir, could you please consider a case here in Sockpuppet investigations/Mhdsuhail111. Even if Mollywood.lover and Sagar.kottappuram777 is unlikely, Mollywood.lover and Muhammed.suhail is the same person. It's that evident from their behavior and editing pattern. New account continues what the blocked ones did, which in turn was created solely to add exaggerated box office figures of Mammootty films.137.97.86.135 (talk) 17:20, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi, I have no reason to doubt Bbb23’s judgement here, so I think letting that case lie is best. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:18, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * No sir it's not about that, Bbb23 did fine, performed a technical inspection but unfortunately it was stale. So as a check user his duty is over. I believe some uninvolved administrator can now look into it and take an action based on their behavioral grounds. It's a clear case.137.97.112.150 (talk) 07:10, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I haven’t looked at this deeply, but I’m not willing to overrule another admin in this situation, sorry. If you have any questions about the SPI, you should talk to Bbb23. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:53, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

SPI
Sorry I didn't know they were blocked. Thegooduser  Let's Chat  🍁  19:28, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * No problem. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:51, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

KnightRises10 at AfC
At the start of the month, you declined an AfC request from KnightRises10. They've been doing some more work and asked me to help guide them with AfC which I've been doing. They are eager and seem to have a good general sense of notability, but still some room for growth around other areas. Would you have objections if they asked for AfC again? My thinking would be to guide and mentor them as they did so. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:29, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * They can apply again. I haven’t looked over their recent edits, so I don’t have an opinion either way. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:35, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Question about AIV
This may well be a stupid question, but it's a risk I'm willing to take. I reported the anonymous IP 208.102.195.146 for repeatedly vandalising after a final warning, (as in, six times, I think), and after two hours, you got back to the report, and said it was "stale", and that I should rereport the IP if they vandalise again. I found this odd, since it meant they'd essentially got away scot-free with their repeated vandalism just because the report wasn't answered quick enough. A few hours later, another Wikipedian reported the SAME IP, despite them still having not started vandalising again, and the IP was promptly blocked (by Edgar181)... Why was their report somehow better than mine? Thegreatluigi (talk) 02:11, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * - as an admin myself, I'd guess that different admins have different ideas about when the use of our tools is appropriate to protect the project. SQL <sup style="font-size: 5pt;color:#999">Query me!  02:22, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Different admins have different standards for when something is stale. For IPs that are shared, mine is a few hours. The blocking policy says we are only supposed to block if something has the possibility of being disruptive to Wikipedia, and given that it was tagged as a shared IP, blocking after a short vandalism spree that stopped several hours before I reviewed the report isn't actually likely to do anything in my view. I don't think the other admin made a mistake, however. He just read the situation different than me.Also, I do want to hone in on one thing you said though: I found this odd, since it meant they'd essentially got away scot-free with their repeated vandalism... the block system isn't meant to punish users, but to prevent disruption. AIV can be treated a bit like bloodsport sometimes, which I don't think is good. The questions that an admin asks before blocking is not "What does this person deserve for their actions." it is "Is disruption likely to occur if I do not block, and how long is long enough to prevent disruption?" The punishment aspect really doesn't come into the picture. Different admins can answer the question in different ways, which is why you get some discrepancy at AIV. SQL above and I tend to be on the more conservative end of the spectrum, but other admins can block more liberally and be within policy. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:24, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I see. That makes perfect sense. Thank you. I guess I shouldn't be so overly keen to get vandals blocked, huh? Thegreatluigi (talk) 02:32, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Vandals that are active? Absolutely not! Report away! SQL <sup style="font-size: 5pt;color:#999">Query me!  02:35, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * What SQL said: if they're active and have been warned, report them. If it's a one off, warn and report if they continue after warnings. Just remember it's a project and not a video game with a high score system. Not that I've ever seen that behavior from you, but general advice to anyone who wants to go into anti-vandal work. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:38, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh, I'm still going to keep reporting them. I just meant that I shouldn't be so (to steal your metaphor) bloodthirsty about it. I mean, this is the first time I've ever made a report to AIV that HASN'T resulted in a block, so it really shouldn't have bugged me the way it did. Thegreatluigi (talk) 02:43, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

A beer for you!

 * Thanks! TonyBallioni (talk) 02:26, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Have a beer on me too!

 * Nah, it wasn't grumpy, and even if it was, I can be a grump sometimes too: it's not the worst sin. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:30, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks
Hello TB. Thanks for the block on this one. Would you please perform some R/D on their last few edits and summaries. Thanks for your time. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 04:01, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh goodness, gone. Thanks for reporting. I'd seen the username and did a spot check of one of the first diffs, which was enough to make this one clear. Didn't see those... TonyBallioni (talk) 04:03, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * You are welcome. Yep they did escalate their trolling quickly. Thanks for your quick action. Cheers. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 04:05, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Strickland Draft Redirect
I'm requesting you revert the edit you made at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Donna_Strickland&diff=862221162&oldid=862211426.

Multiple publications have linked to that draft, and by redirecting the page, you've hidden evidence of bias on the part of Wikipedia users.

Erasure of women in science, art, and letters is a persistent problem on this site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emceeaich (talk • contribs) 23:44, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I went to the draft to accept it after the ridiculous declines after I read about it in the Atlantic and I discovered someone had created the article. I redirected because that is our procedure for drafts that have articles: we want our readers to actually be able to learn about the subject, not have to wait to find it because they land on a background page with banners added by people who made mistakes. I was planning on adding a bit about the declines draft and the media attention it received to her actual article later tonight or in the morning: I’m out of my house now and adding citations on mobile is hard or I would have done it. maybe you could add a bit about the criticism Wikipedia has received for this mistake to the main article? This article from the Atlantic could be useful. Any tps might also want to take a stab at it. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:04, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * For now I think it would be best if the redirect was removed because it makes the articles calling out the deletion appear to be incorrect. Emceeaich (talk) 00:17, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what we're looking for here. The user wants to draft to continue to exist so we don't cover up its history? If there is criticism in that Atlantic article, well, this is it: "Unlike her fellow winners, Strickland did not have a Wikipedia page at the time of the announcement. A Wikipedia user tried to set up a page in May, but it was denied by a moderator with the message: “This submission’s references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article.” Strickland, it was determined, had not received enough dedicated coverage elsewhere on the internet to warrant a page." That's hardly criticism. Strictly speaking that's sort of true, although I think anyone who reads it closely will see that the person was in fact notable--but the draft missed a couple of essential things, like references., what do you want? We're not going to keep this draft just because a publication links to it--though that might be a reason to keep it as a redirect, I don't know. But this "oh you're hiding evidence", well, I've heard that before. I'm not impressed. Besides, this is the internet. Links change all the time. If this is of such importance, the Atlantic can put a sleuth on the the case, and in twenty minutes they can post an update with an account of what happened. Drmies (talk) 00:19, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * , Tony has done exactly what should have been done when a draft exists in addition to an extant article. The draft should not be restored. Primefac (talk) 00:19, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I was thinking a sentence might be appropriate since it generated some criticism of our site in mainstream press, but I’m open to it not being there if people think it is undue. Possibly in one of the criticism of Wikipedia articles might be better. I don’t think the draft should stay, especially because it is linked: like I said, we want people to learn about the article subject. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:23, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * After some research and talking to some other users about y'all process, I'm going to request that you do a history merge on the currently published article on Strickland with the one which was denied back from this spring. That'll preserve the history, and I'll make the request on the talk:Donna_Strickland page. Emceeaich (talk) 00:37, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * No, no, and once more no. You don't do a histmerge just because there are two pages on the same subject. The draft history is nothing like the article hsitory, and a merge is completely inappropriate. Primefac (talk) 00:44, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * What Primefac said: it would create a royal mess of that page history. Also, Primefac, check out that first revision. Attribution copyvio, but I have no clue the best way to cure in these circumstances. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:48, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Easy, WP:RD1 on that first revision. Primefac (talk) 00:52, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Yep. That’s how I was leaning. Thanks for dealing with it. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:54, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Any time. That's why they pay me the big bucks! Primefac (talk) 00:56, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

HG
Is Huggle harder to use than Twinkle? Thegooduser  Let's Chat  🍁  02:30, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Harder? I don't know. It's very different from TW tho. SQL <sup style="font-size: 5pt;color:#999">Query me!  02:32, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I know you need to download HG, Is that true? How "Different" is it? Thegooduser   Let's Chat  🍁  02:34, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't like it, but plenty of people do. I haven't really done much vandal fighting in that sense in a few years (I mainly block socks and LTAs and review AIV reports when it comes to anti-vandal work.) From when I did use it, I preferred WP:STIKI. I always felt like I was going to break the project with Huggle because the design was a lot for me to handle and I was afraid of press the wrong button. With admin tools, I'm definitely not going to use it. You can always try it and see if you like it. Just be careful TonyBallioni (talk) 02:36, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * It's a completely different program. TW is more warnings, Huggle is active monitoring and mitigation. SQL <sup style="font-size: 5pt;color:#999">Query me!  02:37, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I choose Tw, because it was easy for me to understand. I don't want to take the risk and make a mistake using HG. Thegooduser   Let's Chat  🍁  02:38, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Mabye Oshwah the Huggler will know. :) Thegooduser   Let's Chat  🍁  02:38, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * If you want something that you're comfortable with, stay with Twinkle. There's nothing wrong with Huggle and it's a very powerful tool, but it is personally too powerful for me to be comfortable with using it myself, especially as an admin who I think can block through it. Like I said, you can also just try it out and see if you like it. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:41, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * FWIW, personally I prefer recentchanges with filters for low-effort antivandalism stuff. SQL <sup style="font-size: 5pt;color:#999">Query me!  02:45, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I use those filters all the time too. Thegooduser   Let's Chat  🍁  02:46, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I hope yours look less like poo than mine! SQL <sup style="font-size: 5pt;color:#999">Query me!  02:49, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Eh? Thegooduser   Let's Chat  🍁  02:47, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * - The colors I chose are.... awful... SQL <sup style="font-size: 5pt;color:#999">Query me!  03:00, 3 October 2018 (UTC)