Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:30, 24 May 2018

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.

Special:CentralAuth/Sameer Reddy

Hello, Sameer Reddy confirmed as a sock for INNAjm. Best --Alaa :)..! 13:53, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Alaa, I'll keep an eye on the accounts. They haven't techincally violated our policies here yet as the accounts haven't been used at the same time. I'll leave them a note letting them know what are policies are. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:00, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Tony, I sent this notification only to let you know about this accounts. Also, note that Sameer Reddy put "This user lives in Morocco" and INNAjm put "This user lives in Romania.". Best --Alaa :)..! 21:28, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

• New one وهبي --Alaa :)..! 19:06, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
• New one ఇలియానా with more than 100 edits in enwiki --Alaa :)..! 13:52, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Thanks, Alaa, just to give you an update on this, I've mentioned this to a local CU here and we're both monitoring all of these accounts to see if they are breaking our local policies around use of multiple accounts. Thank you for continuing to let me know about them, and I'll keep looking at anymore you bring too TonyBallioni (talk) 14:14, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks a lot Tony, I opened this request on commons also. Best --Alaa :)..! 14:19, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

No problem. We haven't done anything here yet, as none of the accounts have edited at the same time, which is technically allowed (you can call it serial editing rather than socking). If there is an original account with a local block on en.wiki that you know about, we can block the other accounts as well. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:24, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Tony there's highly relation with User:أليكس and User:Jnaga with confirmed behavioral --Alaa :)..! 15:01, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Perfect, that helps a lot. Thanks. I'm about to get off my computer, but I'll look at it later this weekend. Anyway, hope you're having a great weekend, Alaa, and that everything is going well for you :) TonyBallioni (talk) 15:04, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Alaa, I filed the paperwork at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/أليكس. Clear behavioral connection on the most recent one. We have a sock here that isn't stale, so hopefully we can confirm to that and also flesh out any sleepers. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:35, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Block request

I had a very bad experience and a very bad dispute and an accidental misunderstanding on Test2 Misplaced Pages. The problem was that User:MechQuester was indeffed on enwiki and three other Wikis for abusing multiple accounts so I reported for their account to be globally locked and the same user, MechQuester, removed my sysop privileges on Test2 Misplaced Pages. Due to this, it is making me upset and therefore, I would like to be blocked for a day to two until the dispute is sorted out. I would like to be able to edit my talk page as well. Thanks. Pkbwcgs (talk) 19:23, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi Pkbwcgs, I’m not willing to place a one day self-requested block, as that’s something that you should be able to control yourself. If you want to be blocked, I will block you for a minimum of one week with no talk page access and the agreement that another admin will not unblock you until the block expires. A self-requested block is not something you should do lightly, so I don’t want to make one lightly. If you still want me to block you under these conditions, you can let me know here. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:29, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

In that case, can you please do indef so that I can go off for some time and request unblock when I want to come back. Can you please do an indefinite block with talk page access. I do not have a figure in mind for how much time I want to be blocked for. Pkbwcgs (talk) 19:35, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Pkbwcgs, see User:Beeblebrox/Self-blocking requirements. My requirements are roughly the same as these. If you want a self-requested block to force a timeout from Misplaced Pages, I will do it, but you will need to give me a specific time period (1 week or more) and it will be a block without talk page access. If you do not give me a clear answer such as "I want to be blocked for X weeks/months and I understand I will not have talk page access." I will not block you. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:41, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

I would like to be blocked here for a week without the ability to edit my talk page so that I can have some time off and I hope the dispute will be sorted out on that Wiki for a week and then only I can resume with editing Misplaced Pages. Editing just got too stressful so there had to be something in place to calm me down and this probably could be solution I can only hope for while it gets sorted out. Pkbwcgs (talk) 19:53, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

 Done TonyBallioni (talk) 20:08, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

So... um... I know this is a stupid question, but I don't do much xwiki stuff so if anyone asks me a similar question in the future I'll know... blocking on enwiki does nothing to affect the block status on other projects, yes? Primefac (talk) 20:30, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

No. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:41, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

That's... kinda what I thought. Thanks. Primefac (talk) 21:41, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the block, I am glad to be back. I just needed to take a break from the project for a week. Pkbwcgs (talk) 19:59, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Regarding Luigi

As I'm known to drop off the face of the wiki-earth for days at a time, if you can figure something out that seems to work for an unblock of Luigi Laitinen then please go ahead without worrying about further input from me as the blocking admin. Whatever the solution they'll need some monitoring as there seems to be a bit of a language/comprehension issue.--Jezebel's Ponyo 23:07, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I'll see what they say, but agree with everything you've said there. Regardless, I'll give them a DS alert for BLP at the end of it to make anything in the future more flexible than block/appeal/conditions/whatever. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:13, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I could have sworn I already dropped a BLP DS warning on their talk, but I had them mixed up with another editor. --Jezebel's Ponyo 23:23, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

I just declined their unblock asking them to answer your questions. I hope that was OK.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 23:33, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

The number of editors appealing blocks who could also use a BLP DS notice is unfortunately high right now, so that's forgivable...Yeah, no problem declining until they answer the question. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:34, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Request for deletion

Hello Tony, please delete this and this page, so I can complete the global rename here --Alaa :)..! 03:24, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Alaa, I got one and Oshwah got another. You should be good to go. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:55, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks I should wait ruwiki sysops now --Alaa :)..! 03:58, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Event coordinator permission

It doesn't seem like there is any systematic qualification for receiving this permission. I regularly run events, and don't really understand why I have been refused. Can you explain to me why you decided I need to apply for this permission for every event I help to run, when some people have been given it without this qualification? --Jwslubbock (talk) 12:15, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

You've never had accountcreator, so there is no reason to switch it for security reasons, and you aren't that active on this wiki, so you don't fall in the guidelines for granting it permanently. You also in your request seemed to indicate that you don't actually run events that often either. TonyBallioni (talk) 12:18, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Requesting 2nd opinion

Hi Tony. If you have a minute could you take a look at the close here. I opened a discussion on the talk page but I'd let to get another opinion in case I'm missing something. Thanks... -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:46, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

I'd vote to overturn if it went to a DRV per WP:not counting heads, which, ironically given the name, says If the discussion shows that some people think one policy is controlling, and some another, the closer is expected to close by judging which view has the predominant number of responsible Wikipedians supporting it, not personally select which is the better policy. You have a valid policy disagreement where different editors disagree on what is controlling. One side had a clear numerical majority and the other side didn't have any particularly strong arguments to overcome that in my view. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:54, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Steve is a solid admin and I hate 2nd guessing another admins judgement calls. A lot of what we deal with is not black or white and judgement calls sometimes can go either way depending on who is looking at it. But this one really does look like maybe he didn't see how lopsided the discussion was. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:58, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, agreed there on all counts. I can also see why he might have closed that way because a lot of the "keeps" were at the end, and that does tend to make them look larger than they actually are. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:03, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Looks like this is going to be settled at DRV. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:16, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

P.S. Since we discussed this outside of the AfD talk page I would gently suggest that you refrain from commenting at the DRV in case you were thinking about it. I don't want anyone wondering if I was canvassing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:34, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Commented and disclosed this. I was planning on commenting on it anyway if it went there. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:45, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for making this comment about me, Tony. It means a lot to me to have my judgement appreciated. And I would certainly say the same about you, you have a lot of experience right across the Wiki and I always value your opinion in any discussions.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:57, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank YOU for the kind words, Amakuru. It is always good to see you around and get your views, even when we disagree TonyBallioni (talk) 18:55, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

German war effort arbitration case opened

You were recently listed as a party to or recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/German war effort. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/German war effort/Evidence. Please add your evidence by May 30, 2018, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/German war effort/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:01, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

TonyBallioni, you are awesome!

Thank you for adding the event coordinator permission to my account! I will use this power well. :-) DrX (talk) 01:42, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Referenced DOY is a bad idea?

Dear Tony. I would really appreciate if you can give your point of view on this discussion about referencing the 366 DOY articles. Thanks and keep being awesome :) --Rochelimit (talk) 17:05, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words, Rochelimit. I'm not overly familiar with those pages, so think it'd be better to let others comment. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:54, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Accidental vandalism

Hi,

Due to my inexperience I have accidentally slightly messed up this Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement page. I was trying to add a statement, i.e. "statement by reissgo" by editing a chunk called "statement by (username)" but after I added my 2 cents I noticed there there was no new "statement by (username)" ready for the next editor. I have no idea how to untangle the mess I made. Sorry. Reissgo (talk) 12:08, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I fixed it for you. Next time please read the instructions, which tell you to copy and paste the section before writing your statement. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:18, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Hi Reissgo. That was a minor flub. It happens now and then. No big deal. Vandalism is deliberate and malicious editing which this was certainly not. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:36, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Reissgo, my initial response was unnecessarily snotty. I shouldn't have written it like that. Ad Orientem is right, it's nothing but a minor mistake and I was a dick about it. I apologize. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:13, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

No worries. Thanks for fixing it for me. Reissgo (talk) 16:27, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Your thoughts...

You were pinged, but I'm uncertain if it went through. – Conservatrix (talk) 13:29, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

It went through. I'll look at it in a bit :) TonyBallioni (talk) 13:29, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

On your Italian problem...

Not a clue. I'd have suggested Miranda and CH... so... do they not cite any sources? Ealdgyth - Talk 13:47, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

CH may or may not be citing Miranda, the bibliography there on this entry isn't great. Miranda is better, actually, and thank you for reminding me to check his bibliography to see if I can find any of those books online. I've been using him as a basis for an initial list off-wiki and then confirm using Pastor and Eubel. This cardinal nephew is obnoxious in that he is in the volume of Eubel before he starts listing their nationality explicitly. Pretty easy to confirm for someone who is Ep. or Aep. , but for people who just have general curial roles, I've been having to find other sources.Also, if you have any general comments on Papal conclave, March 1605 and Cardinal electors for the papal conclave, March 1605, I'd appreciate it. Trying to take the former to FAC and the latter to FLC, both because they're interesting, but also per my belief that those of us who work a lot behind the scenes should also try to contribute quality content. Never done anything featured before, so advice is appreciated :)​ TonyBallioni (talk) 14:04, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

I'll try to remember to have a look tomorrow evening when I'm in a meeting being bored out of my mind. Yeah, the "check the bibliography" trick is very useful for places like Miranda/CH or Medieval Lands where the site itself isn't really reliable, but they often have pointers to the useful stuff. I'm really surprised there aren't Italian printed works on the cardinals - you'd think that the Curia would at least have something like that ... something like Fasti Ecclesiae would seem to be basic scholarship... Ealdgyth - Talk 14:09, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

There are printed works: Eubel is the authoritative source according to the academic I reached out to about my conclave cleanup project: . The issue with this particular cardinal is twofold: first, Eubel starts listing nationality directly rather than by office held in volume IV. Innocent IX's creations are in volume III. The second issue is the one that is making sourcing difficult to find in either language without doing a manual search of the print editions/their scans: he shares the exact same name as his uncle, Pope Innocent IX, and for obvious reasons, most of the sourcing talks about Innocent IX. I reached out to one of the stewards who was Italian to see if there was any more accessible sourcing in Italian, and he came up with the same problem. Just parsing through Miranda, there seems to be some 18th century Italian works that might list something like "of Bologna". Just trying to find the right volume in Google and Archive.org is the trick. Thanks again for the reminder there :) TonyBallioni (talk) 14:18, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

And Miranda pointed to the right source. He was off by 10 pages, though as to what he was citing... Page 324 and not 314. Thanks for your help again! TonyBallioni (talk) 14:37, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Tony, I'm not sure what you need here, but if it's about this chap, a search such as "Giovanni Antonio Facchinetti" 1606 gets a few results specifically about him – not that they say much. Which is probably why he doesn't have an entry in Treccani ... Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 15:12, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

All comments are welcome here! Unless of course, they are from guests talking to my valued talk page watchers like children (see above before it is archived.)Yes, I’d been trying strings with birth year and “Bologna” and none said the painfully obvious that he was in fact Italian, something semi-important to have cited on a list of electors. Maybe I’ll do a biographical stub on him now that we have some decent sourcing. Seems like an okay fellow as 16th century Italian clerics go. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:21, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Why would Cluebot archive a recent thread that was posted to three hours earlier?

Damnit, Tony! I was going to post the following

and started drafting it off-wiki (since collecting the quotes was going to take more time than I had in any straight block today), only to come here with the completed reply and find that the thread had been archived. I can understand if you don't want your talk page to play host to any more of this drahma (frankly I was just happy that an issue that had been troubling me for some time had found its way here without me having to bring it to ANI, but it's still your talk page), but unless Cluebot has an anti-drahma algorithm that causes it to prematurely archive those particular threads it looks like it might have just been an error ... ? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:46, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

See this, Tony requested immediate archival; an anti-drahma alogrithm would be nice.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:51, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Huh, I missed that. Thanks! Anyway, an anti-drahma Al Gore-ism sounds nice in theory, but who decides what's drahma? Would we then be leaving that decision up to the machines? The real world robot apocalypse ("robocalypse"?) is likely coming soon but I'd rather not have the Misplaced Pages robot apocalypse (wikeschatron) precede it if possible. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:00, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Leaving it up to the machines does sound relaxing. Then again, convenience is how the robocalypse starts. Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:04, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)x2 I set it to archive using the archive now parameter (you should see it in template notation if you look at the archives). I’m pretty patient, but I’d grown tired of explaining how Misplaced Pages worked to someone who knew more about policy than I did. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:02, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm going to use that one - grown tired or explaining how wikipedia works to someone who knows more about policy then I do. Very nice. Legacypac (talk) 11:05, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

@Legacypac: Indeed! You understand, I know—unlike others, perhaps—that there's a great deal of difference in knowing policy...and understanding it  :)  ;) —SerialNumber54129 11:09, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

This principle also applies to knowing women and understanding them. These concepts intersect as well Legacypac (talk) 12:20, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Classic :D —SerialNumber54129 12:22, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, this is now at ANI. Sad, but not really unexpected. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:08, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Event Coordinator Permissions

Hi TonyBallioni! I've now updated the GLAM/SLIC page for my residency with all the events planned in the coming month. You can find them at Misplaced Pages:GLAM/SLIC/Events. As you can see, I have a number of training events and editathons planned in the next month, so I would appreciate if my event coordinator permissions could please be extended. Thanks! Delphine Dallison (talk) 15:29, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Delphine Dallison, done for 6 months, by which time we should be able to give it permanently TonyBallioni (talk) 15:49, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, TonyBallioni! Delphine Dallison (talk) 16:54, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

template

Hi Tony, I noticed you templated Bitcoin and Blockchain with the implementation of the 1RR rule. I was wondering if you were also going to do Bitcoin Cash, and the rest of the articles. I was going to add the template for that article, then thought I had better ask you first. It would be great if you could please ping me in your response. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:49, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Jtbobwaysf, you're free to add the template to the talk page (anyone can). Adding an edit-notice requires an admin or template editor, but that is not required under the general sanctions if the individual is aware (I think I am understanding that correctly. Primefac can clarify if I am not.) TonyBallioni (talk) 18:51, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, only TPEs and admins can add edit notices, but a {{TPER}} can be used on the edit notice's talk page and someone will handle it. Primefac (talk) 18:58, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you both of you. I have gone ahead now added the notice in this edit . Was I allowed to add this edit notice? I was a little confused in both of your answers as I couldn't quite figure out if it was ok to add or not (Tony said it was ok for any user to add it who was aware of it, and i am aware of it) and it seemed that Primefac (talk · contribs) was also agreeing with Tony, but saying "yes." But then Primefac went on to state I should add a template {{TPER}}, which when i clicked on it I didnt understand at all, and it seemed that TPER was more about editing a template (which was not my goal). If I have done something wrong, please let me know and feel free to revert my mistake. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:14, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Jtbobwaysf, Primefac was saying the edit notice needed template editor or admin status. The talk page notice anyone can place. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:19, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

OK, thank you. If we see a violation of this 1RR, are we allowed to place a notice on a specific user's talk page? Or does this require admin or template editor status. Sorry so many questions, I am a bit confused about all this. Is there a specific notice or should we just wikilink to the notice? Thank you! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:23, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Jtbobwaysf, anyone may give a notice and log it at Misplaced Pages:General_sanctions/Blockchain_and_cryptocurrencies#2018_notices TonyBallioni (talk) 19:27, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Jtbobwaysf, if you see a violation of a 1RR notice after you have given someone a warning (and logged the action), then you should go to WP:AN3 and report them. Primefac (talk) 19:49, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:35, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Blockchain notification - "notified of the case."

Hello TonyBallioni,

Your "Blockchain Notification" was received, along with your note: "notified of the case".

As per your template suggestions, I have read:

Edit warring

Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions

Administrators' noticeboard (Next cryptocurrency topicban)

General sanctions/Blockchain and cryptocurrencies

General sanctions

User talk:TonyBallioni

Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

Editing policy

Sanctions (essay)

General sanctions proposal

Blockchain notification

LauraRoman

Some questions for you, if you don't mind:

RE: Log of notifications

List here editors who have been placed on notice of the remedies in place (including the diff of the notification). ......

2018 notices

Anoop Bungay (talk · contribs) notified of the case. . TonyBallioni (talk) 16:17, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Question 1 - I notice that my name appears on this notice and no other name; would you help me understand "why"?

Question 2 - Are you the "sanctioning administrator"?

Question 3 - Am I free to contribute the talk page; there is a "person or persons" (an editor using a pseudonym) whom I would like to provide information to. Your answer is probably "yes", but just making sure.

Question 4 - The only issue "at hand" is making changes to the "main article" page.

Looks like I picked a wild week (week of May 15, 2018) to introduce myself to the blockchain article page!!!

Best,

Anoop Bungay (talk) 22:21, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Sure

1. You were the first person notified under a new sanctions system.
2. You are not currently sanctioned, so no. I just notified you.
3. Yes.
4. The general sanctions rules apply to any page related to block chain or cryptocurrency.

Hope that was helpful. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:30, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Tony, very helpful.

Some followup questions please:

Question 1 - Someone said "no" to my request for COI permission to edit (ie: A requested edit by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. A reviewer felt that this edit would not improve the article.)

(1.1) The person or persons who "declined" my request did not respond to my arguments in accordance with WP:TPG. My goal is to add a differing point of view to help earn FA article class status, in accordance to the WP:PG. In fact, the person - when the responded to me - admitted that they were not certain that they were right or wrong yet they continued to "Decline my Request for Edit" even BEFORE I was able to respond to them.

(1.2) Frankly speaking, I was planning on going straight to arbitration but the fella by "immediately declining my request for edit" appears to have stifled the conversation - which means that arbitration may be premature because the arbitration committee first wants "extensive talk". So, my next option was to enter the Disputed template for the article.

(1.3) Finally, I wonder; maybe I should "re-copy-paste the request edit and let a different editor make a comment. Afterall, in this page of question (Blockchain) there are over 568 editors (or watchers) and only one person seems concerned about my addition - enough to refuse my request. As you know, 1 person is not a consensus. Further, the person did not "counter argue" my claims in accordance with WP:PG; they appear to have used a "strawman" argument, or worse, they seemed to have relied upon a brief written "opinion" and used this "opinion" as the basis of "Declining my Edit Request". In fact, this person is relying on information that is sourced from unverified sources and using these unverified claims as a basis of his opinion. This should be wrong, by any one's standards, shouldn't it?

(1.3.1) For example, how do I get a consensus rather than a unilateral "no" to my request for edit. Much like the consensus questionnaire you had in the General Sanctions page where a number of editor's piped in with their decision. In anycase, Misplaced Pages is not the only source of public information but it is one of the more freely accessed mediums so I feel it is important to address this issue because as of now, the world's understanding of the history of application of blockchain principles in finance is not consistent with the intellectual property offices of most countries. (Feel free to see my contributions to get a sense of what I am a talking about").

(1.4) One final concern, is that the Blockchain article is ignoring ontology and normal academic naming and definition convention. This is why we are at a "c" grade article.

You are a Misplaced Pages Administrator (from what I understand) so you have the ability to checkusers and I hope - provide guidance. So, what do you think of my concerns? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anoop Bungay (talk • contribs) 23:06, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Okay, Anoop Bungay, this is a lot but I'll try to explain.

1.1:If someone declines your request, you can make it again and ask for another person to review it, but you have no right to have a COI edit request implemented. A large part of the reasons for these sanctions is that the English Misplaced Pages is in a particularly anti-COI editor mood right now.

1.2: The Arbitration Committee would decline your case request. I promise you this.

1.3: You can make the request again. I haven't read it, so I'm unable to tell you of the liklihood of it being successful. Keep in mind that repeating the same request over and over may be viewed as disruptive editing, however.

1.3.1: Consensus is achieved through discussion on the talk page. You can also raise concerns at noticeboards such as WP:NPOVN

1.4: I try to avoid discussions of ontology on Misplaced Pages. We're an encyclopedia, not a philosophy journal.

I am an administrator, but I am not a CheckUser, so I cannot run a check on accounts. I hope this has been helpful. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:04, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

More revdel at Mottainai Grandma

closely paraphrases this source. It is an illustration book which brings Japanese parenting culture to India. This book's aim is to help parents to teach their kids good habits like cleaning hands before having food, not to leave leftovers or not to waste and litter. is much too close to the source's The book brings the essence of Japanese parenting culture to India. Shinju traces the importance of inculcating good habits like cleaning hands before having food, not to leave leftovers or how even a single grain is too precious to be wasted.

I'm pretty sure it can't be appropriately paraphrased because the content itself is in error (the source was apparently written by someone who hadn't read the book, as they treat it like an adult-targeted parenting guide rather than a picture book that is meant to be read to children), so might as well just revdel the two edits between that and my revert.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:12, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Shit. My mistake. The source is a press release that is more likely to be deliberately promotional and misleading than written by someone who had no idea what the book was about. I need more sleep. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:15, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

 Done TonyBallioni (talk) 15:40, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Perm declined in January at WP:PERM

Hello Tony. Do you recall this? An editor just complained about admins being unwilling to hand out page mover rights so I reviewed it. Back in January, you said that a reconsideration in 3 months might be considered. The person involved has no edit warring blocks. Here are all their appearances at AN3 (seven filings or mentions for an account dating from April 2016). Would you review the recent history and see if your view would change at all? I can see that prior diplomacy can avoid the need to appear at AN3 at all, and that might be a factor in the filing of some of the reports. Here is one example where negotiation might have been more vigorous, but by AN3 standards this is not very warlike. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 21:17, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

EdJohnston, I trust your judgement. If you’re comfortable handing it out, so am I. They’ve also become much more active at NPP since then, and the permission is quite useful there. I’d grant it now, but am on mobile, so if you can, it’d be great. Natureium, please remember to use WP:RM over a round-robin for anything that might be controversial. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:22, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Appeal of warning issued by TonyBallioni

@Sandstein, Masem, NeilN, JzG, and MastCell: - I'm sorry to ping you all here, but my reasons are explained below.

I have no intention of "wiki-lawyering" the warning TonyBallioni issued. I understand its intent, but the ramifications to my ability to operate on Misplaced Pages are at stake. As worded it says that I am " warned not to use administrative boards to further disputes on Misplaced Pages". Here are my concerns:

• No consensus for a warning: Only 3 of the 6 admins (Tony was one) advocated for any type of warning.
• No consensus on scope: 2 of those advised a warning not to abuse (not "use" as he implemented). Only 1 of the admins mentioned "administrative processes", the others directed it at AE specifically.
• The warning, rather than being about a specific past issue (as most warnings on Misplaced Pages:Arbitration enforcement log/2018 are done) is worded as a sanction against future actions.
• Unintended chilling effect: As worded, the warning is essentially a ban on my use of admin boards completely, out of fear someone will point to this warning and claim I am "using" the board to "further" any dispute - even if my participation is 100% valid:
  • I am prevented opening any requests for behavior I see as inappropriate.
  • I am prevented from appealing admin decisions. (which is why I had to ping you here)
  • I am prevented even from defending myself it reports made about me.

Tony has tried to allay these concerns and expanded on it, and I completely understand the intent behind it, but I do not feel future admins will understand. Anytime I ever participate in any admin board, someone may bring this warning up and a less generous read of it will at a minimum lead to lot of sidebar drama, or at worst lead to blocks or bans not intended here by Tony. I ask that the warning be removed (either because no admin consensus was reached or as "message received" by me since its done its job) or at a minimum reworded to eliminate this chilling effect. -- Netoholic @ 21:23, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

I’m not inclined to remove it: AE actions are unilateral admin actions not requiring consensus, there was support for it at AE (and no opposition), and another admin suggested an IBAN against you instead. A logged warning is literally the lowest “sanction” out there. Wording it for admin boards was intentional: just AE would likely shift disruption elsewhere, which shouldn’t be the point of an AE sanction. MastCell used that wording, I saw the advantage of it, and went with it. Also, all warnings are about future behavior, otherwise they wouldn’t be warnings. If others support lifting or changing this, I won’t make you go to AN to have it lifted, but I’m currently not seeing any reason to. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:31, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't think you've addressed the chilling effect part, which is the most damaging. I'm sure you're aware how easy it is for things to go off the rails, and essentially I would be "guilty until proven innocent" every time I ever set foot in an admin board. I would have to prove I am not "furthering a dispute" even if my justification is being there is 100% valid. I hope you can see fit to see how this warning could be misused or misinterpreted. -- Netoholic @ 22:10, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

The point of a warning is to discourage disruptive behavior. If this makes you think twice before submitting reports that the rest of the community would think should not be resolved through admin boards, that is a good thing and the intent of any warning. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:14, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Do you disagree that, as worded, even posting to a board to defend myself in a report someone else created would be a violation of the warning? -- Netoholic @ 22:19, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

I do disagree with that reading, and I don’t think any admin would read it that way. If you’re being disruptive on a noticeboard, it might be factored in, but if you’re acting within community norms it won’t be a factor at all. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:23, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) The way tony presents it is the way I read it as well. SQL 22:30, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Peace offering

Theredproject (talk) has given you a dove! Doves promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day happier. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a dove, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past (this fits perfectly) or a good friend. Cheers!

Spread the peace of doves by adding {{subst:Peace dove}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

Hi TonyBallioni, I'm sorry if any of my comments have hurt you. They were not meant to be hurtful. I appreciate your effort. --Theredproject (talk) 21:59, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Theredproject! Thank you so much. I normally don’t get very personal but I was frustrated this morning as I thought we had finally finished with the initial implementation. Thank you for all the work that you do. It really is appreciated more than you know . TonyBallioni (talk) 22:01, 24 May 2018 (UTC)