User talk:TonyBallioni: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 07:04, 3 September 2018 editJJMC89 (talk \| contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Administrators345,037 editsm Revert sockpuppet Tag: Rollback ← Previous edit		Revision as of 00:14, 4 September 2018 edit undoHijiri88 (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users37,390 edits →He's back: new sectionNext edit →
Line 129:		Line 129:
	...ooops sorry i see above ...is everyone equally blocked ....I dont know all the rules...one or 2 folks involved in the debate have admin status, do they stop as well...(a break from the instant news update is good though).]<sup>]</sup> 21:28, 2 September 2018 (UTC)		...ooops sorry i see above ...is everyone equally blocked ....I dont know all the rules...one or 2 folks involved in the debate have admin status, do they stop as well...(a break from the instant news update is good though).]<sup>]</sup> 21:28, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
	:Yes, everyone who is not an admin will lack the technical ability to edit the page. Admins are not allowed to edit through protection to impose their prefered version of an article, even if they have the technical ability to do so. ] (]) 21:33, 2 September 2018 (UTC)		:Yes, everyone who is not an admin will lack the technical ability to edit the page. Admins are not allowed to edit through protection to impose their prefered version of an article, even if they have the technical ability to do so. ] (]) 21:33, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

			== He's back ==

			He have ever followed through on the "use English sources on Indonesian Misplaced Pages" advice as he said he would, and over the last six months or so he's come back onto en.wiki and is still doing the same close paraphrasing. See, for example, , where he took a source that said {{tq\|''an occasion to which numerous Palembang people bore witness '''' In 1970 the building underwent a drastic renovation during which additional office space was created.''}} and wrote {{tq\|''an occasion to which numerous Palembang people bore witness '''' In 19790 the building underwent a drastic renovation where additional office space was created.''}}

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

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

			] (<small>]]</small>) 00:14, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Revision as of 00:14, 4 September 2018

TonyBallioni is busy and is going to be on Misplaced Pages in off-and-on doses, and may not respond swiftly to queries.

Talk page stalkers are free to respond to any edit made here. I'm fine with general discussion of issues with New Page Patrol and related topics here, even if I have not responded for some reason. If you post here, I will reply here: I typically ping you in reply, but not always. To make sure you see a response, either watchlist this page or check back later. If I haven't responded and some time has passed, please feel free to leave a followup message.

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46

This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 5 sections are present.

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	For taking the time to validate claims to notability at AfD, most recently in Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Bruce D. Jette. E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:53, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

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

A continuing issue

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

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

For full disclosure, I had this ...discussion? with them here on this subject, where they stated "Sigh, when did wikipedia abandon its policy of assuming good faith?" although I don't think any of this voting is in good faith. So! I'd really appreciate any advice! Cheers, originalmess 11:47, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

It is interesting that not person from your project has ever reached out to me on my own talk page. It's also interesting that I have always been the first to start talk page discussions. Its also very interesting that I keep seeing you and others lobbying against me on various admins pages. Amy Siskind is a Twitter personality, I don't believe she merited an article on wikipedia and said so. Katherine Monbiot is an arm wrestler and I don't believe merits an article. What is however is plain as I said previously is a complete lack of good faith on your part. That's the continuing issue. W C M_email 13:25, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

And 2 AFD? How many articles have been nominated since then? W C M_email 13:26, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

I apologize, I'm still a fairly new editor and thought the discussion on that AfD was enough. I respect your decade-plus of quality content creation, and there's no need for the passive-aggressiveness; it's fine if you don't believe something merits an article, but from an outside viewpoint, the sudden rash of non-policy-based delete !votes just seem very targeted - but as Tony said, disagreements with a wikiproject are fine. God knows I don't agree with the policy to include the rash of stubs on every minor football player who's played in a single national league game. Also, I'm sorry you feel targeted, but I don't exactly keep track of what everyone else is doing; it's just a good launching point to find people to write about and a great community that's taught me a lot about writing and DYKs. Please note that I asked for advice and not any action to be taken against you. I'm not familiar with every recently closed arbcom case or anything, so I thought an admin would be able to clarify. If he'd told me to talk to you about it, I would have. Anyway, I'm going to get off his talk page, but feel free to leave me a message if you'd like to talk about anything at all. Cheers, originalmess 01:32, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

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

Thank you for clarifying! originalmess 01:32, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Can you email me the contents of the random user pages?

Hi, this is a curious thing. Why do people insist on creating a userpage for me? Can you send me a copy of the pages? I want to read them. Is it just nonsense? --- Coffeeandcrumbs 21:14, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

They were blank. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:18, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! --- Coffeeandcrumbs 04:07, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

TFL notification

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

Heads-up / Signpost

Heads-up that I used your words at the about-to-be-published The Signpost Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/Next issue/Discussion report. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:24, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Bri, thanks for the heads up. Just as a minor request, could you clarify in some waythat I am not one of the administrators that has been approached. I've never received any compensation related to Misplaced Pages, and while I don't think testing a tool for a researcher is covered by the disclosure requirements, I'd rather avoid any doubt when the topic has been debated. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:13, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Roger that ☆ Bri (talk) 04:21, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

WP:3X

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

closure of amendment to policy

Unfortunately, there's a disconnect between the amended language, the closure above it, and implementation to date (that I've seen). I knew this amendment would come back to bite people, and I've seen editors and administrators who are a bit too eager to impose the ban. The problem with the amendment is the use of the word "should", a weasely word that implies "not required", i.e., this key sentence: " Publicly documented CheckUser evidence should typically be involved before a user is considered banned in this way." My understanding and interpretation of that language is that "should typically" really means "must". For example, in the non-admin closure, which should (sorry) never have happened in my view, the closer says, "The CU evidence must be publicly documented." Moreover, I don't see how an administrator can impose a community ban on a sockmaster who has, as in this case, never had any publicly documented CU evidence of socking. Every account was blocked behaviorally and tagged as suspected. Ian also, in his usual thorough way, has explained to the user what the whole thing means, so not only should the tag be removed, but the user would have to be reinstructed. Oh yeah, I'd like to reword the policy.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:04, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Bbb23, I’d suggest being bold and just updating the language: it’s a change that will make things clearer and help work out the kinks in the new policy. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:14, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Bbb23, as the one who closed the discussion (because it was sufficiently one-sided for a NAC), I typically allow for some editorial changes by local-consensus, as to framing of the exact wording but in light of my own emphasis on two particular points, I've no idea as to the substitution of of must by should.I've changed it, accordingly.Best,∯WBG 14:18, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I've tweaked it a bit.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:45, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

User sending link malware is back as IP

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

And now Special:Contributions/41.218.212.173. Thanks again for helping to clean this up. Aoi (青い) (talk) 20:24, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Hey Tony

If you're awake, would you be able to revdel this please? Thanks, Lourdes 00:30, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Lourdes:

Done TonyBallioni (talk) 00:32, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

and thank you. Hope you're doing well. Warmly, Lourdes 00:33, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Zeke

I'm not sure if you meant to do this, but Zeke Essiestudy is trying to come clean, per my advice on his talk page. Brad v 04:03, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

I did mean to do that. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:04, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Tony is absolutely right here. He beat me to the block by maybe a minute. Zeke is globally locked. His case is beyond the competence of AN. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:10, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

My apologies, Tony. I thought I was doing the right thing and giving him the best advice, and now I feel like a jackass. Perhaps I was being too sympathetic. Brad v 04:35, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Never feel like a jackass, well, at least not for trying to be kind

Sorry I was a bit short above. I'd just reverted you at AN and was trying to respond while talking to someone IRL. Yeah, en.wiki generally only accepts appeals from the main account (there are very rare exceptions, but this wouldn't be one.) If the main account is locked, they need to appeal the lock since we won't usually consider the appeal until it is made locally with the named master. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:40, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

I for one don't think there is anything to apologize for. There are a lot of vices worse than being kind hearted. And I was not unsympathetic when reading his rather breathtaking confession. But again, this just was not something anyone at AN was going to be able to fix. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:42, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Practice, policy and interpretation...

Your comments or thoughts will be immensely welcome over this thread :-) ∯WBG 04:25, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

I gave my musings on policy, not the topic itself. I do my absolute best to stay out of the content on American politics, and unfortunately gun violence is a major topic in American politics. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:44, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Stop banning Nazis

DFTT
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I have noticed in the past few days that you people are actively persecuting Nazis by banning them. Please stop this censorship. There are many others with a POV that can be described as people with far-right or other unacceptable POV for leftist. Nazi means national socialism, they are not all racists. I am not revealing myself because I support some neo-Nazi views too, except racism. Stop this! I will repost this to whoever I find involved in banning Nazis. 185.243.76.9 (talk) 15:43, 2 September 2018 (UTC) I don't know if you're trolling or just completely unaware of how the world works but on Misplaced Pages, if you can tell an editor is a nazi or believes in parts of nazism, then they're violating WP:NPOV, so "censorship" does not apply. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 16:02, 2 September 2018 (UTC) Agreed, if someone is making their bias clear in their edits (especially after being instructed to remain neutral), then they don't understand Misplaced Pages's policy of having a neutral point of view, and as such are eligible for a block. Waggie (talk) 16:07, 2 September 2018 (UTC) And you're right that there can be other meanings for national socialism, but there is only one meaning for Nazi. The philosophy that Hitler chose to call National Socialism included many abhorrent ideas and actions that are unacceptable to any modern person. We can't block or ban a person for holding Nazi ideas - their thoughts are their own - but we may very well block or ban them if they try to insert those ideas into Misplaced Pages --MelanieN (talk) 16:16, 2 September 2018 (UTC) I agree, ideally we would ban all editors who make their bias clear in their edits, but then we would have no editors. However, NPOV is somewhat more nuanced and also takes into account how a subject is discussed in reliable sources. NPOV only requires that all significant viewpoints are discussed with weight given based on discussion in reliable sources. I think it is an error to explain this as though the block is being imposed because the community believes the viewpoint is "abhorrent". We cover many viewpoints that many editors find equally abhorrent because NPOV requires it based on discussion of those topics in reliable sources. The content in Misplaced Pages is not determined by what editors, even a consensus of editors, feel is abhorrent. Arguments to include Nazi apologist content usually fails because it is false balance and editors who WP:IDHT after this is explained are usually blocked for disruptive editing. I think blocking on these grounds would satisfy the handful of editors who raise objections on procedural grounds when these blocks occur, but the objections are not very vigorous because there is usually a good justification for the block even if support for it is not well-articulated by the participants at ANI,Seraphim System 16:25, 2 September 2018 (UTC) We block for disruption. Placing a black sun or swastika on a userpage is a disruptive action because it’s announcing to our editors and readership that you don’t think 70%+ of them shouldn’t exist. That’s disruptive, so we block. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:35, 2 September 2018 (UTC) •(edit conflict) There are many troubling or problematic views where there may be 'grey areas' or where the principles of NPOV/NOTCENSORED or even the belief that freedom of expression is so valuable that we must allow expression regardless. However advocating, or even expressing, support for Nazism is a good place to draw a line as to what we as a community will accept. Nazis and those who support them have, as far as I am concerned, severed themselves from the society of humanity and we have no obligation to treat them with fairness or tolerance. No further justification need be given beyond "You are a Nazi and neither you nor your views are welcome here" followed by an indefinite block. Jbh 16:42, 2 September 2018 (UTC) My 2 ¢ We are giving this way more attention than it deserves. This was a troll. The troll has been blocked. End of story. (See also "don't feed the trolls.") -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:45, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

DFTT

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I have noticed in the past few days that you people are actively persecuting Nazis by banning them. Please stop this censorship. There are many others with a POV that can be described as people with far-right or other unacceptable POV for leftist. Nazi means national socialism, they are not all racists. I am not revealing myself because I support some neo-Nazi views too, except racism. Stop this! I will repost this to whoever I find involved in banning Nazis. 185.243.76.9 (talk) 15:43, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't know if you're trolling or just completely unaware of how the world works but on Misplaced Pages, if you can tell an editor is a nazi or believes in parts of nazism, then they're violating WP:NPOV, so "censorship" does not apply. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 16:02, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Agreed, if someone is making their bias clear in their edits (especially after being instructed to remain neutral), then they don't understand Misplaced Pages's policy of having a neutral point of view, and as such are eligible for a block. Waggie (talk) 16:07, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

And you're right that there can be other meanings for national socialism, but there is only one meaning for Nazi. The philosophy that Hitler chose to call National Socialism included many abhorrent ideas and actions that are unacceptable to any modern person. We can't block or ban a person for holding Nazi ideas - their thoughts are their own - but we may very well block or ban them if they try to insert those ideas into Misplaced Pages --MelanieN (talk) 16:16, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree, ideally we would ban all editors who make their bias clear in their edits, but then we would have no editors. However, NPOV is somewhat more nuanced and also takes into account how a subject is discussed in reliable sources. NPOV only requires that all significant viewpoints are discussed with weight given based on discussion in reliable sources. I think it is an error to explain this as though the block is being imposed because the community believes the viewpoint is "abhorrent". We cover many viewpoints that many editors find equally abhorrent because NPOV requires it based on discussion of those topics in reliable sources. The content in Misplaced Pages is not determined by what editors, even a consensus of editors, feel is abhorrent. Arguments to include Nazi apologist content usually fails because it is false balance and editors who WP:IDHT after this is explained are usually blocked for disruptive editing. I think blocking on these grounds would satisfy the handful of editors who raise objections on procedural grounds when these blocks occur, but the objections are not very vigorous because there is usually a good justification for the block even if support for it is not well-articulated by the participants at ANI,Seraphim System 16:25, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

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

•(edit conflict) There are many troubling or problematic views where there may be 'grey areas' or where the principles of NPOV/NOTCENSORED or even the belief that freedom of expression is so valuable that we must allow expression regardless. However advocating, or even expressing, support for Nazism is a good place to draw a line as to what we as a community will accept. Nazis and those who support them have, as far as I am concerned, severed themselves from the society of humanity and we have no obligation to treat them with fairness or tolerance. No further justification need be given beyond "You are a Nazi and neither you nor your views are welcome here" followed by an indefinite block. Jbh 16:42, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

My 2 ¢ We are giving this way more attention than it deserves. This was a troll. The troll has been blocked. End of story. (See also "don't feed the trolls.") -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:45, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

The has been a breach of the 1RR rule on the Jeremy Corbyn Page

User:Avaya1 has reverted the same passage twice the same passage in under 24 hours, ignoring discussions on the talk page. ~ BOD ~ 16:56, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

@Avaya1: They did not. Their last edit (revert or not) was on 31 Aug, and the revert is from 2 Sep. Bodney on the other had has just reverted content that misrepresents a non-RS (Morningstar), and used several primary sources in contravention of BLPPRIMARY - content that in its present poorly sourced form (as opposed to an abstract well sourced voting record for which there probably will be consensus to include) - there is no consensus to include.Icewhiz (talk) 17:34, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

My error, I misread, sorry their edit was on the 31st. We have discussed both WP:PRIMARY regards the voting record and The Morning Star on the talk page and have agreed we can use both to provide much need NPOV to the overall section. ~ BOD ~ 17:41, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

No such consensus on the talk page in regards to the specific content (or Morningstar previously), and in any event a local consensus can not contravene BLP or RS policy - both of which arw violated here. You might want to self revert and start a RfC.Icewhiz (talk) 17:47, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

I am not sure if we should be having this discussion here Talk:Jeremy Corbyn#Corbyn's voting record and Talk:Jeremy Corbyn/Archive 13#Are the Morning Star and "Ekklesia" non-tabloid sources?. ~ BOD ~ 17:54, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Jeremy Corbyn

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

Rather than contributed on the talk, these edits are to their version of page , ignoring the consensus on the talk which you can see. RevertBob (talk) 20:15, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

This is a reply to everyone re: Corbyn: I’ve full protected it for 2 weeks. Sort it out on the talk page, and if I’ve protected the wrong version, demonstrate consensus for a change and another admin will review making the change. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:59, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Jeremy Corbyn 2

Hi :) why have i been blocked from editing this page? ~ BOD ~ 21:23, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

See above :) I’ve full protected it for 2 weeks. Only admins can edit it, and they will only do so when a clear consensus exists. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:25, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

...ooops sorry i see above ...is everyone equally blocked ....I dont know all the rules...one or 2 folks involved in the debate have admin status, do they stop as well...(a break from the instant news update is good though). ~ BOD ~ 21:28, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, everyone who is not an admin will lack the technical ability to edit the page. Admins are not allowed to edit through protection to impose their prefered version of an article, even if they have the technical ability to do so. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:33, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

He's back

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

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

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

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:14, 4 September 2018 (UTC)