User talk:TonyBallioni/Archive 5

Reviewing userbox pages
Thanks for reviewing my new userbox about WP:PAID earlier. I was wondering if you could cast a cursory glance over the other two userboxes that I created today, as I am unsure if they are fit for purpose at the moment:
 * User:Stormy clouds/Userboxes/Single-purpose Accounts
 * User:Stormy clouds/Userboxes/ITN/Candidates

Sincerest thanks in advance, Stormy clouds (talk) 19:38, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't see a problem with them. I actually only reviewed it because I talk page stalk and the curation toolbar popped up and I didn't see any issues so I clicked the green check mark. FIM is actually much better to ask about user page things than I am: he actually patrols them whereas I mainly accidentally stumble upon them after finding a spammer in main space. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:46, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * - thanks a million, for both the reviews and the advice. Stormy clouds (talk) 20:03, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Copyvio clarification on Mythicist Milwaukee
Assuming you're not Wiki hounding me and just happen to check on one of the pages crated by me, Wiki allows close paraphrasing when there are limited number of ways to say the same thing and Brief quotations of copyrighted text can be used to illustrate a point or establish context, and more importantly the text in question is in Open domain. Redhat101  Talk  05:18, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
 * , no, not Wikihounding. I looked at your talk history since you had a blank talk page and did an Earwig check on a previously G12ed article, which is my standard practice anytime I come across one on Wikipedia because people often accidentally include copyrighted content into Wikipedia, especially on pages that they are trying to fix from previous copyright violations. As for the Wikia source, it appears to have been itself a copy-paste copyright violation from the Mysthicist Milwaukee website that I listed in the edit summary. Copy-paste plagiarism with words in between the clauses is still plagiarism and a copyright violation. I'll ask to take a look at the possible violation and rev del request. If I am wrong here, I apologize, but as what appears to be the original source did not have a visible free license declaration, I assumed it was under copyright.  TonyBallioni (talk) 05:31, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
 * As far as i can check That Wikia is operated by Mythicist milwaukee staff, so its not a copyright violation as they purposely released the content to free domain. Redhat101   Talk  05:54, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
 * , thank you for the link to that and for clarifying. It did not appear on the copyvio source check. I removed the text because when I went to the original source there was no copyright information available, which under the copyright law of the United States, we have to assume means that it is copyrighted and not available under a free license. The material in question also was not on Wikipedia under the terms of the free license you are claiming: CC-BY-SA requires that all content be attributed, which was not the case until your recent revert (either in-text or in the edit summary). I'll defer to Diannaa on this as I've never encountered a case where the source content appears to still be under copyright but there is also a Wikia source that is a plausible release. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:15, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Publishing something online does not release it into the public domain. Under current copyright law, literary works are subject to copyright whether they are tagged as such or not. No registration is required, and no copyright notice is required. So please always assume that all material you find online is copyright. Exceptions include works of the US Government and material specifically released under license. Even then, proper attribution is required. Redhat101, all prose you add here must be written in your own words. There's more information about copyrights and how it applies to Wikipedia at FAQ/Copyright. Copyright law and its application are complex matters, and you should not edit any more until you have taken the time to read and understand our copyright policy. Regarding this specific case, the page http://www.mythicistmilwaukee.com/what-we-do/ has existed since at least April 2015 and the Wikia page was created in November 2016. There's no way to prove that the people who started the Wikia page had permission to copy the content from www.mythicistmilwaukee.com. So my opinion is that it's not okay to copy from either webpage. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:49, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Diannaa, for the consult. That was my thought as well on the issue, but always good to confirm for future cases as well. TonyBallioni (talk) 12:59, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
 * For future reference, Dianaa - are there other circumstances in which we should assume that ownership of content on part of a website (www.mythicistmilwaukee.com) differs from the ownership of another part of a website, in the absence of an explicit statement on said website? I was under the impression that we should treat a website as if it were a single entity holding copyright, unless there were explicit comment to the contrary. Newimpartial (talk) 13:13, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not ,NI, but if you're asking about this specific case the issue is that the Wikia site is a different website than the origin source and was created after it. Without a specific release we must assume the licensing of the origin source is still the licensing the text is under. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:18, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Tony is correct, these are two different websites, not subpages of the same website. Without proof to the contrary, we have to assume that whoever copied the material to the Wikia page did not have permission of the copyright holder to do so. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:24, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Right, okay. So what would be needed would be something like a specification of the November 16, 2016 announcement, but one that explicitly releases that text under CC? Newimpartial (talk) 13:27, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
 * , the easiest solution would be a notice on all pages of the site where a copyright notice would go releasing it under a compatible free license. A simple statement on a webpage could work depending on the phrasing, but if there are contradictory licenses, we always assume they mean the stricter one. In a recent case, there was a public domain statement on a California government website but also a copyright symbol and claim. We went with the claim that it was copyrighted. In cases of contradictory licensing, I always consult with Diannaa like I did here, because I believe two sets of eyes are better than one, but in terms of what you should upload to Wikipedia, always assume it is copyrighted unless you have a clear statement otherwise that is not contradicted anywhere. Also, at some point I'm going to write the essay WP:OWNWORDS which will point out that text which is lifted, even if it is available for free use, is very rarely ever suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia based on writing style alone. Copying a mission statement falls into this category since the prose is simply not our style. The question would be whether it should have been rev del'd, which D determined that it needed. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:21, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

ACTRIAL
I assume you've seen this latest from Horn. It sounds good on the surface but for me it comes with mixed blessings and we need to proceed with caution. I'm not sure we would want the WMF to take over ACTRAL. That was never part of the 2011 project. Wresting it out of the hands of the volunteers gives them the power to manipulate it to their own ends. The last two times they did it, it also involved NPP and while it slowed down developments of our work, it ended in disaster for their reputation. What they need to understand is that their 'offer' now comes a bit late, the damage is done and Horn's department has already lost any of the trust and confidence that the community might have had. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:17, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
 * , yes, I've seen it. I'm going to post a response and I might notify Toby Negrin of it on his meta page. I am cautiously optimistic, but I also do think there are things that need to be addressed from a trust standpoint. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:29, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
 * For Kudpung (and anyone else who may be watching: this was my response. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:07, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Commons main space
As the kids say, OMG!! It's so great to hear someone say what I've long felt, that the Commons mainspace is virtually useless, and that the equivalent on Commons to the Wikipedia mainspace is the Commons' categoryspace. After I tried to delete a couple of sad, useless "articles", and was reverted by admins, I gave up and just kept my opinion to myself. Thanks Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:37, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * You'll see some Commons people say that themselves. I came to this opinion when I found what was clearly a stock photo of a mass produced taco from a supermarket in one of their main space pages titled something like Authentic Mexican Cuisine. I of course, cannot find the page I am referring to now, because their main space is not functioning and their search feature (correctly) points you to the categories. I'm sure you're also familiar with what pops up when you search fruit loops on Commons (NSFW if you don't know). Thats not a main space issue, but it shows how their categories really are the only think that makes it possible to find things over there. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:48, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * this is not a social network/forum/whatnot, but let me return your OMG by saying that when I accidentally came across this paragraph, I thought that it might be the best thing I have read in an AfD in a while. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:17, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, pearls of wisdom just flow through my fingers like koans carried on the winds of eternity.  Seriously, thanks very much, it's always very nice to be appreciated. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:55, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Mistaken identity?
Hi, I think you may have made a mistake with this edit or at least the edit summary. If I'm indeed a "CU confirmed sock" then no one has told me! :) ElKevbo (talk) 02:22, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Nope, I explained this on your talk, but the user you had reverted was a CU confirmed sock. I reverted to the edits before he started. Since you simply reverted one of your edits, my revert shouldn't have actually undone anything you did. Should have been more precise! Sorry for the confusion :) TonyBallioni (talk) 02:25, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Climeon Page
Hello Tony I am not quite sure, what I can do to improve I am also unclear where the discussion is whether or not to delete the page. Any response would be greatly appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HDavis2017 (talk • contribs) 17:46, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, you can find the discussion at Articles for deletion/Climeon and contribute there. As I said in the nominating statement, the subject of the article does not pass our standards for notability of companies. The coverage is mainly PR or blogs. Also, as a note, if you are paid by this company in any way, including as a client or an employee, Wikipedia's terms of use require that you disclose your employeer and affiliation (see WP:PAID). Additionally, if there is any non-paid conflict of interest we discourage you from editing (see WP:COI) TonyBallioni (talk) 17:56, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the speedy reply! I was not paid, but a person that works there is a friend of a friend and said the page would be better if it was written in English. Regardless of the outcome thanks again for the reply, way to keep Wikipedia going. HDavis2017 (talk) 18:06, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Not a problem . If you are interested in continuing to contribute to Wikipedia, we would greatly appreciate it. New page creation is actually one of the harder tasks to do here. I'll make a post on your wall with some guidelines, but if you have any general areas of interest I can try to point you to some articles that could be improved in those areas. That's a good way to get to know Wikipedia's style and requirements. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:12, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

considered for deletion - Godi Financial
Hello Tony, Hope you are doing well & thanks for your valuable feedback for "Godi Financial", which is my first article :). By the way, I read wiki's guidelines which you have sent me. But honestly, I still don't understand why it has been Nominate for deletion. It will be really helpful for me, if you rectify the words or sentences which you think is not appropriate in the Article Godi Financial. As recommended I have changed my User Name also. Thank You. Waiting for your earliest reply. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prajit Roy (talk • contribs) 06:12, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, I have nominated the page for deletion because it has received no sustained, substantial, independent coverage in reliable sources. This is required for inclusion in Wikipedia. Also, do you have a connection to the subject and have you been paid in anyway to write the article? If you have, you should read WP:PAID and declare an employer per our teens of use. TonyBallioni (talk) 10:06, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello, Thank you for the information. I have removed all the advertisement links from that page. Please check once and do let me confirm. Thanks. Prajit Roy (talk • contribs)
 * , sorry for the delay. I had meant to get back to this later today. The concern with the article is not only that it appears to have been created in an attempt to promote, but that it doesn't meet our notability guidelines for companies. There is not coverage of it in independent reliable sources, which we require. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:15, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello, Thanks again for your valuable info. Requesting you to check the page now and confirm. I have got only a source link from a reliable site. Others I removed. The source link which I have given now, it's also present in other FX business page. And that page have only 1 reliable source link which is from FCA. Please take a look. Thanks again. Prajit Roy (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:17, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * , the language still reads promotional and the sources provided are not enough to establish that it is notable, simply that it exists. There are only a few of us that regularly look at newly created pages so other businesses slip through sometimes. What is under discussion at the current time is whether or not this business meets our standards, not whether others do. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:28, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Article deletion
Hi there! Could you please explain it to me why the article I wrote makes you worry? It isn't promotional, it containg reliable links. I just can't see the problem.Ntarsh (talk) 14:26, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi,, there are two issues with it: first, it doesn't explain why the article would be found in a general purpose encyclopedia (significance). deleted it for the same reason earlier today. The second reason is that the article has been deleted in the past via a deletion discussion. I can't see if the article is substantially the same as that content, but I noted this for the reviewing administrator to review. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:35, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your answer! It was deleted because of the lack of significance but I have specifically pointed out that the company I was talking about is one of the oldest in its sphere (or least I don't understand the notion "significant" itself). As for the second reason, I've read that discussion while browsing on the article's TalkPage and noticed that all the remarks there referred to the sources, so I did my best to pick the sources I chose for my article as reliable as I could only find. Ntarsh (talk) 14:44, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * , significance is a term that is tough to define, but the description I have heard that I like best is that it means would by hearing the description of this company presented in the article the average person on the street think it could possibly be in a general purpose encyclopedia., another administrator, has reviewed this article and agreed with my concerns and deleted the article. He would be your best point of contact if you have other questions. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:53, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The article was not substantially different from the deleted version previously. Additionally, as TonyBalloni stated above, the subject of the article does not meet our notability criteria. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:57, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Thomas W. Wilson
Perhaps you already know much of this; my apologies if I'm repeating what you already know, but I want my train of thought to be clear, without you needing to fill in the gaps in my thought process.

The userpage isn't the right place to put such a draft, but it's not particularly harmful, just not a good idea, so if you think something ought to be done with it immediately, please just move it to draftspace. Even if Plaza Ventures gets deleted at AFD, there's no fundamental necessity that the draft/userpage be deleted; one could plausibly argue that it's being retained until more sourcing be found, for example. Therefore, I'd suggest either (1) you move it to Draft:Plaza Ventures or something of the sort, or (2) send the draft to MFD. If you move it, let me know and I'll delete the redirect; normally this isn't a good idea because it creates linkrot, but I think it's a good G6 candidate because one's main userpage shouldn't redirect to a page in another namespace, unless it's the same person's talk page or something like that. If you move it to draftspace, it would seem reasonable to me to tag it with the AFC template (so it will get G13 speedied in six months), but that's up to you. Nyttend (talk) 01:27, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
 * , makes sense and no worries about over explaining: MfD/user space CSD isn't really my thing because I view it in general as not particularly harmful like you pointed out. What I'll likely do is move it to draft and if the AfD ends up as delete add the AfC template. I think it would be a waste of an AfC reviewers time to review it while it was at AfD. I have page mover so I can suppress the redirect. Thanks for the explanation. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:35, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Mistake by me: "send the userpage to MFD" is what I meant. Also, don't submit the draft; just tag it with , which will transclude AFC submission; it won't put it in the queues to get reviewed, but it will start the G13 timer.  Nyttend (talk) 01:39, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Done. Thanks for your explanation. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:41, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank You
Dear TonyBallioni, thank you very much for the guidance. I really needed it. Jeromeenriquez (talk) 13:22, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Dear Tony, this is the editor of the David Annwn Jones page. I am in the process of creating this page. Thank you for your helpful reminders. I am in the process of adding both internal and external references. I would appreciate it if you could bare with me as I am new to this. Thanks

Tony. Thanks for getting back to me but I would much prefer if we could leave as is. I have already added external links and will be working on this all night. Have a good evening. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Liff182 (talk • contribs) 18:25, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Elaboration required
Hi, I tried to read the WMF has agreed to ACTRIAL in principle, but it is too much confusing. Would you please put it in nutshell? Thanks a lot. — usernamekiran (talk)  20:57, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * , I'm not going to put it in the nutshell template on the page, but if you mean explain it here: The WMF has agreed to help implement a trial of restricting page creation to autoconfirmed accounts (referred to by the name WP:ACTRIAL). They want to have a role in the rollout and will help by providing statistics to the community for what everyone agrees will be a required followup RfC on whether to make it permanent. This is the explanation of the facts here.The current question is whether or not an RfC is required to implement it. Kaldari thinks one would be helpful, but said it would not be required if everyone agrees it isn't. and myself both were prepared to have an RfC to renew the 2011 consensus in order to implement it without the help of the WMF if they did not want it to go forward. We believe now that the WMF is open to it, that another RfC is not needed because the 2011 consensus was strong enough and diverse enough portions of the community have been involved in this discussion. You are of course free to disagree, but I'm also explaining my views since it is my talk page :) TonyBallioni (talk) 21:08, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * lol. I was not asking for a nutshell template. :-) I was asking you to explain it to me in brief. Thanks for the explanation though. — usernamekiran (talk)  21:30, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Now that the WMF has agreed in principle to  to  ACTRIAL, a new RfC would be superfluous and time wasting. We  are fortunate in  that  additionally, they  have offered to to  use their resources to  provide the stats needed to monitor the trial, because with  Scottywong having  retired, that  might  have proven not quite so  easy  for the community, or at lest those volunteers who  could do  it  but  don't  have time. We just  need to  be sure that  the stats are correct  and not delayed and  doctored to prove us wrong as they  were in  the 2011 New pages patrol/Survey which I designed and organised. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:48, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * , you might be interested in Kudpung's response. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:54, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I am rather disappointed in the attitude displayed by (WMF), and what I perceive as strawman arguments. I have expended huge amounts of energy driving this issue forward, even indulging the Foundation by paying lip service to their offer of help under the guise of providing a stats expert. It's all delaying tactics, just like the very insincere Skype discussion Wes Moran had with me 6 months ago and the 1-hour Skype with Jonathan Morgan a month or two before that.  The person I really would like an audience with is Maher, but she is even less accessible than Theresa May.  has returned from retirement to make a couple of brief comments. I just wish he would stick around some more until we have better cooperation from the Foundation. I don't want to let up on the work I'm doing just yet, but I'm so jaded I'll soon end up saying something I'll regret. I'm still sore at their totally inadmissible attempt by email to muzzle me. Scottywong's influence  and technical knowledge (and moral support) would be a great boost. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:33, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * , yes. As pointed out, the argument that it would be disruptive is essentially rhetoric without any argumentation to back it up, and the off-wiki issues have been dealt with in detail before. As I mentioned, I also don't really buy the disruption argument because I'm pretty confident many editors already think ACTRIAL is permenant. While this is like you say our Manhattan Project it is my belief that except for those of us who work actively in NPP, very few members of the community will notice, which is the hallmark of any good back end change. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:45, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't know why is even chiming in. I could have saved the huge blunder his department made and the huge clean up (which I organised) by the community of stuff that didn't even come from a traditional English speaking region, but Schulenberg wouldn't listen and rudely slammed the door in my face. That experiment cost/lost an estimated $0.5mio and a lot of NPPers who vowed they would never patrol a page again. ; it's my guess it was all engineered as an excuse for them all to go on a sight seeing junket to Pune. Now they say they haven't got the cash or 6 months time to to do what we need for NPP?

The en.Wiki is a self-governing  entity and we're not  going  to be duped by another Keyes-Fung effect. Also, - Neil P. Quinn (WMF), Product  Analyst. on the hiring  of Victoria Coleman. The department which employs the team that  includes  is clearly a technology  unit, i.e. as I understand it, tasked with developing software. It is therefore not  responsible for making  policy on behalf of the WMF, and certainly  not  responsible for deciding what will be done about responsible requests from the community for urgently required software. In their careful absence of more detailed job descriptions, we would be right in assuming their job is to develop those needed solutions, not constantly question the community's consensus reached by a far larger group of intelligent (and possibly more qualified) people.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:45, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * , the answer is likely that it is in a volunteer capacity, though while I get the legal distinction, I don't really see much distinction here when it comes to implementing a change that the WMF has been opposed to for a while. As I said to and Horn, I do see the WMF as having a role here, and I am not as skeptical of them as you are (with my standard disclaimer that I have been involved not nearly as long). At the same time, I do think that it would be much easier if we were only dealing with one team at the WMF and not someone who is on their payroll acting as a volunteer from a different team. It sows confusion as to who we are actually talking to.  TonyBallioni (talk) 18:06, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * A small correction for Kudpung: Neil made the distinction in that comment between the Technology department and the Product department; Community Tech is a Product team, and Product Managers like me are responsible for prioritizing and planning software development. The distinction between Product and Technology means something to us and other people who work in the field, but it totally makes sense that it wouldn't matter much to anyone else. (Just to make things more difficult for everyone, the organization recently changed the name of the Product department to "Audiences", so that's what you see on the Staff and contractors page.)
 * For Sadads' contributions to the discussion: sorry about the confusion. He's not on our team; he makes his own decisions as a volunteer. :) DannyH (WMF) (talk) 19:02, 7 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Just to put you in the picture, Tony, and to help you understand why I have little confidence in the Foundation, the WMF allocated funds to set up its own semi-autonomous entity, the Wiki Education Foundation,  headed by Frank Schulenberg, following the changes to  his WMF global education program in the aftermath of the disasterous 2011 IEP.   The Education Program continues but with a small and completely different staff.
 * I'm telling you all this because of the huge impact it had for ACTRIAL which we thought would certainly get the go ahead after this. But it didn't. There were some good people involved in the clean up, many of whom have now moved on. We were helped enormously by  who was the Wikipedia top expert on COPYVIO. She joined the WMF in 2011 and she now occupies a  very senior position. By the very nature of her job she's one of the few friends I have left in the Foundation, taking over from Philippe, also a friend, who left for personal reasons.
 * If you have 20 minutes to spare, make yourself a mug of tea, find a comfy chair and spend 20 minutes reading this: Wikipedia talk:India Education Program/Archive 1. Then you'll understand that when I say 'fiasco', I'm putting it mildly. The sad thing is that it could all have been avoided if Schulenberg had listened to me. It was more than just the chaotic teaching programme, there was corruption happening with the funds that the Foundation refused to believe was possible when I told them about it. Nothing was done until I got the ears of Erik Möller and Sue Gardner, but it was too late. Then the clean up began.  Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:54, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks, . Its a really wonderful tool :) TonyBallioni (talk) 02:17, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
 * It really is! The garmine  (talk)  12:21, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Ways to improve Cheurfa Tizi Tegyar
Hello. Speedy delete, please. Tank you. --Allforrous 16:03, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * , no reason to speedy delete. It just needs sourcing. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:47, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

ACTRIAL tasks
FYI. Use or abuse, whatever. Now that is back lending a hand I can take a back seat. I'd be happy to draft the texts of instructions/templates or rewrite the text of the Wizard. I feel I ought to be doing something, but I don't want to keep blowing my horn... Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:41, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * , that language is some of the best I've seen describing ACTRIAL. Tomorrow is a relatively busy day for me so I probably won't have much time to review specifics during the day Eastern time, but will be around enough to read on-wiki or via email. In terms of tasks, I'm literally the last person you want doing the tech parts, but I am decent enough at the communication and human facing elements of things. I'm more than happy to help coordinate tasks between the volunteer workgroup and the WMF if you want to take more of a backseat like you had intended with your earlier retirement, but the call is yours since this has been your brainchild for the last six years. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:41, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the kind words. Not my brainchild exclusively., and I did it together, with a lot of input from others of course. I've just not stopped blowing horns about it ever since, and trying to keep NPP from disintegrating altogether. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:46, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * BTW, I've been having another crack at rewriting some of the Wizard. OMG, the language is more complex than the manuals I used when I learned to fly airplanes! Looks to me like it was all written by someone studying for a bar exam. There are some ragged examples of what I have done in my sandbox. You're welcome to take a look. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:49, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * , when I'm free later tonight, I might have a look over it. I'm halfway decent at turning stuff written by people with a scientific background into human-readable text. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:50, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Don't waste too much time on it yourself, it's a monumental task - I spent 4 hours on it yesterday (Sunday) and only just got past the introduction. The language is not necessarily technical but it needs severely grading for language, which having published over a dozen EFL textbooks and teacher training manuals, is something I know about. That doesn't mean for a moment that I really want to rewrite the wizard, but I would if I have to. The main problem is not so much the GUI pages of the wizard itself, but the pages it forces the user to link to and read. The content of most of those pages, which are mostly Wikipedia policy and technical editing instructions would be a challence for someone in their final bar exams or exams for promotion from rifleman-private to lieutenant missile launcher in the UK army. In all, about 8 hours reading! That's not what new users should have to do. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:01, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Funding
Hi,

Thanks for the response at WP:ACTRIAL.

I've just read the five weeks bit at WT:NPPAFC and I'm a bit confused, surely editing the blacklist requires no WMF funding: am I misinterpreting something?

Thanks,  Dr Strauss   talk   17:29, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * , the WMF has agreed to implement this as a research trial. They primarily agreed to it for the purpose of statistics gathering from what I can tell. and I were prepared to go to an RfC to get the community's endorsement for implementing ACTRIAL without the participation of the WMF, but then the WMF came on board before we launched that. This made an RfC unnecessary, but it also means that while this is a community driven effort, we are working with the WMF and taking some of their concerns in mind while launching.As to Kudpung's earlier question re: the contingency plan for the funding, my contingency plan if this gets delayed too much would be to seek community endorsement for flipping the switch via the blacklist without WMF support. I think we are a long way from that at this point, but it is still an option if the current effort falls apart because of funding. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:50, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * You won't  need community  endorsement. With  my  admin  access I'll  just  be bold and do  it  myself. I'll just  need someone with  some technical  knowledge to  walk  me through it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:39, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * , I agree: using the 2011 consensus is a good way to go. On a different NPP point (question for either Kudpung or TonyBallioni), I've come across pages in the curation feed that have already been tagged but not marked as reviewed by other editors.  These tags are quite often incorrect and the users don't have the patroller right.  It's by no means unbearable but it's just something I've noticed.    Dr Strauss   talk   17:01, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * , this was part of the reason Kudpung led the initiative to institute the NPR user right. All pages, even if already tagged, must be reviewed by a reviewer who has the right. There are some user warning templates at WP:NPPC you can use to encourage people to get involved with other tasks. I usually have a boilerplate text that I use to send people to do countervandalism work rather than the templates, but I have used them in the past when users have been incompetent to the point where I think a template warning is the only way to get their attention. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:14, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * , insisting in allowing everyone and his dog to patroll new pages is, IMO, a gross oversight on the part of the community. Maintenance tasks are a magnet to children and inexperienced users, as any admin who has worked at PERM know only too well. The problem of allowing them to do this is that although their patrols are double checked by an accredited reviewer, the damage is already done and there is no way we can force these people to read the instructions. Run an edit summary search and see how many times 'NPP' figures in my edit summaries; that's the number of times I've chased incompetent individuals away from NPP - it's in the hundreds. The argument used to allow these people was 'anyone can edit', and enough of them used it to topple that part of the RfC. But it's a load of BS, there are dozens of places on Wikipedia where not everyone can edit. If the 430 reviewers maintain their current cadence (although 90% of the reviewing is only done by about 10 reviewers), the backlog will be gone in about 6 months, proving that we don't need the services of beginners who don't even qualify for the tools to combat vandalism. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:47, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree, while I am a relatively "new" new page reviewer I was quite active before my break and I'm hoping to get back into the swing of it now!  Dr Strauss   talk   11:29, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Precious
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:46, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you, this is much appreciated! Someone else rewrote my stub for the Martyrs of Laos (I'm pretty awful at anything post-1750), but I'll claim the credit if it makes me precious ;-). TonyBallioni (talk) 20:53, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Fixed ;) - hope you enjoy the prize by the cabal of the outcasts! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:56, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Adding references
I don't know how to add references. Every time I try it looks weird. Also, If I insert them in the conservation status area, it changes the status. STUPID DIFFICULT REFERENCE ADDING! I AM SO MAD!

Pancakes654 12:55, 12 July 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pancakes654 (talk • contribs)
 * Hi,, when editing the article there should be a button that says "cite" on the top toolbar. You can put the information for citations there and it will generate it for you. Hope this is helpful. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:28, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Paid editing - Response
Hello Tony, I have not been commissioned to write these pages, I am a former intern for the company. I've also never had a wikipedia account before this one. With respect to your claim that Strategic Marketing is of questionable notability, I don't believe that it is true. Like I said in my response to your A7 flag, Strategic Marketing is the advertising agency behind the campaigns of well known brands like Stanley Steemer and EmbroidMe, which are well known brands. Because Strategic Marketing is responsible for that name recognition, I believe that it is a notable brand in its own right. (I'm unclear as to what the standard practices are for responding to other users so this same response is on your talk page and mine.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TeMurphy (talk • contribs) 21:14, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, thank you for your response. I did not tag it for A7, that was another editor. I took it to Articles for deletion, where we will discuss its notability. Since notability is not inherited, I believe it should be deleted for not meeting our notability guidelines when considered in light of our guideline for companies. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:20, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Copyright bots
Silightly off-topic but do you have any idea what actally happened to CorenSearchBot and why, if Coren is no longer maintaining it, nothing new has been created to replace it? I am 100% sure that there is no systematic automatic checking of new articles taking place and that as a consequence a lot of COPYVIOS are slipping through. The main culprits of copyvio are or course the spammers, and they are the people we need to smoke out. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:34, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
 * , EranBot is the basis of Copypatrol and I know does an excellent job of catching things added after the initial revision creating a page. Whenever I work in CopyPatrol I do see less new creations than I would expect. This is why on an individual level I run every new page I see through Earwig and remind others that RD1 is generally neccesary anytime copyvio is removed. I think / said when you last brought it up that he would look into what is happening with new pages and the bot. I'm also pinging since he is familiar with the CopyPatrol software. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:24, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Ctenitis pallatangana
I found a way to add a reference on Ctenitis pallatangana. So, I am going to try to delete that template message. I will tell you if I can't delete it.

Pancakes654 00:33, 16 July 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pancakes654 (talk • contribs)

A barnstar for you!

 * , probably the nicest note I've received on my talk page in a while. Feel free to point out my errors anytime :) TonyBallioni (talk) 02:59, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Yeah right. See contribs. &mdash; fortuna  velut luna  14:47, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
 * , I had come to the same conclusion. Though now they appear to be on a second round of barnstars. I think this is worthy of some new catchy title Barntrolling might work, but I'm open to other suggestions. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:52, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

ACTRIAL-RfC
You do realise of course, that whether it was implemented or not, the consensus to roll out the experiment no more needs re-debating than any other policy or software that ever reached a consensus. Or are people like and  going to insist that we redebate BLPPROD, PROD, AfD, and all the CSD criteria? Probably not, but without ACTRIAL results enabling us to find solutions for the future, Wikipedia will degenerate into a slum of spam, adverts, hoaxes, attack pages and general vandalism, and it's happening already. It rather surprises me coming from Majora, a scientist and such a valiant defender of the very copyright rules our experiment will enable us to protect. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:07, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 * , we're in agreement. I also have to agree with that posting at Jimbo talk was non-ideal: the place is worse than ANI in many ways. At least the conversation there for the most part is showing that while there are still some objectors, the community is still behind this and most don't think an RfC was neccesary. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:58, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

On a different note: it's all gone quiet in the San Francisco stable. I rather fear that not much will be done during the run up to Wikimania. They'll be discussing the conference for weeks when they get back, and and then they will be working on their Christmas wish list again. Let's not forget that Danny has offered and also reiterated by  with, so while I think we ought to hold them to that, I suggest we start in earnest checking through my old drafts of the interface messages that need changing and any php that's built into them, selecting the best local script to prevent new users from creating in mainspace, and tweaking whatever is necessary for the AfC part  and the Wizard. Which means we need to get a team together and get working with Danny's people. and I had it all ready to go and it's all on the ACTRIAL main page. Perhaps you could have a word with, and find out where they're at.

Most importantly has clearly stated that he looks forward to ACTRIAL as 'exciting news'  and underlines the need for investing in software development. If you are going to Montreal, you could probably get them all round a table like I did the vice CEO and the devs in Hong Kong and I could join you over Skype. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:51, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * , unfortunately I won't be going to Montreal: too much going on professionally that I don't think I can make the trip. I'll post on Horn's en.wiki talk page and see what the status is. I agree that we should be prepared to go about this through the blacklist if need be. I'm not sure who the best person to work with on that is. I can start reviewing the prompts and drafts later this week. We can post at NPPAFC and try to get some more eyes as well. I also have a few thoughts on people who might be interested.Yes, I was going to post a thank you note on ' wall today. It is good for morale to see that one of our community nominated board members supporting ACTRIAL. As I have said to WMF staffers and during the en.wiki 2nd round of strategic plan consultations, I see ACTRIAL as a critical component of meeting the WMF's strategic vision of being the most trusted source of knowledge by 2030. Recognition of its importance by a board member goes a long way in my mind of showing that we aren't in fact trying to do anything other than help Wikipedia. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:14, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

NPR newsletter tip
As a former professional online activist, it leapt out at me that "The new page backlog is currently at 18,511 pages" not being a link to the backlog is a missed opportunity to generate immediate action. My instinct was to click it and go do a couple of NPRs since I have a few minutes to spare. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  22:55, 18 July 2017 (UTC) PS: I just did about a dozen reviews, mostly with an eye to telling authors how to repair them, with more INDY sources. None of the subjects were obvious deletion candidates. First NPR I've done in a while, and I was surprised how far back the backlog goes. I guess NPP catches most of the total crap, and NPR takes more careful review. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  23:59, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * , excellent point. Thanks for the message. Also, for what its worth, its always very nice seeing a smiling emoji in your signature. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:01, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I hope it renders properly as a whiskery cat, as intended. I tested a bunch of variants of it (on a Mac), but this one uses some Unicode that might not be universal even in 2017.  No one's groused at me about it.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  23:53, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * NPR is the user right for marking something reviewed. Its all part of the same project. The spam and crap gets most of the attention, but there actually is quite a need to improve the articles that should be included in the encyclopedia. Helping out with that it would be greatly appreciated. I try to do it for bishops because I tend to be halfway decent about getting them in line with policy and you don't have too many people who know how to find sourcing on the Capuchin bishop who funded the translation of the Bible into Kashmiri. Also, I was referring to the emoji, but I also see the cat now. It is quite nice. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:07, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Notice of RM
I converted your technical request into a RM with your rationale as the nominating statement. If you want to add more, you can do so at Talk:List of accolades received by La La Land (film). It is currently a featured list and the main article has (film), so any change is likely to be controversial and should be discussed. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:43, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know. I can see why you would hesitate to move this page, so I will explain more on the move request. 2601:8C:4001:DCB9:6811:9BCC:B583:E38A (talk) 14:44, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Question
are you our new NPP leader, oh great one? I vaguely remember Kudz saying he was retiring from that position (he obviously forgot that one can never leave Hotel NPP) and I've lost track of who took his place. You appear to be the obvious choice. Atsme 📞📧 22:59, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * , no, haha. and  are the coordinators with  as coordinator emeritus. I've been working very closely with Kudpung on the NPPAFC/ACTRIAL project and sent out the recent newsletter because by virtue of that I know too much of the goings on with the project/had the technical capability to do so because Kudpung granted me the flag to help out with the work group. One of the great things about Wikipedia is that anyone can help out with projects they care about. Getting ACTRIAL implemented is in my mind one of the most important things we can do for the project, so I've been taking on a large role with that :) TonyBallioni (talk) 23:37, 17 July 2017 (UTC)


 * NPP is a mess and you just can't kill the beast. Too many detractors with their steely knives. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:28, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Apologies, I have been off of Wikipedia for several months due to RL. I hope to be back before the end of summer but it depends on things calming down on the one hand and PT on the other. Jbh  Talk  21:28, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Reply
Thanks for the kind thoughts. I hope you have a good weekend also. It would be nice to have others recognize the sheer effort and hours upon hours I've put in to save pages on Wikipedia, rather than get accused with bullshit like promotion or spam. Sagecandor (talk) 23:09, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

NPR
It was bad enough before we introduced the New Page Rewiewer group. IN the last few days the backlog has dropped somewhat (now down to 16295), but at considerable detriment to quality.(Wrong CSD criteria, tagging innocuous nascent articles within minutes, etc.). I warned that reviewing drives are not necessarily conducive to achieving the best goals for Wikipedia, and we've seen the problems associated withe drives at AfC. Since I retired from micromanaging NPP/NPR nearly six months ago, I spend a lot of time simply doing what can at the coal face, and frankly, from what I'm seeing, I feel that my earlier efforts have been wasted. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:47, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
 * , this had been my fear. I've been distracted by other things the last few days but at some point intended to spot check. I hadn't noticed any AWB tag spamming for minor issues, which from my anecdotal experience has typically occurred around the same time as a dip in the backlog. I think we're in a tough spot here and am not exactly sure the best way forward. I would probably oppose announcing a drive via the newsletter again. I think eventually the backlog will rise again, possibly before ACTRIAL is implemented. That is part of the reason that a longer trial is necessary, to control for the flux. I have some pings I need to answer over on that page, but I'm tired now and will do so in the morning. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:19, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, I think the next newsletter should bring to mind the rapid tagging of articles, the failure to recognise serious serial BLP vandalism, hoaxes and spam, and the general incorrect use of CSD criteria. In terms of quality of patrolling, we're back to square one with still even stronger arguments to roll out ACTRIAL, which in spite of their placating posts, the WMF aren't really advancing as fast as they could. I'm assured by my webmaster (a genuine professional programmer who has been around since the dawn of desktop computers) that it's all really a matter of just a few days for one coder working with one communication expert together. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:14, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Greetings
Dear Tony, thank you for making your comments concerning the recent page i created, Kovin fortress. I have taken note of some things that needed updating, and figured it was the sources/references. I have submitted the page for a new review after adding a few sources. Also, i have originally linked the page with the existing pages in Serbian and Bosnian. Lazarus 92 (talk) 10:36, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
 * , someone else moved it from draft back to being an article. If I had been online when you posted here, I would have as well. Happy editing. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:57, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

RfA

 * , you are far too kind. The fact that you thanked the people who supported your record setting RFA says a lot: it takes effort to do that. I typically prefer to give a bottle of green chartreuse as an award over a barnstar when the accomplishment is momentous, but I feel that you probably deserve more. Luckily, the Commons liquor store has twelve bottles available, so you might as well get the lot :) TonyBallioni (talk) 23:20, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

2E Bureau
Dear Tony, i started create page regarding of 2e Bureau, without any commercial context. Is it possible to continue to write about this bureau if i write more information about this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TanyaFokina (talk • contribs) 14:32, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * , you are free to edit the article more or contribute to the deletion discussion, but the outcome will likely hinge on whether there was coverage of this firm in enough independent reliable secondary source to meet our standards on notability for businesses. Right now, I don't see any based on my search. Also, do you have any relationship with the firm in question or were you paid to write the article for them? If you were paid, as a condition for using this website, the Wikimedia Foundation requires that you disclose this. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:45, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Dear Tony, nobody paid me for this. I just found the story of this bureau is interesting and unique, and was trying to put the article here. If you could help me please and explain me what exactly i need for writing right article, i will be really appreciate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TanyaFokina (talk • contribs) 14:56, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the response, {{u|TanyaFokina}. The article needs to demonstrate that the subject is covered in-depth by reliable, independent, secondary sources (major newspapers, books, etc.) This coverage should not be based on press releases. Hope that is helpful. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:06, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Re: DRV on Tony Chang
Thanks for the heads up Tony. And of course I was never consulted, I'll have a look later. Alex ShihTalk 17:25, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Long Time
Dear TonyBallioni, heard from you after a long time. Thank you for the help. Just wanted to request you to review my articles and suggest the improvements. Missed you. Jeromeenriquez (talk) 15:22, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigations/Tomwsulcer
Tony, there's nothing wrong with adding accounts to the SPI. Indeed, I appreciate all your hard work. However, in the future, if a CU is already checking as I was here, please ping me when you add them. Otherwise, I don't find about it until I'm done, or at least I thought I was done. This was a very complicated check, making it that much more frustrating for me to integrate new accounts into the check. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:26, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * , I'm sorry for that: I thought that pinging might interrupt your work, which is why I didn't do it. Turns out the opposite is the case. Thank you for all your hard work on this: I expected this would be probably one of the harder ones and am very appreciative all the work you do. Hopefully I won't need to file one as complicated as this in the future, but should I ever, I will be sure to follow your advice. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:29, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Absolutely understandable. Normally I hate being interrupted when I'm in the middle of a check, either by a ping or a post to my Talk page. Then there are the editors that make several edits in a row to my Talk page to make the post perfect, each time interrupting me. Not their fault, of course, I just get very focused and can't stand that orange banner. That said, this is an exception when the interruption helps me.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:36, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Also,, since this is the first time I've ever dealt with an SPI that was this complicated, if I come across articles created that look as a behavioral match to Group 1, what would be the appropriate title to file the SPI under? Sorry for further pestering of you. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:58, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Depends. Something has to happen to that case so it no longer shows Tomwsulcer as the master, but that may not happen quickly because it requires some decision making on the part of a clerk. Once that happens, though, it should be obvious to you what case to reopen. Until that happens, I'd add accounts to the existing case, arguing they relate to Group 1 and why.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:38, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

For defending against a SOCKFARM

 * , thanks. This means a lot. The cleanup here is not going to be fun. I'll probably post on COIN once a clerk closes the SPI and moves it to a correct name to get more eyes looking at the articles. I'm much better at dealing with the completely obvious cases of non-notable spam than the ones that require deliberation, which a lot of these seem to be. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:42, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

WP:OUTCOMESBASED
I have fixed the year in the "Outcomes" section you added to WP:ATA. It should be 2017, not 2317. The latter is 3 centuries into the future. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 22:52, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * , thanks, in the future, you don't have to notify me when you fix my typos. I tend to rewrite things after I type them once and then when I preview them I read what I think I wrote, so I am the king of the stray word or character. I'm very appreciative when others fix them. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:57, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually, that was intentional and not a typo. When using examples I tend to make ridiculous numbers so people won't think its being mimicked off of an actual user. If you prefer to change it, thats fine. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:58, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * is not the king of the stray word or character. I am. Particularly double white space between words due to too many thumbs. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:13, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * There are many of us Wikipedians who are the oligarchs of typos if you will. On a less humourous note, you may be interested in the outcome of the SPI linked above at Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard. I have a bad suspicion that whomever is behind the largest group may be Orangemoodyesque, but that with all the VPNs and proxies we will never be able to prove it when combined with stale accounts. Looking through the contribs of the articles you see similar accounts dating back to pre-2010. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:18, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Sock pages
They are obviously commissioned works and I'm worried we have another OrangeMoody on our hands. Don't bother PRODing them unless they have been significantly expanded by other editors (this does not include minor clean ups, adding cats, or even removal of promotional prose). Tag them G5. I'll make sure they are deleted. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:03, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * , check COIN, I've tagged as G5 a few. Others PRODed. I'll go through again in a few. They follow a pretty similar pattern in terms of page creations and are very obvious behaviorally. The nasty part about these ones is that they aren't just promotional. They are BLP defamers as well (see Khamis Al-Khanjar, which was a cleverly done hitjob masked as a promotional piece). They also try to game our deletion system to delete pages of individuals who have negative information about them that got them on Wikipedia. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:08, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm going through  the contribs histories of all the  blocked socks and when I  come across an N for 'created' I  summarily  delete the page G5. At  this level of socking  and paid editing  I'm  merciless and I'm not bothering  to  look if any  pages can be saved. They've been paid for, and the clients are just as guilty as the paid editors. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:15, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Do you know why was user:DemoTent not blocked at the SPI? I see a clear case of involveent at Salient Partners whch has obviously been paid for. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:05, 28 July 2017 (UTC). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:05, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * ,, determined that it was stale. I agree that behaviorally it is a match. I'm currently updating the SPI with potential proxies that intersect on one of the articles. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:08, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Here's another page that's come up: Terra Firma Capital Partners. Obviously paid and you'll find your socks in it. You might not be able to get it deleted, but click on the history to see 500, scan down the ES, and some things will light up like a halogen bulb and lead to others. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:12, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Check out user:Fundwatcher and see what intersects. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:15, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Because they are sure as heck a sock of RedmondKane . Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:16, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Then user:Mbfn comes to light. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:18, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * , we edit conflict but I updated: If you randomly go through the contributions of the confirmed group 1 accounts and look through the page histories you will see SPAs and other promotional accounts that fit the behavior patten and are now abandoned dating back to 2009. Whether they are the same group or if the firms just have been hiring different editors to work their pages over the years I am not sure. Regardless, I am convinced that any page that has been edited by the confirmed group 1 accounts were either targeted for promotion, deletion, or some form of attack against a competitor. Re: the new accounts you found: if they are not stale, definitely add them to the SPI. If they are stale, CU can't really do anything. I'm not sure the procedure on blocking stale socks on behavioral evidence. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:24, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Stale is stale, admittedly, but if you look at this, which this investigation has led me to, all the pages have obviously been paid for, and the user has moved on to a new, more recent account, and probably more socks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:41, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

, if this is actually a thing that has been going on for almost a decade, which I do think is a possibility given some of the accounts I saw editing when I was poking around before filing the initial report, that could be the initial master. I'm pinging so they're aware of that account since all three have been involved with this cleanup. I'm going to bed now: up way too late. This is a mess. TonyBallioni (talk) 07:04, 28 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Bear in mind also that all those redirects could be a deliberate self-'soft' delete to avoid detection and to 'un'redirect them later when no one is watching. AFAIK, unredirected pages don't show in the NPP feed. It's been done before. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:37, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * --AFAIK, un-redirected pages re-appear at the NPP feed.(Check the oldest two/three articles at NPP queue.That's the case with them--Some editor recently choose to un-redirect it!)That's what my limited experience says! But I'm a bit unsure if both the redirection and un-redirection are done by the creator. Winged Blades Godric  09:39, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * They do now (it's how Hitler becomes a new page on occasion). They didn't when those redirects were created. It's within the last year or two if I remember. Yes, I'm an insomniac who had too much coffee too close to bed. TonyBallioni (talk) 07:42, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * That's good to know. They are supposed to but I wasn't sure if it was working already. We've been asking for so many tweaks lately and hoping for more, that I can lose track sometimes. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:44, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

What to do about it all?
Well, the answer is to do something. There are fractured conversations going on everywhere at the moment, particularly here about raising the bar for notability (organisations). But what absolutely amazes me is that what I thought was part of the same thread was actually nearly two years ago! (That's how the time flies when you get to my age) with some actually very good suggestions from too. What's more amazing is that apart from rolling out some qualifications for NPP, in true Wikipedia tradition absolutely nothing has been done. It's all there, it needs a bit of collating and refining, but it's almost ready for RfC. It was just before you became truly active, but do find a comfy chair, and a mug of tea, and take an hour to read it - you'll do a double take, or certainly déjà vu! Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:10, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * , well the first step is to clean up after the RedmondKane (Group 1) socks and see how far back we can make a case behaviorally. They have a bad habit of intersecting once or twice on articles and I'm confident going through their contributions will lead us to more that CU was unable to find because of being stale. is quite good at finding spam in obscure places on Wikipedia. He'd certainly be helpful in reviewing this mess if he were willing ;). I also think that going forward creating an edit filter for "article creation by user with less than 1000 edits that is more than 2000 bytes" would help us track commissioned works more easily. I'm not sure if is possible, but its an idea.The current conversation on the NCORP talk page is going nowhere fast. I'll read the previous conversation in a bit after I do more work on the group 1 socks. I'll say this again: what a mess. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:01, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the ping, Tony. I've always regretted that my sock-smeller pursuivancy wasn't more heightened, but, if I can help at all, of course: As the fella says, 'I hate that goddam Barzini' (Barzini = paid editing). But I think the filter that Tony suggests would do wonders against paid editing. As I may have mentioned before- this, this and this] are today's candidatse- the paid editor comes in low and fast- creates a 'perfect' (nothing to draw attention of NPR, for example), and pefectly formed article from scratch, in just a few edits, probably into draft space (seeing it, perhaps, as a poorly guarded backdoor?), then sliiiides it into mainspace, and there you have it. Never see them again.
 * But- Tony's filter would either catch them out, or slow them down to the extent it might become unprofitable. See- the way around the TonyFilter would be to make a load of edits after account creation as a 'normal' editor. Let a period of time pass, and then start creating the article, but very bit-by-bit- take another fifty edits to do so. That way, they would effectively look natural. But that would be anathema to our paid editor, wouldn't it, because time is money etc, and his client doesn't want to wait three months, while he wants to be doing five jobs a week, not in six months. I did wonder whether they factored in clever stuff to avoid CU- travelling distances, for example, in order to WP:BEANS ; but frankly, I think that would just eat into a profit margin. Even without the unmagical pixy dust, they know that writing a 'perfect article' first time is unlikely to be accepted as a behavioural trait of a sock- like those two above. So techevidence might still get them. (Apologies for the waffle) &mdash; fortuna  velut luna  14:43, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * One of the problems is that there are New Page Reviewers and Admins among the paid editors who patrol the pages they have created with one of their socks. One possible solution would be that any new pages caught in such a filter would have to be patrolled by two patrollers. Anyway, keep your G5 tags coming. And check these out for intersections and tag any pages and images in their histories with an N:


 * TICorbit
 * ContainerPat
 * and


 * 185.183.107.151
 * Drafeer
 * JeffersonBourbon
 * Brandonber
 * Alcoholprof-AS-
 * 39.54.165.59
 * 185.2.179.137Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:17, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * There are Admins involved. Wow. Incredible. I've seen a few deny it, but-! Anyway, thanks, - by the way, what's N? &mdash; fortuna  velut luna  15:24, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * There are also admins going around as we speak undoing our G5s. If Tomwsulcer is the sockmaster, why hasn't he been blocked? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:29, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * N means newly created page or talk page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:30, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, i know that, I was imprecise- the question, actually should have been, 'How do we mark pages as new', as I thought the software did it?
 * CU confirmed that he was not the sockmaster: I was wrong in connecting it to him behaviorally. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:31, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * CUs are not necessarily wrong, but  they  can sometimes not  be right. CU is only  a technical match, and not a very  precise one at  that - I  have better systems on my  own corporate web site. Our CUs are limited, as we all are, by having  to  pay  service to  what  are fast  becoming  some  antiquated idealistic rules. I don't  know what's worst, a) blocking paid spammers and deleting  their paid-for articles b) simply  allowing  a free-for-all for paid advocacy - which is tantamount  to  what  we currently  have, or c) accepting  a few errors and some slight collateral damage. After all,  nothing  on  Wikipedia is irreversible, and when you've just  spent 17 hours on a case like this, you invested a lot into  keeping  this encyclopedia clean in the knowlegd that the admin who may have an impeccable record may still go the Wifione or Pastor Theo route. So its 23:20 and I'm off to bed.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:19, 28 July 2017 (UTC)