User talk:TonyBallioni

User rename thanks :)

Thanks for renaming my account for me :) I feel bad though, you had to take the time to move a whole lot of long-forgotten subpages I'd totally forgotten about (& that I've now speedied!). Sorry about that. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 08:06, 9 April 2018 (UTC) ... annnd, that's how I figured out it doesn't automatically change the signature. So thanks indirectly & unintentionally for that too! ... Thanks,  CJ [a Kiwi] in  Oz  10:00, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Your signature should contain a link to your userpage, talk, etc... WP:SIGLINK: "Signatures must include at least one direct internal link to your user page, user talk page, or contributions page; this allows other editors easy access to your talk page and contributions log. The lack of such a link is widely viewed as obstructive." — regards, Revi 10:09, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, @-revi:, I realised as soon as I published the changes that I'd missed that when I reworked the sig, have fixed it now ... Thanks,   CJ [a Kiwi] in  Oz  10:13, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Great. Last PS (also known as "Too much information"): Without link to your userpage/user talk, Ping do not work. — regards, Revi 10:14, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

@CJinoz: not a problem :) Don’t worry about the subpages: the software does the moves automatically once the rename has been accepted. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:38, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Good article reassessment needing eyes

If any talk page stalkers who may be interested in early modern history (or are willing to take a look at an article and the sourcing) would mind commenting at Talk:Papal conclave, 1769/GA2, it would be appreciated. It is only an individual reassessment, not a community one, but as I'm one of the few people who is currently working on the conclaves, I'd like to have feedback from others as well. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:40, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation

I gathered some diffs for the sockpuppet investigation that I think establish a behavioral pattern. More evidence can be provided.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:56, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I commented at the SPI. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:46, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Need advice

I am not looking for any blocks, but I wanted to discuss this comment by Johnpacklambert. I see him around AFD regularly so you can imagine my surprise when I read this. Although he rephrased his !vote, it was not a "oops, made a typo" sort of thing, but rather a "opps, cannot let anyone see that". A part of me wants to learn where this came from, but I do not want to appear like I am "escalating" the situation. Should I just ignore it instead and move on?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 13:32, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

TheGracefulSlick, I gave a discretionary sanctions awareness alert and left a note. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:55, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Like I said, after working with JPL for awhile, I was suprised that came from him and worried that is how he feels about me and others. I am glad I came to you about it.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 14:22, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

The Palestinians especially Hamas want to expell Jews

The Palestinians have yet to acknowledge the right of Israel to exist. Helen Thomas called for expulsion of the Jews and sending them back to Poland. This despite the fact most Israelis trace their recent lineage to Arab countries, at least a lot more than to Poland. How else can we see the Poland call then an allusion to the gas chambers. It is an entirely fair comment and no Palestinian has yet demonstrated a sincere desire to accept Israel's right to exist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:25, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Johnpacklambert: A contested geopolitical situation where one side doesn't recognize the right of the other to exist is not the same thing as want[ing] to send the Jews back to the gas chambers. I'm not familiar with Helen Thomas's comments, but I don't see them as particularly relevant to an AfD about someone who is recently deceased as she's been dead for almost 5 years (and she also denied your reading of them anyway). One can be anti-semitic without advocating for genocide.

Anyway, the AfD is about whether or not someone who died 6 days ago is notable. I don't have an opinion on that question. I do, however, think it is inappropriate for you to leave such a broad comment on a contentious AfD where it could easily be read as you stating that you think the authors of that article support mass genocide of the Jewish people. Even if you are only referencing what you think that some Palestinians believe, I hope you realize the chilling effect such rhetoric could have at an AfD conversation. Like I said, I'm glad you changed it afterwards, but I was leaving a note because it really shouldn't happen again. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:50, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

I will admit my statement was probably an overreaction, which is why I removed it. However I grow tired on the one-sided attacks on the actions of Jews in the middle-east, their constatnly being villified in the media, and the fact that those who publish such hate filled rhetoric are never called into question for the real world consequences they create for Jews living in such countries as France.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:56, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

I appreciate that those are your views, and I am grateful that you removed the comment. I also think anti-semitism is a cancer, and was dealing with an anti-semitic SPA here yesterday behind the scenes. I do request, however, that you not repeat accusations like that on Wikipedia without proof. We wouldn't accept them in article space unless they are sourced, and in project space, they can be read as a personal attack. From your statement above, you seem to recognize that it was a mistake, so as far as I'm concerned, there's nothing really more to talk about and we can all move on :) ​TonyBallioni (talk) 16:03, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Curation

There is something seriously wrong within the WMF. See Horn;'s latest at m:Talk:Wikimedia_Foundation_Annual_Plan/2018-2019/Draft#Tools. It's bordering on the farcical. Is there anything you can do? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:16, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Gah! I was not kind. Maybe one of you can try a diplomatic approach using my not-diplomatic-at-all comment to lever and redirect the conversation. Alternately just say 'that Jbh is an asshole, just ignore him' — whichever you think may help to break through the stupidity over there. Jbh ^Talk 16:37, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

I've commented on meta. I'll say here what I said there: I do not think all 64 current requests are all needed to improve the tool. See my comment here for the popular request for userspace logs for deletion tags. This is a popular request, but ultimately unneeded as the system already provides a similar function (that is actually, IMO, better in terms of transparency, as you can't U1 or blank logs, and no admin would RD them. It also doesn't have an opt-out, unlike twinkle.) I think many of the requests there are very much needed, such as this suggestion I made and put into phab as T167475 almost a year ago. I'm not pointing it out because I suggested it, but because, this is just a basic system functionality that page curation lacks but that we are improving most other areas of MediaWiki to include now. I think requests such as these are the ones the WMF is more likely to focus on if we had a focused list as they are things that are agnostic as to which Wiki it is installed on, but which would provide a real benefit to users. Cutting down our list of 64 needs and wants to a core list of top 10 needs would likely go a long way with actually getting some work done. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:51, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

IMO, the best thing the WMF could do right now is explain how the page curation toolset is supposed to work. I don't think I've ever seen an explanation for the fact that the New pages feed shows "No Citations" in the feed, but has no filter for it, or that selecting Show:Nominated for Deletion does not allow to select any criteria in the That: list. Or why it lists articles deleted for nomination regardless of whether or not Show:Nominated for deletion is selected. Nor have I seen any rationale for posting the feedback to the creator of the page, in stead of the talk page. Nor has anyone ever appeared to have looked at which tags are being used by reviewers, and which ones ought to be removed or added. So maybe we can start with that: document the software we have, and share the design decisions with the shareholders. Then solicit feedback from the top 50 users, or do an analysis of how they use the tool and what workarounds they use to overcome limitations in the software. That would help rebuild trust between the NPP'ers and the WMF, I imagine. Vexations (talk) 19:56, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't think there is much that can be done to build confidence in the WMF. There has been a gaping rift between the paid staff and the volunteers for years and no official lines of communication between them and the community. They have made several serious errors of judgment in the past that have cost millions, and incurred major mop ups by the community, one of which I led.

I populated most but not all of the required tweaks at the Wikipedia:Page_Curation/Suggested_improvements, but I have not suggested any priority for each of them. I tend to regard the list on that page as one single project rather than 60 or so individual pieces of software for an Xmas stocking filler. Now that we have over 600 supposedly active revieweres, I'm planning something that will provide a lot of feedback on how they use the system (or why they don't), and what they actually feel would be a priority list for the individual tweaks. On another issue, I think it is becoming appropriate to question the perceived hierarchy within the WMF. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:33, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Undeletion request

Draft: The Croatan at ECU was deleted from Wiki but also from my sandbox. Can this please be reveresed so I may continue my work in the sandbox. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattklettner (talk • contribs) 15:50, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Mattklettner, I can email you the content if you wish, but I won't restore it to a page on Wikipedia in the form it was when it was deleted as the G11 criteria applies to all pages on Wikipedia, including sandboxes, so it would be eligible for deletion even there. If you want me to email you the prose, you should enable your email. You can see how to do that at WP:ENABLEEMAIL. Once you have enabled email, if you make a request again here, I can send it to you. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:55, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

OK email is active now — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattklettner (talk • contribs) 16:21, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Mattklettner: emailed. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:25, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

NPR Bronze Award

		The New Page Reviewer's Bronze Award
		For over 1000 new page reviews in the last year, as well as all the other work you have done for New Pages Patrol, thank you! — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 00:04, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Revert of portals consultation

Hi Tony,

Any particular reason? It's not the first time a discussion has been boldly moved, others also expressed that it should be. On the flipside, I didn't see anyone actively arguing that it shouldn't.--Newbiepedian (talk · C · X! · L) 05:01, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Because it’s been advertised at CENT, is already taking place at VPR, and you’re simply making a mess of an already complicated process. I’ve also deleted your archive. I’d highly suggest you remove the RfC banner from the new page you created as well because having two ongoing RfCs at the same time will be a complete mess. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:04, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) My concern is that this isn't really going anywhere in its current structure, as it's already a mess. It's produced some discussion but as it stands it's disorganised, innavigable, and has no sensible way of determining any outcomes. Subthreads are literally repeating themselves. How would you suggest addressing that? --Newbiepedian (talk · C · X! · L) 05:06, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

By letting an experienced user deal with the closure when the time comes. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:08, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

I still feel having some kind of an overview would help. I've removed the RfC tag, how about I restructure the page I created to provide the same content without attempting to be a venue for discussion, and then link that from VP/PR?--Newbiepedian (talk · C · X! · L) 05:15, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

I saw the attempt to move the discussion. What in the world? Legacypac (talk) 05:16, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm assuming that's rhetorical, but I was just trying to help bring some structure to the thing. So yay or nay on keeping the page as a quick summary?--Newbiepedian (talk · C · X! · L) 05:20, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That’s your call. If it were me, I’d just would be sure not to frame it as resembling a new RfC. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:29, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Done, I think. Thanks for your help!--Newbiepedian (talk · C · X! · L) 05:33, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard

Per your answer at ANI. How is that "clear" that my edits are controversial? What's clear is that this user thinks he WP:OWN the category and can revert anything he wants without any reason whatsoever. It's not a content dispute because he doesn't provide any argument. It's about this user's behavior. Also, look for "Debresser" at the revision history and talk page to see his constant edit-warring and abuse of reverting. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 17:13, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

I didn't say it was clear that your edits are controversial. I don't have an opinion on the issue. I full protected the page as it was a content dispute and given that the page has been the subject of edit wars in the past, and that the category and some of its children are used controversially to violate the BLP policy, talking about it on the talk page or in another forum is the best way forward. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:17, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

"So whatever your initial believe and whether it was well founded, it's clear now that your edits are controversial." – ANI. There's absolutely no basis for that statement. The user just reverting without explanation and not responding. No content dispute. That's why I posted at ANI. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 17:26, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

I did not say that, another user did. It’s a content dispute as you made a bold edit, and someone twice disagreed with it and reverted. You should use the talk page or another form of dispute resolution. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:35, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Sorry for that, I didn't noticed it was another user. After I brought it to the talk page, he continue to refuse giving a reason and wrote "You may command you wife and children, but not me.": [1]. I think thread at ANI should be reopened or I will start new one. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 20:28, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

I think they were likely angry because it is possible to read your ping as being in the imperative voice, which can make people angry as this is a volunteer project. It was snarky, but I don't think it worth another ANI. I'm certainly not reopening that ANI thread, and I don't think you should open a new one, but should work through the dispute resolution process for this content dispute. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:31, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Curiouser and curiouser

TB, could you look at this discussion (which later descended into farce, but that's not important right now...), and look at Greg J. Marchand (created with a single edit, such is the way), which had previously been created by User Rcerrone1 and deleted, but has now been resurrected as a redirect by this same editor today.^Update And what's this—by their sixth mainspace edit they know to remove a category when the sub-category is present?! What say you? Hope all is well. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 08:28, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129:--Bah! Good spotting:) I failed to think of the obvious variant to search in the deletion log and Ritchie too replied in a negative, as to existence of any previous version!~ Winged Blades^Godric 09:03, 18 April 2018 (UTC)The t/p discussion is at another height......

​ Wot t/p discussion? —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 09:19, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Discussion ain't a valid term.But, the farce that played out on Freak's t/p, including profanity-removal and all....~ Winged Blades^Godric 09:26, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, that was classic! I thought it was an exercise in gaslighting until I realised what they meant...it's funny, but I suppose after x-amount of time here you kind of don't "see" sigs anymore do you. It needed a noob to point it out. Having said that, what a load of cobblers. Profane, my a*se :D More importantly, they are clearly paid, socking, and nothere, in no particular order. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 10:52, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

@Tony:--Does there exist any way to search for text-strings in deleted pages?~ Winged Blades^Godric 09:04, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, Blades, I know you were, although you ignored me when I mentioned it...I assumed due to you having a glittering crown of all Empires dangled before your eyes by Ritchie333 I was no longer good enough to be seen with :p —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 09:08, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Err...Crazy stuff but I ain't very sure that the ping went out successfully, though it ought to......(My notification panel doesn't show it.Check the sequence of the t/p edits, invoked in the panel; you have pinged somewhere in between....).~ Winged Blades^Godric 09:12, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

A test upload to exhibit a ping-failure

• And, is the subject really notable? From the quality of the sourcing, I don't think so.~ Winged Blades^Godric 09:29, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Godric, there is no way that I know of to search for text strings in deleted pages, though Special:Undelete is better at turning up the titles that you are looking for than the actual search feature (i.e. If I searched for Bob Dole, Bob Dole (senator), and Bob Dole (presidential candidate, etc. would all turn up.)

Dear Integer, I'll have a chat with them. Thanks for the heads up. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:35, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

Thanks for establishing Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Event coordinator proposal. It is an excellent and timely proposal. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:14, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Bluerasberry, not a problem. I'm always about creating solutions. Also, congratulations on the position at UVa. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:13, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Your work pushing WP:ACREQ thru was amazing. Legacypac (talk) 19:24, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Legacypac. I appreciate the kind words. TonyBallioni (talk)

Thanks, and clarification

Hey, thank you for hearing me out on that Channel Awesome ANEW thread. I wanted to clarify something else, though, and didn't think it appropriate to keep that going any longer now that the IP has been warned.

Basically, my BLP rationale can apply to the contributor who died in 2014 or not, but I feel that BLP would still apply to one of the reverts (and the both of the non-reverts) anyway. The two edits that were mostly about the contributor who died in 2014 (one of which was an original edit on my part, blanking controversial content but without regard for who had added it and when, so not a revert) were also partly about whoever it was who wrote the Channel Awesome "response" that may have accidentally "outed" said deceased individual: that person was not explicitly named on-wiki, but it could have only been one of two or three people, which one of those two or three people it was was quite obvious to anyone who read it (it selectively responded to accusations made against one particular individual) and both the linked Reddit thread and our article cited their name several times. Saying, essentially, that Someone accidentally defamed an individual and outed them as X, and if you click this source you can find out who it was is pretty inappropriate regardless of BLP, and I would argue that BLP does apply even if we don't name them explicitly.

Anyway, thanks again for dealing with it, and here's hoping that's the end of it.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:28, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not overly familiar with the topic area (my internet culture awareness largely depends on what certain other admins I'm friends with force me to read off-wiki ). I'm not sure exactly what chapter and verse you want to cite for the removals, but if all else fails, it was clearly in the interest of the encyclopedia, poorly sourced, and about a real person. While I don't ever condone edit warring or reversions or whatever (and as you mentioned, the 4 reverts was a bit of a stretch anyway), what you were doing was clearly something in the spirit of IAR and the BLP policy. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:45, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you again. I actually don't think it matters much: now that the page is semi-protected, there won't be any more IPs/new accounts posting questionable content, I can continue gradually fixing problems at my own pace, and if any good-faith editors disagree with me (so far no one has...) I can discuss it with them. Honestly, I think in the long term Wikipedia will need to come up with a broader solution for articles on quasi-notable internet celebrities, who have many fans among Wikipedians (myself included), but about whom almost nothing can be written without resorting to self-published sources, written either by the subjects themselves or by disgruntled fans who are upset that the creators have essentially retired. The Spoony Experiment actually has even worse problems, and if it weren't for the "I found sources! GNG!" keepist crowd who I know would immediately shout me down, I'd probably open an AFD right now.

But I actually just noticed this: you said in your first response to me that you typically don't like semi-protecting in a dispute with an IP, but "an IP" (I initially misread it as "a dispute with IPs") was actually not involved in the dispute in question, had never edited the article, and had not expressed any interest in the topic. It was just him stalking my contribs and auto-reporting me when he saw me make two reverts and two original edits he could paint as reverts. My content dispute with the IP was actually on the unrelated article Momoiro Clover Z, and I wasn't even invested in that personally (I joined in after the first or second time it was brought to ANI). The only common factor is that the editor I was disputing with in both cases was violating BLP.

I don't really mind it anyway: I'm not even the current victim who has it worst, and I'm fairly certain the problem will solve itself fairly soon.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:06, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, you're correct, and thanks for pointing it out. It looked like there were other IPs in there at the same time you were removing stuff, and on articles with a lot of activity it can be difficult to tell who is doing what. I noticed that later when I was going through the revisions more closely. Thanks for pointing it out to me. I'm certainly not infallible and never mind changing stuff. :) TonyBallioni (talk) 10:23, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Asking a tough question...

Our NPOV policy states: This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus. It appears to me that when an editor reverts material that is noncompliant with NPOV, the 1RR rule-Consensus first restriction goes against that policy which is one of 3 core content policies. How is that particular DS restriction justified? ^{Atsme📞📧} 13:08, 19 April 2018 (UTC)