User talk:TonyBallioni/Archive 38

Seeking guidance
Hi TonyBallioni, you were recently involved in the People’s Mujahedin of Iran article, so I thought to ask you.

User:Mhhossein has been wholesale removing text supported by reliable sources from this article

I have asked Mhhossein to explain his removals, but his answers often fail to address the removed text, or address only certain parts of the text and not other parts.

Because the article has the WP:1RR restriction, whatever Mhhossein removes can't be added again without his consensus, so through unsubstantiated reverts Mhhossein has been preventing information from reliable sources to be added to the article.

Some of his answers are also self-contradicting (for example, saying opinion pieces from scholars should not be used but then using other opinion pieces that match his POV, or saying information backed by one source should be removed but then adding information that is backed by only one source).

Is this WP:PLAYPOLICY, WP:TENDENTIOUS?

Thank you for any guidance. Idealigic (talk) 09:39, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Vandalism
There is an increasing amount of vandalism by different IPs and vandalism only accounts, especially to school articles, by the insertion of Peter File. Can this be caught by a filter? Is it something you could set up? (as I'm retired, I don't really care, but it's hard to let go entirely). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:21, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Necessary page protection?
Hello, I recently attempted to make an edit on the page Holocaust victims, but was unable to since several months ago you indefinitely proptected it. You cited an Arbitration Enforcement case, but I couldn't find its connection to the page, and limited edits to "extended confirmed" users only. If vandalism from unregistered users took place on this page, I think a moderate shift to "semi-protected" would have been more sensible (and then if it persists, change it to the current harsh status). Per WP:RFP I'm writing to you about it first, kindly take a look at this. Alternatively, I will submit an edit request on the page. Thanks Bezrat (talk) 08:45, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The case remedy covers Holocaust in Poland and the page discusses victims of the Holocaust, and the places it occurred—many of which are in Poland. I think this falls within the case remedy, and I’m not in favour of lifting it given the history that led to the remedy being enacted. If you want to lower the protection, I’d suggest making a request at WP:AE, but I think it’s pretty squarely within the scope. TonyBallioni (talk) 08:55, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * This is quite a stretch from the original topic (history of Jews and antisemitism in Poland during World War II). There are dozens of articles that relate to it. Further, it was suggested that "other methods such as reverts, pending changes protection, and appropriate edit filters" be considered. I think this protection should be lifted from the page soon, anyway for now I will just submit an edit request. Bezrat (talk) 21:39, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The purpose of that motion was specifically to authorize preemptive indefinite protection of articles like this because of long-term harassment by a globally banned sockmaster and others using proxies that can’t be blocked. This is the type of article that was specifically intended to be extended conformed protected. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:50, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Request for comment
Hi Tony, my name is Aaron Bandler, reporter for the Jewish Journal. I was hoping you could answer some questions for me about a couple of instances you were involved in as an admin. Aaron Bandler (talk) 23:42, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , I’m not sure what help I could be. I see you’ve been asking about Sockpuppet investigations/NoCal100/Archive, but the cases I looked at there were mostly unrelated. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:56, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Arb thing
I should think you will get plenty of support and few opposes for this Arb thing, but good luck anyway! SilkTork (talk) 15:37, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Hey
Hey, I am knew here and need a bit of help. Kindly assist me. Acdor (talk) 17:06, 28 November 2020 (UTC)


 * - What sort of help do you knead? SQL Query me!  17:08, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

TheMandalorian.jpg
Hi! I'm looking for some help. I want to put this file in the article for Mandalorian under the sections Appearances-Television-The Mandalorian. This page only has 1 image, and it's a cosplay. I want to add this image, but it's fair use and the file page said that the image was to be used on one page (Din Djarin). Am I allowed to add this? Here is the link: Details page. Dswitz10734 (talk) 17:52, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Two other questions
SMcCandlish wrote a comment to me which added to his answer, and asked that I revise my guide concerning him. I did, and it is fair I give you the same chance. Towards that end I struck my two questions from earlier and wrote two new questions that I think you will find less ridiculous.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 23:52, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I’m declining to answer those as well. Sorry, but I don’t think it’s appropriate to ask candidates to do in-depth research on external papers. If you oppose me, that’s fine, but respect for candidates is important, and part of that is asking relevant questions that are respectful of their time. This isn’t about lack of critical thought or not wanting to think through it. It’s about whether candidates should be expected to answer questions that aren’t relevant. Since these are optional, I’m declining to answer. You’re free to oppose if you wish, but I’m not going to answer a second round of questions on research papers after a first round of questions that were irrelevant at best. That’s not fair to me, nor was the first round fair to other candidates. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:32, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * To answer the first one you would need to read about three paragraphs near the bottom of page 10 through the beginning of page 11. And you already know that trolls do bullshitting, so you probably can skip them. That is not too much work.


 * Answering the second one is harder. While you could read much of the paper, at the bare minimum you'd want to read the last paragraph of the conclusion section which reads, "In conclusion, this meta‐analysis..." on page 12 of the pdf. Although the abstract is written in academic-ese, don't let that intimidate you; the conclusion section is more readable.


 * Altogether you are looking at maybe 15 minutes (but of course if you are interested you could definitely kill some hours researching it).--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 04:01, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not intimidated by academic writing. I started on Wikipedia again almost 5 years ago because I missed reading it regularly. I just find the way you have treated all the candidates this round not to have been appropriate, and I'm declining to be part of this game. I think that's the exact opposite of group think, which is what your questions are supposedly testing.I also echo 's criticism of your guide, and I'll point out the irony that the one candidate who refused to participate in this exercise on the principle that candidates should be treated with respect is the one you're opposing. That doesn't really bother me; I'm not running for ArbCom because I want to be on it so whether people support or oppose me doesn't have much impact on my self-worth, but I do think your guide reflects more on you than it does any candidate. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:20, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I didn't come up with the questions to test group think (excepting some late ones, after writing the guide). Instead they were topics I was interested in. I wondered what I could possibly apply them to in a joint manner. The problem was that none of them were repeated; making comparisons across candidates hard. I tried to think of some common purpose for them. If some candidates like to read others' answers first before answering, asking different questions is a good way to test for both the willingness and ability to answer on their own. Non-answering does not prove the opposite; so being listed as "no" means just the absence of evidence, not the evidence of absence.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 04:43, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Candidates aren't running for your entertainment value. It's not very respectful of others to expect them to write opinion pieces because you find the topics to be interesting. I'm not going to take part in an exercise that isn't respectful of me or the other candidates. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:47, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * When I was looking up stuff for your two new questions, I accidentally came across a fascinating article about hierarchy formation in Wikipedia. I didn't think I'd understand it, but I do mostly. So on one hand everyone is equal because anyone can join and edit, but it doesn't really work like that. In general this is not positive thing; if there are ways to fix the hierarchy formation problem we should do it. One way is shared fascination: if we are all too interested by the complexity of everything, we won't find time to do hierarchy instead.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 05:00, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that paper uses the term in the way we mean it in most of our discussions. It's referring not to authority in discussions, or in interactions among users, or to general respect for someone's abilities at problem solving or editing, but with dominance relationships in editing specific articles. And they say they are not trying to analyze the possibility of opposing groups.  DGG ( talk ) 07:52, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Destroyeraa
Hi. You appear to gave Destroyeraa page mover. Destroyeraa(see User talk: Destroyeraa) is confirmed to an account and has abused them. Seeing as how Destroyeraa lost trust that PMV requires, I have a question? Are you going to remove that right? HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 17:58, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * No. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:07, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, if the user hasn't been doing anything disruptive in page-moving, that would seem out-of-band.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:12, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – December 2020
News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2020). Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Andrwsc • Anetode • GoldenRing • JzG • LinguistAtLarge • Nehrams2020

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

Guideline and policy news
 * There is a request for comment in progress to either remove T3 (duplicated and hardcoded instances) as a speedy deletion criterion or eliminate its seven-day waiting period.

Technical news
 * Voting for proposals in the 2021 Community Wishlist Survey, which determines what software the Wikimedia Foundation's Community Tech team will work on next year, will take place from 8 December through 21 December. In particular, there are sections regarding administrators and anti-harassment.

Arbitration
 * Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee Elections is open to eligible editors until Monday 23:59, 7 December 2020 UTC. Please review the candidates and, if you wish to do so, submit your choices on the voting page.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:37, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

November
Thank you for being ready to serve on arbcom, - good luck! - I still have yesterday's good top story to offer, - and a little below is my vision for 2020. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:12, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Today's DYK: to be sung "happily" --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:15, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

In case you want to look at a an article related to "my question": L'ange de Nisida, - mentioned under #Donizetti on my talk. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:26, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Sorry to see that you withdrew from arbcom cand. - I was ready to support. Last question aside, what do you think of Hippolyte et Aricie? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:26, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Haven’t read it that closely, but I actually really like the infobox there :) I’ll read it sometime next week. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:12, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Sockmaster of User:Sixon?
A few months ago, you blocked Sixon as a sockpuppet. I can't find any indication of the specific sockmaster. I am asking because a new editor has begun edit warring at University of Chicago in the exact same area that Sixon was editing so I was considering open an SPI. Can you please point me in the right direction? Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 00:07, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , don’t remember it that well or my reason for not tagging, but the case was Sockpuppet_investigations/WildlyAccurate/Archive%2304_August_2020. Probably means the actual master isn’t that clear so I blocked it as a sock without tying to a name. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:10, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much for the very fast and helpful response! ElKevbo (talk) 00:12, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

User Kozak4512 using sockpuppet accounts to edit-war
Last year, I raised concerns about User:Kozak4512. You performed a checkuser analysis, finding that the editor did use a sockpuppet account (an inactive admin blocked them for 2 weeks). The editor appears to be using sockpuppet accounts again. The editor appears to have a tendency to use IP accounts to edit-war, see for example this in 2019 and this earlier today. The editor used the IP account after I warned the editor that the BLP violations and edit-warring were likely to lead to a block. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:19, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I have no such account and the user Snooganssnoogans (talk) is lying. Please ignore him he constantly attacks my account even though Snooganssnoogans (talk) has been banned for lack of civility. Thank you Kozak4512 (talk) 22:34, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Snooganssnoogans, if you can do me a favor, go to that SPI and add a new pro forma report for User:Ethanff66. Drmies (talk) 22:46, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

New Page Patrol December Newsletter
Hello ,



It has been a productive year for New Page Patrol as we've roughly cut the size of the New Page Patrol queue in half this year. We have been fortunate to have a lot of great work done by who was the reviewer of the most pages and redirects this past year. Thanks and credit go to and  who join Rosguill in repeating in the top 10 from last year. Thanks to, , and who all got the NPR permission this year and joined the top 10. Also new to the top ten is DannyS712 bot III, programmed by which has helped to dramatically reduce the number of redirects that have needed human patrolling by patrolling certain types of redirects (e.g. for differences in accents) and by also patrolling editors who are on on the redirect whitelist.
 * Year in review

has been named reviewer of the year for 2020. John has held the permission for just over 6 months and in that time has helped cut into the queue by reviewing more than 18,000 articles. His talk page shows his efforts to communicate with users, upholding NPP's goal of nurturing new users and quality over quantity.
 * Reviewer of the Year

As a special recognition and thank you has been awarded the first NPP Technical Achievement Award. His work programming the bot has helped us patrol redirects tremendously - more than 60,000 redirects this past year. This has been a large contribution to New Page Patrol and definitely is worthy of recognition.
 * NPP Technical Achievement Award

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 2262 Low – 2232 High – 10271

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here 18:16, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

A bit more
I’ve withdrawn from the ArbCom elections, and I’m willing to say a bit more on my talk for anyone who might be interested: I think those that know me well know that running wasn’t really a first choice. I’ve had less time for Wikipedia because of real life; and I ran when I thought we might not have 7 candidates I could support. When I saw that we had sufficient candidates that I could support, I considered withdrawing early, but stayed in since there seemed to be support, and I wanted to give people the option if they wanted.Since then I’ve had a overwhelming sense of uneasiness with serving, and its continued the whole period. Over the Thanksgiving weekend, I had the opportunity to think more about it, and ultimately I came to the conclusion that while I do still wish to serve this community, I don’t think I have the time to do so as a member of the committee, and if I did, I think I’d seriously enjoy Wikipedia less and that it’d likely have a negative impact on my overall happiness, and I don’t want that. A thanks to all those who have encouraged me to run now or in the past, and who have supported this, in particular and, both of whom were kind enough to talk to me before the election and whose advice I sincerely appreciate. TonyBallioni (talk) 12:32, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your willingness to run when there appeared to be the need for it, even when it wasn't your first choice. I'm glad you've made the decision that you feel is right for you, and regardless of whether you're on the Committee I look forward to seeing you around the wiki. GorillaWarfare (talk) 13:29, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much for offering to serve. I completely understand with your reasons for withdrawing - such work is not for everyone. — Diannaa (talk) 17:36, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Is it because of all the questions at the last minute? They should have a cut-off date for the Q&A. Anyway...I'm disappointed but I do understand, especially with the holidays ahead. It's a time for good cheer.  Atsme 💬 📧 18:59, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, this is a good thing, because there are another set of elections around the corner --Rschen7754 19:28, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I'll remove your name from my guide, in respect for your decision.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 19:51, 29 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I think you were pretty much the front runner and you are most certainty the kind of person that this Committee needed. However, I fully understand and respect your decision. Perhaps you can work towards radically improving Arbcom instead - or even getting it deprecated ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:55, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I knew that running wasn't your first choice, and I think you did the right thing by withdrawing, considering your misgivings about whether this role was right for you. There are so many other ways to serve and support the community, and your exemplary work in several of those areas can continue unabated. Thank you for standing up and putting yourself forward when there were concerns about sufficient qualified candidates. I have no doubt you will continue to have a big impact on our project.  Risker (talk) 20:13, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I think that you would have done a superb job if you had wanted to, and I think that it reflects well on you that you know what is best for you and made the choice that was right for you. All the best, --Tryptofish (talk) 20:18, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Ugh I even voted for you, against my better judgment!! Do what's best for your real life of course, this is just a website :-) -- Ajraddatz (talk) 21:02, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Rats. I was definitely going to vote for you. While there are some obviously competent candidates, at least one is definitely not (gets policy backwards, doesn't know how cases work, etc.), and another one or two seem too green.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:12, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , you still can; his name isn't removed from the server. I did. I know that may seem odd given my guide, but it might seem less odd when considered that in terms of content creation, Tony is more like me than any other candidate.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 20:26, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, given our weird yes/no/dunno voting system (and the statistical results is has on outcomes – see my analysis of, and reform proposals relating to, this in the ACE2020 preparatory RfC – it's not a good idea to make "support in spirit" votes for stepped-down or disqualified candidates. And they'll probably be removed from the voting server in an update, anyway.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:10, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry to see this, but I'm glad you're doing what will make you happier. —valereee (talk) 18:27, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Damn, I really wanted a fresh face on the committee (read: controversial ) - but quite honestly, I think you'd have been a great member. In any case, I respect your decision, it is a WP:BIGDEAL and if you cannot make personal peace with it, it's ultimately not worth it. Glad to hear your thoughts in any case. -- qedk ( t  愛  c ) 21:59, 30 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Great rhyme, ! It would fit perfectly in a Burma Shave template.  Atsme 💬 📧 00:22, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, everyone, both the good ones as well as the ones with regret. I understand some of the frustration, which is why I apologized, so I’m not going to criticize anyone for criticizing me or thinking I made the wrong choice. The short of this situation is, I felt I know myself well enough and have a good enough understanding of what next year will entail for me in real life, the time commitment to the project, as well as some other factors made me decide this wasn’t the right time. I might have made the wrong choice, but right now it still seems to be the right one for me. Again, thanks to everyone whose commented. I appreciate each of you in a different way :) TonyBallioni (talk) 23:39, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah, this is a shame - I saw your name a few days ago and did wonder why it was not there today. Fully understandable though, Arbcom is a huge commitment and probably not one that I'll be able to consider myself for many years to come, even though I think you did kindly suggest me as a possible candidate last year. All the best to you anyway, and looking forward to seeing your usual contributions as and when you have the time. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 23:52, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I have to say I'm a bit disappointed in your withdrawal from this election. One would seem to be hard pressed to argue with someone who said they did some soul-searching and figured that Arbcom was not the most ideal thing for them, but at the end of the day, you're volunteering to provide a service to the community, and doing so and then "taking it back" is not a particularly shining moment for us. I think it's fairly uncontentious that this candidacy was not only expected but overdue, and even on Wikipediocracy most felt you were an obvious shoe-in. "Inactive" Arbs is nothing remotely new, you could have served at your leisure, and even if it was only for a grand total of 5% of your term, at least we would have you on the roster to weigh in when you felt it mattered. I have to say, what you have done here may have saved you from some additional stress, but it's also deprived the community of your apt judgment in favor of an already slim, mediocre field of candidates. I disagree with your decision here and I think it was the wrong one. ~Swarm~  {sting} 07:12, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, Tony, we're gonna dock your paycheck. Oh, wait a minute, no, everyone here is a volunteer. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:24, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * This is ridiculous. There are a number of capable candidates. If someone doesn't want to volunteer for something, trying to guilt them into it is an awful thing to do. Tony withdrew before the vote was final, so we still have a chance to have a full set of arbs. Fully committed arbs are going to be more effective than arbs that are hardly around because they didn't want to participate but were too egotistical to drop out. Natureium (talk) 22:32, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Fuck off, I'm perfectly entitled to express my opinion that we needed Tony on the Committee and that his withdrawal was not in the best interest of the community, even if he would make for a mostly-inactive arbitrator. I'm not guilting or shaming him, I'm stating my honest opinion, and I will not be apologizing for that. ~Swarm~  {sting} 03:22, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Of course you're entitled to express your opinion, and so is everyone else. If you're going to dish it out, you should be prepared to take it. (And, after all, WP:NOTCOMPULSORY is policy.) --Tryptofish (talk) 19:15, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * For what it’s worth, I don’t mind anything has said. I have my reasons for taking a different approach, but I do understand his point of view. Swarm has been a friend on this project, and I don’t fault him for being critical when he feels it appropriate. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:40, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I do mind Swarm telling me to "fuck off". Natureium (talk) 01:07, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Just as I mind you needlessly inserting yourself to call my comment "ridiculous" and accuse me of being "awful" for "guilting" them when I'm doing no such thing. You set the tone here; see Trypto's comment about dishing it and taking it. Tony knows that I hate to criticize or disagree with him on the most mundane of topics, but I'm hardly coming at him with pitchforks here for not being a slave to the project, I'm simply being honest with my view that the community would have been better served with him on the committee, regardless of the amount of time he would have actually been able to put into it. That's far from guilting him, on the contrary it's more along the lines of high praise for me to be here lamenting about how his decision to withdraw is a dark moment and a huge loss to the community. ~Swarm~  {sting} 02:01, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Let's try a small thing: add "for the community" to the end of Swarm's original statement. Based on the later clarifications, I think this might put it into better context. isaacl (talk) 22:29, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry to (just) see that you've withdrawn, but I certainly understand. Perhaps at some point in the future you might consider running again.  I'm sure that you would make an excellent Arb. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:40, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * +1 - Sorry to have seen you withdrawn Tony however I certainly can understand why and to reiterate Tryptofish and Natureium - We're all volunteers here and you withdrawing doesn't make you a bad person nor does it make you look bad, Real life is far more important than this website.
 * Thank you for throwing your hat in and FWIW you had my !vote 110%!. Take care Tony. – Davey 2010 Talk 20:49, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

FWIW, you were the only candidate I know well enough I supported. Everyone else may say the right things, but I have seen you do the right things. Take care, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 00:19, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. This means a lot. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:05, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Acting on what you said I should do
Hi Tony, I just wanted to let you know that I will going to see a lawyer early in the new year. I will be getting back to you about this soon. Davidgoodheart (talk) 21:57, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Can you please tell me where I need to go if I think that an article need to be checked to see if the sources are correct and/or if the content needs changing. Davidgoodheart (talk) 22:14, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Help, please
Hi Tony, we really need an indefinite block on. Any help would be great. Thanks, JNW (talk) 06:04, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅., you were edit warring with rollback too for something that strictly speaking wasn’t vandalism, but given the totality of that accounts edits I agree a block of them is the most appropriate outcome. In the future, just go to ANI or ask an active admin to block. Thanks for raising the issue. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:10, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you. This was a longterm case of WP:IDL. For reverting edits like this, with the attendant removal of sources, I am always happy to risk a sanction. Nobody stirring at the noticeboards. Cheers, JNW (talk) 06:18, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Requesting updating of Women related laws in Pakistan with new text
Greetings,

As per Wikipedia's expected due process I have updated Talk:Women related laws in Pakistan/Temp building it from scratch with proper close paraphrasing. I suppose it would be acceptable at least as a stub.

Since updating of Talk:Women related laws in Pakistan/Temp we will not be depending on previous text of the article, I requesting to shift the text from Talk:Women related laws in Pakistan/Temp to Women related laws in Pakistan.

Thanks and warm regards

Bookku (talk) 03:04, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Season's Greetings


Hello there! Shearonink (talk) wishes you & yours the very best of the season!

Whether you celebrate Christmas, Diwali, Hanukkah, Kwanzaa, Festivus (for the rest of us!) or even the Saturnalia, here's to: hoping your holiday time is wonderful and - especially -

that the New Year 2021 will be an improvement upon the old of 2020. CHEERS!

Share these holiday wishes by adding   to your friends' talk pages.

(Sent: 05:50, 18 December 2020 (UTC))

Merry Christmas, Tony!!


The SandDoctor Talk is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas6}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Your block
Why, exactly, did you have to block a productive member of Wikipedia who, as far as I know, was doing nothing wrong? 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 11:24, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * They were raised as a likely long-term abuser on checkuser-l by a steward, and several CheckUsers on other projects had already weighed in on the discussion. I ran a check to determine who it was. I was able to figure out which sockmaster they were, and determine that they were evading multiple en.wiki blocks and global locks. As they were violating our policy on abuse of multiple accounts, I blocked their accounts. A steward has now globally locked them for cross-wiki abuse as they’ve been abusive on the Simple English Wikipedia and Wikidata in the past. TonyBallioni (talk) 12:56, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh, okay. The most dangerous LTAs seem to be the ones that seem to be productive young editors... 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me!  13:32, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't necessarily call him dangerous, but yeah, he's been annoying on a few Wikimedia projects and was approaching timewaster/CIR status under this account. Anyway, the CU block is for evading a block and the account has been locked for evading a global lock. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:36, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, thank you for blocking him, then. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me!  14:02, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Just wanted to point out...
...how well you did in the ArbCom election, despite having withdrawn. If you ever decide that you have time to take up that task, I have no doubt that you would be elected.

Happy Holidays, and the best to you and yours!

Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:26, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

"Mischief", "sabotage" or "vandalism"
As a proficient user of normal English, these three seem better to describe property damage in a criminal context. "Attack" is similar to "assault" or "ambush", in my book, suggests somebody was trying to hurt somebody, bodily. Next to "suicide bombing", it also implies something like ISIS. Are you cool with specifying "attack on infrastructure" in the mayor's voice instead of crediting it vaguely to "authorities" in ours? I'll leave the repetitive house/home flip-flop issue to you, seems minor and complicated. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:24, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I think attack by itself is the most straightforward way to describe the Nashville bombing in plain English, but I’ll open up the floor to any talk page stalkers who might disagree. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:09, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, definitely agree with Tony. "Attack" is simply what it is. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 14:40, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * But that's too simple, arbitrarily shortening the mayor's clearer declaration of what it is by two-thirds. Or, if not arbitrarily, to suggest people were targeted, like in the usual sense of suicide bombing. Or, if not to suggest that, to not prevent a reader from wrongly inferring it. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:48, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * You're making distinctions that don't exist in the natural reading of the language. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:15, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I disagree. The majority of suicide bombings are attacks on people, not infrastructure, usually terrorist attacks. When the only person in either source calling this suicide an attack at all clarifies, so should we, per V. If the mayor declared Timmy Thompson the "citizen of the year", we wouldn't say authorities concluded the citizen was an awardee. Same deal here, just different consequences. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:33, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * A bombing that at first glance appears targeted at an infrastructure target and involves the perpetrator killing themselves is a suicide bombing. Don't take my word for it though, here's a reliable source that calls it that (and another.). I'm also going to go ahead and point out that you don't have to be Muslim or Arab to be a suicide bomber, which at first glance appears to be the implication here. It was an attack. It was a suicide bombing. There's debate in reliable sources as to if terrorism is an appropriate label (I think it is, but that's another discussion), so you could point out that there is debate as to whether this attack constituted terrorism.At the same time, your premise that this is not like other terrorist attacks or that there is an implication in these words that is somehow missing from the Nashville attack is something that is the subject of ongoing debate in reliable sources and is not considered a fact. I'd agree we shouldn't call this terrorism until the sources settle on an answer, but I'd also say that what you're suggesting is an overly technical understanding of the English language that isn't there in ordinary speech, and that the sources also don't bare out. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:47, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

We're both getting sidetracked by missing each other's points, let's reset. You seem to want to combine the police's reliably sourced description of the explosion as a suicide bombing with the mayor's equally sourced description of the explosion as an attack on infrastructure to synthesize a claim (the attack was a suicide bombing, perhaps readable as "this was a suicide bombing attack") nobody makes and atrribute it to "authorities" in Wikipedia's voice. Is that or isn't that original research? InedibleHulk (talk) 06:11, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * So, despite my long reply, I don't actually have that big of a connection to the article. US terrorist attacks and US politics are areas I do my absolute best to stay out of on Wikipedia. I just saw your edits and thought they made no sense.In general: I want to report what reliable sources report, and I object to overanalysis of English mixed with vague waves to policy in order to not use the plain English phrasing that is uncontroversial to anyone but you. If this is actually an issue, someone else can remove the categories or challenge the claim that it was a suicide bombing and/or the work of a suicide bomber. I've found the general rule of "if I think a minor point is a big deal, and it's challenged, and no one else raises the point, it isn't a big deal" to be a good rule to follow on Wikipedia, and I think it might be one you could follow in this circumstance. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:23, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm talking about the sentence you reverted, not the categories. I don't consider this a political or terroristic event at all. Both sources in the sentence report what my version says each do, that's the important thing, sorry for the confusion, not intentional, let's move on. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:31, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm aware. If someone else thinks it's an issue, let them fix it or raise it on the talk page. We're talking about the same thing. I just think what you're arguing about doesn't matter, is supported by the sourcing, and is justified by the plain English meaning of the words. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:43, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Cool. And I just think this is a classic case of "local nut has it 'up to here' with phone company"; if it comes to light that American politics was involved somehow, I'll humbly step down about details I personally know are bigger than my opponents see them, per my topic ban. And yeah, I don't think only Muslims can be terrorists, never have been "that guy", I openly sympathize with the shit big business has put Muslims across the world through this millenium. But only with my words and pacifism, to be clear. Sabotage is never the answer to poor customer service, especially when innocent bystanders get hurt despite well-meaning precautionary warnings. And during a holiday pandemic, disrupting communications between innocent people is a dick move, IMHO. Don't be dicks this new decade, lurkers and new readers alike, just find a better phone company. Paying too much isn't worth it! InedibleHulk (talk) 07:15, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

 * Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Happy New Year elves}} to send this message


 * Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Happy New Year elves}} to send this message

Administrators' newsletter – January 2021
News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2020).

Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg Hammersoft
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Andres • Brion VIBBER • Rkitko • Thatcher

CheckUser changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg Barkeep49 • BDD • CaptainEek • Primefac

Oversight changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg Barkeep49 • BDD • CaptainEek
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Joe Roe

Guideline and policy news
 * Speedy deletion criterion T3 (duplication and hardcoded instances) has been repealed following a request for comment.

Technical news
 * You can now put pages on your watchlist for a limited period of time.

Arbitration
 * By motion, standard discretionary sanctions have been temporarily authorized for all pages relating to the Horn of Africa (defined as including Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritrea, Djibouti, and adjoining areas if involved in related disputes). The effectiveness of the discretionary sanctions can be evaluated on the request by any editor after March 1, 2021 (or sooner if for a good reason).
 * Following the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been appointed to the Arbitration Committee:, , , , , ,.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

ArchiveSent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:08, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Talk page
Tony, thanks for that talk page revert. Is it inappropriate to ask if you could step in to help moderate this situation? I've asked Doug Weller[](oops, involved) and Awhilley (not home) [] but no dice. As I said to Doug, I'm concerned that ND is a good faith editor but they are taking challenges to their edits as simple obstruction. This is perhaps totally on me for failing to articulate the issues but I suspect simply not understanding the wiki-way combined with reversion related frustration is a big part of the issue. I am frustrated that they are moving forward when consensus for changes and sourcing reliability isn't clear. Still, I think they are acting in good faith. Thus I think we have a blend of 3 issues and I'm hoping you can help balance them out. Issue 1, I may be wrong about all of my sourcing concerns and feeling that consensus isn't established (and you are welcome to tell me if you think that is the only problem). Issue 2, they may be incorrect in feeling consensus is there. Issue 3, they feel I'm only trying to obstruct and thus my concerns/views can be ignored. I don't want this to be an ANI thing, rather having a parent step in and help the squabbling kids get along could be helpful. Thanks! Springee (talk) 21:20, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Happy New Year, TonyBallioni!


Happy New Year! TonyBallioni, Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.

 MRRaja001 (talk) 01:37, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Happy New Year, TonyBallioni!


Happy New Year! TonyBallioni, Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.

Moneytrees🏝️Talk🌴Help out at CCI! 02:12, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Happy New Year!




 TonyBallioni , Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia, and a Happy New Year to you and yours! ~ Destroyer 🌀🌀 21:54, 31 December 2020 (UTC)


 * – Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year}} to user talk pages.

Regarding my SPI report
Hello TonyBallioni, I did not get any notification about the SPI report. I've added my comment Sockpuppet_investigations/Knightrises10. And do you think i should notify everyone else to look at my comments or just wait for someone to review it? Thanks :) - Tatupiplu'talk 16:13, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigations/Billy Hathorn/Archive
User:Marquardtika thinks there might be a connection with User:CharlesShirley. Drmies (talk) 21:53, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

IBAN appeal
Hi TonyBallioni

I don't consider IBAN, especially a unilateral one, that you placed on my talk page justified hence decided to speak to you first, while I will think of appealing. Do you think fighting Armenians in English wikipedia in a coordinated Azerbaijani Wiki club a thing that is right to do or should be tolerated? I exposed an editor who was awarded by Azerbaijani government for that, and you describe it as "hounding"? The editor has explicitly publicised his own personal details on Wikipedia (and his wiki-conduct off Wikipedia), yet I am blamed for that? Did you look in the links I have provided at all was it TLDR? Regards --Armatura (talk) 22:48, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I don’t consider discussing the social media activities of a minor continuously appropriate, even if years ago when he was even younger he linked to it on a page on a wiki that takes child protection much less serious than en.wiki does. On this project, he wouldn’t have been allowed to self-disclose many of those things. There’s not much we can do about that aspect now, which is why I didn’t suppress, but I consider your behaviour to be a violation of the intent of the opposition research clause of the harassment policy, especially when done as forcefully as you did.Honestly, I think this is the least intervention we could have taken, and let’s both of you keep editing. An editor on Wikipedia isn’t worth getting this worked up over, and I think the IBAN is necessary. You’re free to get a second opinion, and I recommend AE if you want to appeal as it’a sectioned nature tends to work better for ethnic disputes. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:56, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the good-faith manner of your explanation, u|TonyBallioni, and showing the the optimal place for the appeal. "Hounding" sounds offensive to me (a human )) ) and if it implies talking to the other editor too much, I don't think I have addressed a single word to him in the discussion for which you base the IBAN decision on. What is unilateral IBAN anyway? Why is it the ban unilateral if that editor attacked me on my very first edit after a long hiatus with false accusation, kept commenting under virtually comment in talk page or every edit I made in 2020 Nagorno Karabakh article, have you looked into this when making your decision? Now he is allowed to comment on my editing, and revert my editing and I am not allowed to do anything with his comments / edits? My research, which you judged as harassment, revealed worrying finding - coordinated Azerbaijani club targeting of Armenia - Nagorno Karabakh related articles in gross violation of WP:Battleground, are you going to do anything about it? This is larger-than-one-user issue, and I believe it is worth investigating, and if you don't want editors with COI to do that investigation (and get blamed for it), what are you and other uninvolved editors are going to do about these worrisome group activity? Regards --Armatura (talk) 23:35, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Perhaps hounding wasn’t the right word. Wiki-speak tends to be preferred when sanctioning people and I get that can be difficult to understand. Let me put it in more human terms: in good faith you researched the online activities of a minor. You were only able to do that because, to our shame, the global wikimedia movement off the English Wikipedia has significantly less stringent protections for young people than the English Wikipedia does. It’s not outing necessarily, since what you did is public on az.wiki, but it’s definitely not in the spirit of the harassment policy’s protections on people. I think the fact that we’re talking about a young person who made the choice to self-disclose on a non-English project when he was even younger got people on edge.This made the user and others uncomfortable. You also were fairly aggressive in prosecuting your off-wiki case at ANI. This is certainly against the intent of what the harassment policy is. Looking up Facebook posts, news stories, etc. comes extraordinarily close to the opposition research line of the WP:OUTING policy, and in my view likely crosses it in some of the things you posted.The quickest, least intense, and most clear way forward was to ban you from talking about the other user. I still think that’s the best choice. Your question above asking who is going to investigate is what led to this: we don’t want people investigating the off-wiki lives of other editors. If there’s something that is going on off-wiki that is seriously impacting the project such as a group of editors collaborating off-wiki to slant coverage of a genocide, that’s what an ArbCom case is for. But for now, an IBAN keeps us far away from anything in the harassment policy, and does it while allowing you to still edit this area and the project. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:19, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, TonyBallioni, I can still see 'hounding' written on my talk page, if you think it isn't necessarily the right term, I'd be grateful if you consider using a term less offensive to me, please. A couple of questions about how to proceed from now on: 1. What do I do if the user whom I'm not allowed to interact with starts intimidating me by, for example, warring my edits or by how comments on edit summaries / talk pages? (this is why I was asking why the interaction ban is unilateral rather than bilateral - I didn't get an answer yet, despite the interaction being problematic bidirectionally, as noted by at least one admin on ANI) 2. Is me mentioning a user whom I've got IBAN with going to be considered a violation of IBAN if I 1) appeal the IBAN on AE and/or 2) discuss my concerns about the activity of that user on an ArbCom case? Regards, --Armatura (talk) 06:50, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It’s one-way because I’m not going to sanction the person whose off-wiki life is being dug into. Whatever the other side of the dispute is doing, what you did was a significantly bigger deal through the lens of our norms here. The intent of the IBAN was to stop that. You aren’t to interact with him. At all. If he responds to you, ignore him. He shouldn’t game the issue or try to bait you, but right now I don’t see a reason to make the IBAN two-way.You can discuss the other user during an appeal. You cannot discuss them either directly or indirectly anywhere else on Wikipedia. I’d also avoid all the external links if you do appeal as that likely won’t be viewed favourably. If there’s an ArbCom case, arbcom sets its own rules so could allow for a limited suspension of the ban on their pages, but that’d be up to them. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:10, 24 January 2021 (UTC)