User talk:TonyBallioni/Archive 23

Revdel request
I don't want to slap a big "revdel" tag on the top of Brett Kavanaugh because of how much attention the article is getting, so would you (or a tps) revdel this revision for copying from ? Thanks Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:22, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ TonyBallioni (talk) 14:44, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Long Time
Hi Tony, It has been so long that we spoke. I hope and pray that you are in good health. I have a favor to ask, would you please review some of the articles submitted by me, it has been long time. I am not able to create articles directly, i have to submit them, like before i was able to create the article and then it only needed review but now i create the article and it waits in the review line and doesn't get published for months. Can you help with this? I have been applying for the permission to review others articles but my request is always denied. Please help me because i am bit demotivated right now. Looking forward for help from you. Thanks. Jeromeenriquez (talk)
 * Hi,, good to see you again. I am in good health and hope you are as well. I just accepted to of your drafts on bishops, and will look for more of them later if I have time. All the best. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:37, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Rise of Macedon
You froze Rise of Macedon at the edit warrior's version that is not based on long-standing WP:CONSENSUS. This is not a content dispute with equal sides. It is one or a small number of anonymous POV pushers. Long-time editors on that page reached a consensus and have lived with that consensus for several years now. Will you please revert the last anon edit so that the status quo consensus version is restored? Thank you. --Taivo (talk) 03:25, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
 * See Wrong version. We protect in the state we find the page in. You’ll need to take this to the talk page. The last revert was by an established user, not an anonymous POV pusher, by the way. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:28, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm sure you realize how contentious Balkan pages are, especially when they involve any issue on the border of Greece. There are several long-term editors, including both Greeks and non-Greeks, who established the compromise WP:CONSENSUS wording at Rise of Macedon several years ago and it has been stable.  You can imagine our utter frustration at having a set of anon IPs violating that consensus wording to push a WP:POINTy edit then only to have the text frozen as the non-consensus wording by a user at the last minute.  --Taivo (talk) 03:35, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, I’m aware. All the recent edits are adding an ethnic dispute and reverting it and then a source being added and a long term editor restoring it. That’s enough of a dispute to force talk page discussion, which doesn’t appear to have started. Just get consensus on the talk page and another admin will implement it. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:41, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Notability
Hi Tony. I appreciate all the time and effort you have recently spent on discussing criteria for "notability", not only on the Wikipedia talk:Notability but also on 's talk page. It seems to me that after such lengthy conversations involving many experienced editors who have called for adaptations to the current formulations, it would be a great pity if all the concerns expressed were simply dropped. I note also that at one point you were very critical of the criteria expressed on the notability page and therefore pressed for any adaptations to form part of related pages dealing with notability rather than the notability page itself.

I'm sure you are aware that most editors, especially recent recruits, are encouraged to use the Notability page as their first port of call in ensuring the biographies they are writing meet basic Wikipedia standards. I would therefore suggest that you and your colleagues carefully consider the possibility of improving the criteria expressed on the notability page, adding any necessary provisions (if necessary with links to related criteria) to help people along. This could perhaps be achieved initially by creating a draft of a new page along more effective lines. You might like to take this on yourself. It seems to me to be increasingly important to progress along lines which will encourage more editors to write acceptable biographies of women from around the world, especially about those who would currently be dismissed as valid candidates for Wikipedia articles. I hope you see this as a constructive avenue to explore. (cc, ) --Ipigott (talk) 16:18, 6 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Adding . --Rosiestep (talk) 16:56, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * fyi, SusanW was already linked in the OP  :)   ——  SerialNumber  54129  12:15, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi all, just so you don't think I'm ignoring you: I have a lot going on IRL right now and so for the next few days, my Wiki activity is going to largely be admin gnoming and mindless stuff that helps relieve stress for me (oddly enough). Dealing with complex policy stuff takes a lot of thought and time for me and I don't really have the time to devote at this second to thinking through a lot of the issues here. I'll definitely reply in a few days when I have more time, but wanted to let you all know so you don't think I'm blowing you off, either here or on WT:N. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:10, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks Tony. if you can provide difs on various AFDs where non-English sourcing has been an issue, that would be very helpful on the Notability page. We all recognize that I do not have the technical skill to find those diffs, though you and I have worked on quite a few articles with such claims. The two main arguers seem to be of the opinion that this only relates to Indic languages, which it clearly does not. I am not likely to go there again as the personal discussion of me and mischaracterization of what I have said is not conducive to a policy discussion. SusunW (talk) 14:50, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Since, one of the afore-mentioned main arguers is very-likely me, let me clarify that I (and likely, nobody else) ever said that this only relates to Indic languages.
 * What we were stating, by deriving from examples, is that the new notability guidelines can be equally applied to countless other spheres (including where our primary editing interest lies), other than the domain of your supposed interest and the outcomes will span from utterly ridiculous to plainly disastrous.
 * Though, even on a generalized note, I do not agree with most of your points. &#x222F; WBG converse 15:08, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Though, even on a generalized note, I do not agree with most of your points. &#x222F; WBG converse 15:08, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Though, even on a generalized note, I do not agree with most of your points. &#x222F; WBG converse 15:08, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

History of the Catholic Church
Hi Tony. When you get a minute (or three) you may want to take a look at the recent editing history there and the discussion at the bottom of my talk page. I don't want to become INVOLVED with this, but I think the well meaning IP needs some guidance, and possibly some of the other editors may need a little moral support. This fellow strikes me as the sort of True Believer that can unintentionally be highly disruptive. I don't want this to end up where I have to block them on CIR or disruptive editing grounds. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:07, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I've watchlisted. MelanieN has protected, so it should be good for now, but I'll keep an eye on it if it seems to heat up. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:37, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

11 years of editing

 * Congratulations, Tony - hard to believe you've been here for 11 long years .  Kpg  jhp  jm  02:02, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Invitation to join the Ten Year Society
Dear ,

I'd like to extend a cordial invitation to you to join the Ten Year Society, an informal group for editors who've been participating in the Wikipedia project for ten years or more. &#x200B;

Best regards, Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 01:59, 9 October 2018 (UTC)


 * I cannot confirm your suspicion about the previous editor, but you know that doesn't mean you weren't right. Happy anniversary! Drmies (talk) 02:18, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Hah! I’ve really been around 2.5 years. Being a teenager and university got in the way of the whole “Wikipedia” thing for about 9 years... Now if the WMF and stewards could celebrate my first edit day on meta... TonyBallioni (talk) 02:38, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

CU/OS election
Congratulations Hhkohh (talk) 09:42, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

RfC withdrawn and restated
You had !voted at an RfC. I withdrew and restated it. See RfC on the intersection of WP:BLPSPS and WP:PSCI restated Jytdog (talk) 15:39, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Article Rise of Macedon, WP:CONSENSUS Hellenic Kingdom
= Taivo reverts edits

Undelete request
Hey Tony

Been awhile since I checked but noticed you deleted my wikipedia page for Noah Kagan.

It was created years ago and is in the same realm as Pat Flynn, Sol Orwell, Ramit Sethi, etc...

Happy to point to online articles, references, etc that have been built.

I didn't create the page but was definitely proud to have it updated.

I'm curious what accolades or awards for the page to be reinstated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crxnamja (talk • contribs) 02:48, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi,, before I answer this, would you mind telling me what your previous account was? TonyBallioni (talk) 03:18, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

--- This is Noah Kagan. I've only ever had 1 account. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.228.125.128 (talk) 03:15, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
 * then why did you say that I deleted your article? Your first edit with that account was to this talk page, and it had no deleted contributions. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:23, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Your most recent revert
The reason being? KJP1 (talk) 20:29, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Explained on your talk page. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:29, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Rise of Macedon --> HELLENIC KINGDOM
New WP:CONSENSUS Building
 * I'm not getting involved with that content dispute. I just protected the page to force discussion. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:24, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Come on Tony, join us... :( — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dragao2004 (talk • contribs) 16:34, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Jason Y. Ng
I see you've been challenging what looks like an autobiography at Jason Y. Ng. I've reworked it and removed some content (not that much actually), and wondered if you thought it fit to remove the 'major contributor - close connection' template? Onanoff (talk) 20:10, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

It's nice
to see you amongst the appointed. Happy checking:-) &#x222F; WBG converse 14:32, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I appreciate your kind words, and the trust and faith of the Arbitration Committee and others in the community. It really means a lot, and I hope I live up to it. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:35, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Definitely well deserved. Congrats. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 00:30, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for that. - Sitush (talk) 02:31, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

DonkeyKang78
Hey Tony, thanks for the quick work. I didn't report this one yet but is likely a sock of Mmraider8989. They also used 104.220.148.191. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 05:21, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Blocked. Let me know if they come back. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:28, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

TB
responded with correct account name. Thegooduser  Let's Chat  🍁  02:52, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Belated congrats....
...on getting the CU and OS rights. I'm not editing much right now (until mid-November) due to real-life, or else I would have drop you a note earlier. I'm sure you'll be a definite asset to the project. Best, Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:57, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

New pages reviewer problems
Hi Tony, I have come across a ton of pages created by User:Superastig of mostly non notable radio stations most with a single source that come nowhere meeting WP:NRADIO as stands IMHO and most have been reviewed without tagging by User:TomCat4680. They are sytematically removing all notifications of unreviewing on their talk page and also a conversation that I tried to strike up about their reviewing here. As you accorded them the rights and they are refusing to engage with me I was wondering if you could try and see if there is a general problem or just a thing about radio stations. I am going through the list and unreviewing when I draftify so as to leave a trace with the reviewers. --Dom from Paris (talk) 09:58, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Just a heads up too that some of these pages had already been deleted through this WikiProject Spam/LinkReports/manilabroadcasting.com as having been created by socks. --Dom from Paris (talk) 10:18, 16 October 2018 (UTC)


 * I responded to his/her messages. Hopefully that resolves his/her issue. I'm a he btw not a they or their. TomCat4680 (talk) 10:25, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Yep it's sorted apparantly my messages were mistaken for templates and deleted by Tom Cat. BTW I am too a him but I use WP:GNL so as not to offend those that do not wish to identify as gender specific and hadn't noticed your gender on your user page. I got gratiously accused of mansplaining the other day and of being chauvenistic so I am extra careful now and even when I explained that I had only 2 bio creations and they were women and had particpated in closing the gender gap and that I didn't care what the gender of other editors were I got another earful and then I had the bad taste to write "good grief" and got yet another one! So I walk like I'm on eggshells now! Dom from Paris (talk) 11:29, 16 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Sorry for not responding to this, guys. I have no idea how I missed it. It looks resolved based on your conversation above, but if you still need something from me, let me know. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:52, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks Tony and belated congratulations on your new rights. Dom from Paris (talk) 06:08, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Need Your Help
Dear Toni, can you please help in getting my pages reviewed? Pages are, Victor Lyngdoh, Bishop Oswald Lewis, Francis Serrao, St Theresa’s School, Bendur, Model Christian College, Kohima. Please do look into the pages as some of the pages were created a year back but have not been reviewed. Thanks.Jeromeenriquez (talk)

Err
Can you see Draft:Tonyballioni Revokation? Hhkohh (talk) 05:48, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 * It's just User:Jenulot. Your standard crazy person. Nothing to worry about. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:59, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.14 21 October 2018
Hello, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

, there are 3650 unreviewed articles and the backlog now stretches back 51 days.
 * Backlog


 * Community Wishlist Proposal
 * There is currently an ongoing discussion regarding the drafting of a Community Wishlist Proposal for the purpose of requesting bug fixes and missing/useful features to be added to the New Page Feed and Curation Toolbar.
 * Please join the conversation as we only have until 29 October to draft this proposal!


 * Project updates
 * ORES predictions are now built-in to the feed. These automatically predict the class of an article as well as whether it may be spam, vandalism, or an attack page, and can be filtered by these criteria now allowing reviewers to better target articles that they prefer to review.
 * There are now tools being tested to automatically detect copyright violations in the feed. This detector may not be accurate all the time, though, so it shouldn't be relied on 100% and will only start working on new revisions to pages, not older pages in the backlog.


 * New scripts
 * User:Enterprisey/cv-revdel.js(info) — A new script created for quickly placing copyvio-revdel on a page.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  20:49, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Tomasz Oborski
Hey, is a suffragan bishop notable in the same automatic way that a regular bishop is? I don't really get the distinction. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 07:22, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah. It’s weird they wouldn’t just list his diocese. Even auxiliaries are notable, and they’re a step below suffragans. Also a suffragan bishop is your default run of the mill bishop, so it’s weird that they specified. TonyBallioni (talk) 12:41, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I can't believe I've never heard the term before. I went to Catholic school and everything :P &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 02:14, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay, now a more stupid question - Bishop of Kraków redirects to Archbishop of Kraków, which provides a list of only the archbishops of Krakow. Should Bishop of Kraków be turned into a list of the suffragan or regular bishops of Krakow then? Looks like quite a few of them have enwiki articles, so it wouldn't be a total sea of redlinks. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 02:23, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * It might involve usages that have changed. In current parlance, suffragan bishop just means a bishop who runs a diocese but is not a metropolitan. The bishop of the See of Krakow is a metropolitan, and therefore is styled as an archbishop, so creating a separate list of “bishops of Krakow” wouldn’t be great. I’d need to see the source, but it’s either saying he was the bishop of a minor diocese where appeals from marriage tribunals went through the Metropolitan Archbishop of Krakow (what it would be understood to mean today), or that he was an auxiliary bishop, who I suppose are technically suffragans, but that term typically isn’t used to describe them since auxiliary is more specific. Regardless, he’s notable if only because somewhere someone took excellent notes in a secondary source about his consecration as a bishop (which is why all bishops are notable.) TonyBallioni (talk) 02:34, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Through Google translate, the Polish article (Tomasz Oborski) calls him an auxiliary bishop, if that helps. I'm not taking issue with his notability, now I'm just trying to figure out where to link him so I can de-orphan him. The navbox at the bottom of his pl.wiki page has a separate list of archbishops on top and then auxiliary underneath, and there are lots of auxiliary guys, so it looks like it was a permanent position that was regularly filled? &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 03:19, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Major archdioceses almost always have auxiliaries. If you can figure out who the metropolitan archbishop was when he was consecrated, it might make the most sense to find a place in there to note Tomasz’ existence. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:26, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah, good suggestion. Thanks, I'll do that. Cheers :D &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 03:33, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Infobox wizard
That you were the sole opposer over the proposal at the 2017 CommunityWishlist (:-)), I note that they have remodeled the wish into a more generic template-wizard and have rolled out a tool as a beta-feature, since yesterday. &#x222F; WBG converse 17:04, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Heh, I'll take a look at it later. Not really sure why we need a template wizard when we already have a Primefac TonyBallioni (talk) 17:45, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Requesting help
On the article Natalya Meklin, there is an ongoing editwar over formatting. I admit to participating in it. The problem is that Wolf wants to have ribbon bar icons next to text (discouraged per WP:ICONDECORATION) so much that he or she (idk) hits revert without realizing they removed some important details from the article...specifically, puncutation, native name in the infobox, paragraph changes, a sentence establishing notability in the lead, a change of wording that fixed a factual innaccuracy, etc. They tell me to go write on the talkpage whenever I remove the ribbons, but does not write on the talkpage before hitting revert. And even after I posted on the talkpage, they ignored or did not notice because the process repeated itself. (Original name, establishing notability in the first paragraph, and factual accuracy are all more important than icons barfed up on the page...so I stated in the edit summary that I was removing the ribbons per WP:ICONDECORATION, and restoring the important information) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Natalya_Meklin&action=history I went to their talk page to let them know that I had already posted a new note on the talkpage, but that resulted in a quote "stay the fuck off my talk page", and it's gone really downhill. While there was a dispute over the ribbons with Nikkimaria, (switching locations of the ribbons), we both ended up agreeing that a version with no ribbons at all was the best compromise. Now, Wolf wants one style of ribbons that is very distracting, and highly unprecedented in Soviet aviator biographies. Considering the old saying "the simplest solution is the best solution" can you please protect the version with the plain list from being chaged by Wolf? Because having ribbonbars one way will lead to someone else wanting them styled differently, and will be argued about forever...but there is no dispute that a plain, icon-free bulleted list is acceptable on Wikipedia. I would like to note that I brought the article from a very short stub, but Wolf did not write a single sentence in the article yet has very strong feelings about its formatting. After 2 reverts in 24 hours it is usually forgotten and the ribbons end up gone, but every time I make a minor edit to her article, like adding a sentence, or making a simple rewording (in an edit that does not remove ribbons), Wolf brings back the ribbons, makes drama, removes biographical content, adds passive voice/tone/wording from a previous revision (like this), and things flare up again. I want to improve Meklin's article, like the fact that she was featured in Komsomolskaya Pravda in February 1945, had at least one child, was photographed by several famous photographers including Yevgeny Khaldei, her close-encounters with anti-aircraft guns, citations with pagenumbers for a book I just got...but because even small edits bring wolf back, trying to edit the article in depth will inevitably result in edit conflicts. I, and I'm sure most other Wikipedians including yourself, think we should prioritize content development over decorative icons, and I hope you can help with this.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 02:31, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I’ve full protected for two weeks since this edit war has been slow burning for a month, but I have no problem if another admin drops it if you can come to a consensus. is my go to for MILHIST type things. Maybe he can advise on the best place to get more opinions. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:40, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I dont know what's worse, the admin-shopping, or the lying. Tony, if you have the time to read the full Natalya Meklin talk page and article edit history, then WP:ICONDECORATION (or better yet, the entire WP:ICON guideline), then the recent history (and timing) of the edits posted on my talk page, you will see that the pleas here are somewhat disingenuous (I'm being polite). If you feel the page needs to be locked, so be it, but I've made it clear that I won't be editing the disputed content any further until this is resolved. It is not worth going 4RR for this. -  wolf  04:49, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
 * That’s why I protected and didn’t block: the two of you have been arguing and edit warring over this for a month. Of course you aren’t going to 4RR, but I don’t doubt it would continue at some point in the future. Full protection is ideal for these slow burning disputes between established editors. If one of you is so obviously right that your version needs to be the version implemented then it should be easy to arrive at a consensus for an admin to implement it and lift the protection. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:55, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
 * G'day . Ribbons and ribbon farms have been a bit of an ongoing issue across Milhist (there are those for them and against them), but I've rarely seen a whole list of all awards with icons in the infobox as was originally done. Infoboxes are for the most notable awards, not every one. I suggest the best way to get past this is a neutrally worded RfC laying out the options, and advertised neutrally to the interested WikiProjects, in this case Aviation, Milhist and Biography for starters. If done promptly, it would be closing about when the protection expires. I think the infobox option has been put to bed, so perhaps the two editors concerned can agree on one option which includes the ribbons alongside text in a list of links (see Chester W. Nimitz) or a tabulated version like Norman Schwarzkopf Jr., and the other which is just text with links, per Artur Phleps. There is the other option of a ribbon rack as a separate section, as per Smedley Butler. Then we can get a proper community consensus around what to go with here. This may help to defuse arguments at other articles as well. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:59, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I do not want ANY ribbons in the article at all - they are a disputed thing, and there is no rule against a plain list. I previously wanted a ribbon rack in the infobox, but now I want ribbons to be the h*** off the page since there are half a dozen ways of formatting. I noted in the article talkpage that the formatting of ribbons next to text is unusual in Soviet biographies. Can we PLEASE just trash them altogther? There are different ways to display them, and when method of display is disputed, it's best that there are none at all.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 13:40, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I would like to note that none of the articles you listed are of Soviet military people. In Soviet biographies, we tend to only use the ribbons for very high-ranking people like marshalls and generals. I could not find a single article in Category:Soviet World War II pilots (or any of its subcategories) that uses the formatting of American aviators.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 13:58, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
 * If the article was fully protected, I could not add any more information to her biography, and I just got a book about her regiment, so I intend to add more information in the future. So I intend to add more content when the protection expires.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 13:53, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

RfC on which you !voted, has been amended
In response to objections, I struck the two year moratorium thing at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(people). I'm notifying everybody who !voted. Jytdog (talk) 14:07, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Need clarity
Hi, Tony - I’ll start with your edit here. I’ve recently been struggling to understand what happened to Club Nokia, and while catching up on my reading this morning, I came across your iVote at NPP, and the 💡 turned on. When I’m reviewing articles in the queue, I’m a slow reviewer because I’ll review the edit history, the TP, and will also try to read as many of the cited sources as it takes to convince me it passes GNG. While that may not be the best method for cleaning up the backlog, I’d much rather maintain the quality of the pedia. What concerns me about backlog drives, and rushing through NPP reviews is that it appears hijacking redirects may have become an accepted norm over at NPP but I’m not implying the drives are 100% at fault. Like what often happens in the RW when an issue remains unchecked, it tends to worsen. I’ve also noticed more articles passing through NPP with questionable notability, particularly company loyalty programs, youtubers, company execs, unreleased films and a variety of other events that haven’t even taken place, exhibition (invitation) sporting events - all of which are pure promotion. This cannot be good for the pedia. I suspect there’s a growing number of COI editors that have not disclosed, primarily advertising/marketing/PR firms because those editors will fight to keep/protect those articles. I can understand it when an editor puts a lot of work into researching an article and writing the prose, then watching over it to guard off errors and vandalism but that’s not what I’ve been seeing at some of the AfDs. I’m not saying all are that way, but it’s pretty obvious some are, especially when you see red linked usernames or IPs that are clearly SPAs or who work only on business/company articles. It seems to me that a lot of the responsibility for keeping garbage out begins at AfC and NPP so I’m wondering if we should be a bit more selective in our choices for reviewers and a bit more stringent about adhering to our PAGs, or is that wishful thinking? Can anything at all be done or are we getting to the point that if you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em? Atsme ✍🏻📧 13:07, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi,, I’m travelling currently and am just checking in on my talk page quickly. I’ll respond to this in a few days when I get back home. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:41, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok, cool. I’ll be traveling Saturday & Sunday so it works out perfectly.  Safe travels, Tony! Atsme ✍🏻📧 03:44, 26 October 2018 (UTC)


 * , can you maybe stop making these baseless accusations. Quoting you above "it appears hijacking redirects may have become an accepted norm over at NPP":, , and myself have already explained to you that there is nothing wrong with creating an article over a redirect. Do you not want to listen to us? You seem to think something untoward happened at Club Nokia, nothing did. Polyamorph (talk) 08:31, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
 * For a given title, people often create redirects to a related topic that might mention it as a quick stopgap until an article is created at that title. If the title in question is a notable topic there is no problem with 'hijacking' a redirect (even if the article in question is a different entity than what the redirect was referring to). That's why redirects converted into article automatically get sent to the new page feed, so we can check to make sure everything is above board. As for where you have "noticed more articles passing through NPP with questionable notability"; Please report these users to me confidentially. I do some 'reviewing the reviewers' every day, but I can't check on everybody all the time. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  08:39, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, will do, and thank you for your diligence as our coordinator. I’m finally beginning to not miss TonyB as much as I once did (which may be a big relief for him). 🤣 FYI, I just posted a follow-up comment to the CSD, PROD discussion at the reviewer TP and look forward to the responses.  Polyamorph, chill a bit - your work is of no concern to me - but I do recommend that you more closely review your choice of sources for substantiating notability - blogs are not acceptable (see the RS/N discussion) and neither is passing mention in a book that focuses on the technology itself, rather than the conduit for it, and the same applies to passing mentions in articles that focus on Nokia (the company) and their competition, not the conduit for their member loyalty programmes they work so hard to promote.  Kudos to you on the work you’ve invested in trying to make a defunct promotional programme not appear as one - there’s a good chance the AfD will close in your favor depending on who performs the close.  Quite frankly and with all due respect, trying to defuse the promotional aspects of a customer loyalty programme is a lot like putting lipstick on a pig, but that’s my perspective as a single reviewer with bigger fish to fry. My focus now is on eliminating future confusion, and closing/keeping closed the loopholes for spam/COI editing per the link to Tony’s discussion above. Happy editing. Atsme ✍🏻📧 17:24, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't really care what you think about Club Nokia, it will close as keep because it's a worthy article, despite your incompetence. The link you posted on the reliable sources says the opposite of what you claim - i.e. the blog is a reliable source if used with care. But there is no point people pointing out the blindingly obvious to you, you still won't get it. Polyamorph (talk) 18:08, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
 * This would suggest my work at Club Nokia is appreciated by some, this is what NPP is all about, taking care and doing everything to prevent scaring away new productive editors. Polyamorph (talk) 18:23, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

That was a PA, and I strongly advise you to cease and desist - focus on content not me. The fact that you cherrypicked the part of that RS/N discussion that suited you is what I find problematic and reflective of your choices in sources for that article. Read the part in that same comment you boasted about wherein it clearly states “For notability it is not so good, mainly due to failing WP:ORGDEPTH.” My concerns are quite simple....meeting GNG basic requirements. I’ve been trying to explain that your choices of sources are inadequate for notability, but you refuse to listen. I’m not going to debate you here over that article, and I’d appreciate it if you’d butt out and let me carry on my discussion with Tony less your PAs and disruption. As for the article creator who commended your work, that’s wonderful, but keep in mind this diff, which he denied, so we simply AGF. Now he is editing under a slightly different user name that has no history, which is not unlike the hijacked redirect he used to create the article - doesn’t sound like an amateur editor to me. once expressed concern for my lack of skepticism in some areas where I should be skeptical...so I’ve modified that behavior as evidenced here. You can be polite and helpful while still being cautious. I am through discussing this with you. Atsme ✍🏻📧 20:25, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
 * It wasn't a personal attack, it was the truth. If you cannot understand what multiple people explain to you very clearly and you continue to believe your own preconceived misconceptions (as evidenced in the comment you just made where you still believe the redirect was "hijacked" despite reassurances by at least 3 editors that is most certainly was not), then that is incompetence, and disruptive wasting peoples time asking questions to try and convince yourself you are right but not bothering to hear the clear and simple answers you are provided with. Polyamorph (talk) 20:38, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
 * , I snow-closed the debate. The article unambiguously establishes notability (though I found a linked spam article, thanks for that). Polyamorph, I understand your frustration but please try not to be quite so belligerent, it really didn't help here. Guy (Help!) 20:54, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok, apologies to (I have ASD, so maybe that explains the perceived belligerence (I say what I feel). Polyamorph (talk) 21:00, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I understand. And to be honest I have lost my temper with Atsme more than once, as she will no doubt acknowledge. She means well, and repays patience with some genuinely lovely sentiments. Guy (Help!) 21:12, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Awww...❤️ Atsme ✍🏻📧 10:29, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Regarding Sockpuppet investigations/NarawaGames
Hi TonyBallioni, you recently closed Sockpuppet investigations/NarawaGames and mentioned that "an admission from a dynamic IP for socking from 2015 isn't particularly useful". I just want to clarify that Special:Diff/687492444 was made by, not. The unblock request was subsequently declined at Special:Diff/687589964. If this would still be considered too stale, then please disregard my comment. Thanks. —  Newslinger  talk   14:48, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks,, I misread that diff because of the talk page. My fault. It's still pretty stale, so in the future, there really isn't much reason to file an SPI in these cases. I'll block for block evasion since they've edited this year, but this is normally the type of thing that's not worth worrying about unless they've edited recently TonyBallioni (talk) 14:52, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

GA review for Contra Celsum
Hello! You may remember me from a while ago; I reviewed some of the articles you nominated for GA status. I recently nominated the article Contra Celsum, about a major apologetics treatise written by the third-century AD Church Father Origen of Alexandria, for GA status. I wrote the entire article myself; when I first came to it, the whole thing was nothing more than a single sentence and it was tagged to be merged into the article The True Word, but I greatly expanded it and improved it. I know you are interested in church history, so I was wondering if you might perhaps be willing to review it. I know you normally deal with early modern history, but I do not really know anyone else who is interested in the very early ancient history of Christianity that has been actively involved in the process of bringing articles up to GA status. --Katolophyromai (talk) 05:14, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Katolophyromai, thanks for the note. I've been very busy IRL of late, so I've bene focusing on admin things, which are easier for me to do than content work, and unfortunately haven't been writing as much. I'll try to see if I can take a look at it either this weekend or next week. I prefer early modern stuff, but I'm generally fluent in history of Christianity, so I'll see what I can do. Thanks for expanding the article! TonyBallioni (talk) 05:16, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * You are welcome. Thank you for being willing to help! --Katolophyromai (talk) 06:00, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Blocked User Luuuuuka & "Weltraumagentur"
Hi Tony,

Thank you for your hints at de.wikipedia.org.

User L. is connected to „Weltraumagentur“ (see here). With them we had two times big problems. Lots of accounts of them are blocked at de.wikipedia.org. The reasons are sockpuppetry & undisclosed paid editing. See here and here.

As far as I can see relevant accounts at de.wikipedia.org were:
 * Timon.Straub
 * Luuuuuka
 * Weltraumagentur
 * DePauli AG
 * Saskiaaaa
 * Kcinhteur
 * Architectonicus
 * Bellandris
 * Janko_0123
 * Lauranos
 * Telamoris
 * JuliaBra
 * Sambias
 * TonyFox9
 * Tezui

Please be aware of them. Regards, Atomiccocktail (talk) 10:56, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * thank you for the note. I'm sorry, but I'm having a bit of trouble making sense of which accounts were connected to each other on de.wiki. As I said, my German is non-existent and Google Translate isn't helping much in this case. Itti: as the blocking sysop from de.wiki, are all these accounts connected? If so, I can run another check on the ones on en.wiki that are not already blocked to see if there are any more accounts active here. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:21, 1 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi Tony, more or less. The solutions of de-wiki CUs showed some Accounts are direkt used of the same person, other not.

Here the first CU: Timon.Straub the same Person:


 * User:Timon.Straub
 * User:Saskiaaaa
 * User:Janko 0123
 * User:Bellandris
 * User:Lauranos
 * User:Telamoris
 * User:JuliaBra
 * User:Sambias
 * User:DePauli AG
 * User:Weltraumagentur (this account is a veryfied OTRS-account for the merketing agency.)

A different person, with two accounts in this case:
 * User:Kcinhteur and
 * User:Architectonicu, are not similar with the accounts above, but are one Person.

A different person, in this case:
 * User:Luuuuuka is not similar with above accounts.

The other accounts could not be queried because the last edits were too long ago.

The block of the account Luuuuuka is a result after this discussion:
 * de Admin/Anfragen Luuuuuka. Blocked accounts:
 * User:Luuuuuka
 * User:TonyFox9
 * User:Tezui

Luuuuuka was used from a different person, relatet to the "Weltraumagentur". They have only admitted what was beyond dispute, worked together by socks and IPs and often did not disclose their promotional activities.

Sorry for my english :). Regards --Itti (talk) 14:44, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Itti, thank you. This is very helpful. I'll look at this more tonight to see if there is anything that needs to be done here. Also, no worries on your English, it is significantly better than my German and easy to understand :) TonyBallioni (talk) 14:49, 1 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks :). If there are more questions, please ask. Have a nice day. Regards --Itti (talk) 14:55, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

RfA
Hey Tony! So I see you recently made the point that RfA isn't broken because examining the current RfAs, people who fail generally deserve to fail. What about people who may be qualified, but don't want to run because of what they perceive as a hostile atmosphere, or because they fear having a unsuccessful and hostile RfA? Enterprisey (talk!) 20:52, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * My general view is that more people should run for RfA. I think one of the unintended consequences of the January 2017 batch of RfA candidates has been that people are afraid of running if they won't get 99% or think that someone needs to pass in the 90s to consider running. This viewpoint also is one of the things that I think has started the current trend of badgering even sane opposes.Re: what I'd tell people: I'd say just run. Ask an admin or other experienced user who you know what they think your chances are, be open to accepting criticism, and go with it. I also think that admins should be more willing to reach out to potential candidates about running and remind them that it's 75% not 99% that is the pass rate. I get that RfA can be unpleasant (I recently went through something similar...), but if someone thinks they could be an asset to the community with the tools, wants it, and other people agree on that point, I think they should give it a go. We don't look for perfection in future admins, we look for people we can trust. Keeping that in the forefront of one's mind when considering RfA is important, if difficult. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:00, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The idea that there's a legion of editors out there who would be great in a role which entails being constantly abused and belittled, but nonetheless are too scared to apply in case someone says something mean about them in the "oppose" column, is a claim that's often made but for which nobody ever seems to provide any evidence. Can you actually think of someone who would make a good admin (take my definition of a good admin from last week as a starting point, in particular being able to evidence empathy and an understanding of Wikipedia's goals rather than just a mechanistic knowledge of policy and the technical workings of the wiki), and more importantly who actually wants to be an admin, who feels unable to run because they're afraid of the process? I have no doubt there are lots of editors who would like to be admins but feel they would be opposed; I'm equally in no doubt that in the case of most of the people who feel they'll be opposed, there are good reasons they'll be opposed. Opposition is an important mechanism for weeding out unsuitable candidates; Wikipedia is still suffering from people who became admins in "no big deal" days (look at Former administrators/reason/for cause and see what almost all the names have in common), and giving the ability to block and delete to people who don't understand both the technical and the community aspects of the wiki would set us back a decade. The Wikipedia of 2006–10 was a place and it's taken a lot of work to get rid of the worst of it. &#8209; Iridescent 21:09, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I actually agree with this a lot. I can think of several users (who I will not name, so no one ask) who I know want to be admins, am convinced would be bad at it to the point where I'd actually oppose, and think that the spectre of thinking they'd be opposed is what's keeping them from running. In a way, the reputation of RfA now does serve as a defense against people who we wouldn't want passing anyway.I think where we likely disagree to some extent is that I think there are likely a fair amount of people who would be good who do need to be encourage to run. It's less the self-appointed-defenders-of-the-wiki who would do anything for the block button but are afraid they'll fail RfA so they don't self nominate that my reply above was speaking to, but the users who would be good at it, but put it off whenever it is mentioned because they don't think the process would be kind to them. The latter category should likely be encouraged to run, because they have enough self-awareness to realize their own weaknesses, which I think is also a crucial factor along with empathy in being an admin. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:22, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * But do such people really exist? The only reason anyone would feel they'd be opposed is if they know they have a skeleton in their closet, since any candidate who doesn't have serious issues sails through RFA. We only have ≈3000 active editors; when you discount the admins and the people who'd obviously have no chance from the equation that likely leaves only a thousand or so at most, and within that group "people who are aware that they have an problem but are overestimating how concerned the broader community will be regarding that problem" can surely not be that big a subset. &#8209; Iridescent 21:36, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I think people like are more like who I was thinking of. If I recall correctly, she's mentioned to me that she had to be nudged into it over time and didn't really relish the idea of RfA.Using your numbers, even if that's 2% of the 1000 user population of admin candidates, that's still 20 people, which is more than double the number of people who have passed RfA this year. I don't think this is the biggest problem we're facing, however, by any means. I'm on the more-RfAs-are-good team, if only because I support diversity of opinion and the admin corps having new blood that makes it reflect what is actually going on in the community, but I think the two of us agree that the RfA-is-horrible-and-it-kills-you-and-your-pet-puppy-just-for-thinking-of-applying mindeset is just plain wrong without any real basis in current practice. Qualified candidates pass in the 90s percentage wise. Even from a year ago where passing RFA200 was a big deal, we're seeing that somewhat regularly now when people do run. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:46, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, the problem is that reputations (of the RFA process) matter more than whether they are (pseudo-; mileages vary on many common oppose rationales)factually justified. I sometimes wonder if adminship is just not attractive for people who will sail through enough to draw them to the process. That is, that it's mostly wannabe cops who want to and editors who aren't wannabe cops frequently won't see a reason to apply.JoJo Eumerus mobile (talk) 22:02, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The worst of the wannabe cops tend to get driven off before RfA, thankfully. I suspect the original question in this thread relates to WP:INTADMIN and the community's current stance that non-admins can't have it, even if they are the best technical contributor we have. My view on that is that on an open source project, technical contributors are a dime a dozen and the work that actually needs to be done can easily be done by competent sysops with the permission (we probably only really need 3-5 if we're being honest, and we already have more than that.)That being said, tech contributors who are competent tend to be pretty non-controversial and if they can find a justification for needing the tools they would sail through assuming that they are not in general a crazy person. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:12, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, to a degree. Some technical types crash and burn at RFA, but deservedly so; quite a few of our most competent programmers and bot operators are people I wouldn't trust to judge a vegetable contest at the county fair, let alone give them tools that potentially affect real people's lives. Just gonna put this here. &#8209; Iridescent 22:28, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's why I qualified it with the "aren't generally crazy people" after posting it when I thought back on a few examples... That being said if you had someone who was a good botop who had it gnome away on non-controversial tasks involving project space or templates, they'd get the bit even if they had less content contributions than we typically expect. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:42, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's why I qualified it with the "aren't generally crazy people" after posting it when I thought back on a few examples... That being said if you had someone who was a good botop who had it gnome away on non-controversial tasks involving project space or templates, they'd get the bit even if they had less content contributions than we typically expect. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:42, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

LimeRoad
I made some draftspace available for it, as there was a duplicate in the same name already there. —— SerialNumber  54129  15:37, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * G6'd the redirect if you want to move it :) TonyBallioni (talk) 15:45, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * That's right—many thanks! ——  SerialNumber  54129  16:06, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – November 2018
News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2018).

Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg Sir Sputnik
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg Kudpung • Liz • Lourdes
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Everyking • Jackmcbarn

Interface administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg Dinoguy1000

CheckUser changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg AGK • Ivanvector • Stwalkerster • TonyBallioni

Oversight changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg Amorymeltzer • Oshwah • TonyBallioni • Vanamonde93
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Keilana

Guideline and policy news
 * A request for comment determined that non-administrators will not be able to request interface admin access.
 * A request for comment is in progress to determine whether the Mediation Committee should be closed and marked as historical.
 * A village pump discussion has been ongoing about whether the proposed deletion policy (PROD) should be clarified or amended.
 * A request for comment is in progress to determine whether pending changes protection should be applied automatically to today's featured article (TFA) in order to mitigate a recent trend of severe image vandalism.

Technical news
 * Partial blocks is now available for testing on the Test Wikipedia. The new functionality allows you to block users from editing specific pages. Bugs may exist and can be reported on the local talk page or on Meta. A discussion regarding deployment to English Wikipedia will be started by community liaisons sometime in the near future.
 * A user script is now available to quickly review unblock requests.
 * The 2019 Community Wishlist Survey is now accepting new proposals until November 11, 2018. The results of this survey will determine what software the Wikimedia Foundation's Community Tech team will work on next year. Voting on the proposals will take place from November 16 to November 30, 2018. Specifically, there is a proposal category for admins and stewards that may be of interest.

Arbitration
 * Eligible editors will be invited to nominate themselves as candidates in the 2018 Arbitration Committee Elections starting on November 4 until November 13. Voting will begin on November 19 and last until December 2.
 * The Arbitration Committee's email address has changed to arbcom-en@wikimedia.org. Other email lists, such as functionaries-en and clerks-l, remain unchanged.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:19, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Edit warring
Hi, you blocked me awhile ago for 1RR without warning. Are you not going to do the same on Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party? RevertBob (talk) 13:55, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I’m not familiar with that page and am not sure it falls under 1RR either as a DS or under the ARBPIA general prohibition (though, it has been ECP’d there, so in theory it does.) I think the best course of action here if you think someone has violated an arbitration sanction is to raise it at WP:AE, which will allow the scope of ARBPIA to be hashed out i.r.t. this article. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:05, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Your comment
hi Tony, I may be wrong but to me it looks like your comment was made in the wrong section. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  23:01, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Fixed. There was an edit conflict on mobile. Gah. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:05, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Multiple accounts
There's possible sockpuppets (or undisclosed multiples accounts) editing articles related to Bigg Boss Malayalam. Please see Articles for deletion/Shiyas Kareem. Some of the accounts (Hbinu) are now blocked. Rest of the accounts (Emissary_j, Greatest_of_all_times, Putput23) are also suspicious because they are single-purpose accounts editing particular pages only and are mutually co-operating with each other for the same. 86.34.190.86 (talk) 11:55, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Probably best to file an WP:SPI on this. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:44, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

The mind boggles
The conversation you're having with Ciphers is borderline surreal. Things must work very differently at ar.wiki. -- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 20:49, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Heh, I just emailed you about this. I feel like I'm in an alternate universe. It's odd, because Alaa is probably the non-en.wiki CU that I've worked most closely with even before getting the bit and he's about as tolerant of socking as Bbb is... TonyBallioni (talk) 20:58, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 * And what d'ya mean by that? Socks have civil rights too! Not all socks are assholes (there must be at least one) and not all assholes are socks. It's certainly not my fault that the SPI script keeps blocking socks in my name. If Tim hadn't created it, I would have to do it all manually, and blocking 50 socks manually, even with good eye-hand coordination, can take time.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:57, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 * socks are assholes – Is that what they mean when they say, "Watch it or I'll put my foot up your ass"? E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 01:44, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, don't you know that admins like you and me who keep denying people their human right to edit the encyclopedia that anyone can edit just because we can query IP addresses are corrupt?!?!? Or so I've been told by an LTA in multiple SPIs of late. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:10, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 * This is heavy-handed denial of the rights of paid editors to spam Wikipedia with advertisements and garbage! How dare you. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 22:40, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Nah, this time Ponyo and I are denying a until 2 days ago CheckUser on another project his inalienable right to sock and troll us. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:27, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah, I know, I just thought I'd throw some other random accusations into the mix, as long as we're banging on about inalienable rights :P At least you're not using italics to try to do anyone's eyelashes, whatever that's supposed to mean. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 01:40, 8 November 2018 (UTC)