This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | → | Archive 15 |
Help me know the process or help me get the right to review articles — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boy Addi ( talk • contribs) 16:50, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
I created 2 Wikipedia articles but when I checked the links.They are all active and not deleted. Neither has any of them got a speedy deletion tag.When I searched for the pages by name on Google I found they have not yet been indexed.Is there a duration it takes before indexing of the articles on search engines .I will appreciate your help.Thank You — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boy Addi ( talk • contribs) 17:39, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Hi there,
May I request your humble opinion on the matters of deletion with the article, Full Gospel Baptist Church Fellowship? -- TheTexasNationalist99 ( talk) 21:39, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Hi Tony! I am traveling and don't have access to my tools. Could you please take a look at the IP user 5.157.7.59? They seem to have been spamming many talk pages with accusations against Volunteer Marek and possibly other users. See if you think they need some loving attention. Thanks. MelanieN alt ( talk) 02:26, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, that's what I was trying to establish because it looked like just trying to jam the system. Does this happen often enough to discard on sight (or did I help a bit...?) Shenme ( talk) 06:05, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Thank you very much Tony. I just learned what auto-patrolled means. :) -- Rochelimit ( talk) 16:51, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Can you tell who reviewed this? *sigh* Atsme 📞 📧 14:23, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Hi Tony. Trust you are well today. I noticed your recent activity on the page Hollandia Yoghurt. I believe the content was written not with any biase but a rephrase from available online content. Some brand pages such as Coca Cola, Yoplait, Activia, Pepsi, The Laughing Cow and Milo were used as guides in creating the content. Any chance you can give more light as to the reason for the deletion. Thanks Aoshevir ( talk) 16:03, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Hi, TonyBallioni, I've started thread at several noticeboards about this, but it's a slow hour. Any help will be appreciated. Promotional edits and block evasion for a vanity bio. Thanks, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 ( talk) 02:55, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Just restored a prod that was contested that you nominated. You may want to nominate it for deletion if you still believe it should be deleted. - DJSasso ( talk) 17:30, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Ho Tony - have you ask for deletion again? Did you see all the comments on the talk - and the new work on Vince Gordon? It is deleted again by Patar Knight and I do not understand. Others have helped also best
Rosdahl-2017 (
talk)
10:37, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
Hi Tony - i would like to have it because I really do not understand it. I do through have to have someone to help me - as I can not understand the instructions at WP:EMAIL. can you write it on my talk page? Rosdahl-2017 ( talk) 16:47, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
Hi Tony. Thanks - I have now confirm the email - could you give me the reasons to? Rosdahl-2017 ( talk) 17:08, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
{{ User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}}
2 questions:
Hey, Tony - I think that sock is back and he's reverting all my edits on Pardon of Joe Arpaio - can you please semi-protect it? Atsme 📞 📧 01:48, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
{{ User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}}
Could you kindly userfy Apostle Suleman Johnson as you appeared to be the deleting admin. I intend to work on it tonight. Cheers! ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ ( talk) 21:19, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
silva.jpg
{{ User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}}
The Admin's Barnstar | |
You have taken the Admin bit and run with it, as expected. Good work! bd2412 T 14:02, 20 November 2017 (UTC) |
{{ User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}}
I know that there was some voting for NPP coordinators back in March, which you didn't run for but somehow have ended up doing the newsletters and other coordination work. I also have noticed that nobody seems to be giving out the NPP Awards. I'd like to volunteer to do a bit of coordination work; suggest stuff for newsletters, pass out awards to those that meet the criteria, etc. Is that ok or am I likely to step on some toes? — Insertcleverphrasehere ( or here) 04:25, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
{{ User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}}
Hi, Tony! I'm still away from my tools. Could you (or one of your stalkers) please consider semi-protecting the page William Orrick III? He is a federal judge who just made a controversial decision, and vandalism started immediately. One of the deleted edits listed a "residential address". I have no idea if it was legitimate but it should probably be revdeled. Possibly oversighted as well but probably not necessary. Thanks for checking. (I sure hate posting from my phone! Apologies for any errors. ) MelanieN alt ( talk) 16:06, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
{{ User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}}
I was chatting with a friend of mine today and working out how to encourage people to do community outreach for NPP.
We thought up a neat way to show how much of an impact that inviting others to NPP makes in the long run by working out a way of easily collecting statistics on the number of reviews that are completed by users that a given reviewer has invited.
Essentially the idea would be to maintain a page listing 'Inviters' and 'Invitees' (people who invited others who requested and were subsequently granted the NPR flag, and the people they invited). This will allow a bot to easily identify all the users that any reviewer/admin has invited, and count up their total review count. This can be listed alongside a reviewer's own review count, and be added to it to show the user's total impact to NPP.
I've made a mockup at User:Insertcleverphrasehere/Top_new_article_reviewers with a supplementary page at User:Insertcleverphrasehere/Top_new_article_reviewers/Invite list. (Please forgive the usage of all our names and the relatively random assigning of inviter and invitee, it is just a demonstration)
In other words, someone who spends time identifying a lot of promising editors and inviting them to the project can be just as valuable as an editor who spends a lot of time reviewing themselves, so long as those editors subsequently start reviewing a lot of articles cumulatively. This would create a way of visualising what the impact is.
What would need to happen:
What do you think? is this a worthwhile idea, or do you think it is more trouble than it is worth? — Insertcleverphrasehere ( or here) 12:06, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
{{ User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}}
Thank you for fixing that. I'm not sure what happened there. I was cleaning pages in my user space, when I went to my talk page and suddenly found the RfA redlinked. :-)— CYBERPOWER ( Around) 01:36, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
{{ User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}}
Hi Tony, not really sure how this works. I noticed an article I had published for a long time was deleted by user: Primefac which also listed your name in this users history. my username is piucaprim. Can I get this article back or ask for your help to find out why it was deleted. Thanks so much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Piucaprim ( talk • contribs) 17:32, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
{{ User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}}
Can you please strip off the new page reviewer flags from Oluwa2Chainz and Kajuran? They are both indef banned for sockpuppetry. — Insertcleverphrasehere ( or here) 18:20, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
{{ User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}}
No harm done - I think gut feel is important and I respect yours. Curb Safe Charmer ( talk) 20:12, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
{{ User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}}
Hi again Tony. A page to which I contributed significantly was [
reviewed] and that prompted me to look at the
WP:NPP page. I am interested in joining, but having read the requirements, I am very reluctant to reply before undertaking much further reading on the process and related policies. While examining the
NPP permissions page, I noticed that you play an active role in the assessment of permission requests. I'm therefore contacting you to ask what advice you might have for expediting my understanding of the reviewer process and requirements, with the aim that I might one day be eligible to apply.
One idea I had was to simply learn the review process and then informally review new articles as a standard editor, tagging them as required, collaborating with an approved reviewer and communicating with the editors who created the pages with advice for improvement.
I've noticed also that you are busy at the moment and stress that I'm in no rush and have plenty to read in the meantime!
Many thanks in advance for your time and advice!
Elliott
Edaham (
talk)
06:10, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
Hi, can you please tell me why the DS template at Talk:Roy Moore is so huge compared to the DS template at Talk:Roy Moore sexual abuse allegations? Do they mean something different? The small size of the latter one got me pretty confused, thinking it was not subject to as many restrictions. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 06:52, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
I have no opinions on the general format of the AP2 sanctions template. If you want to make a case that it should look like the rest of the DS talk templates, I will not object one bit. I placed Roy Moore under AP2 sanctions and Roy Moore sexual abuse allegations under for a reason, and they have the templates that match those cases.
My reason is this: Roy Moore is the more visible article, and the AP2 sanctions are so well known that using that template there makes sense. I sanctioned the sexual abuse page under the BLP case because I wanted to avoid Wikilawyering over whether a split from the main article qualified as "highly visible", so I didn't use the AP2 template on it. There is a large edit notice anytime you edit either page, so no one should be in the dark that there are active sanctions, and while I am sorry you were confused, I don't see a need to change it.
Also, as a helpful piece of advice (and it is meant this way, so please take it as such), it is a really bad idea for a non-admin to make any changes to a discretionary sanctions template placed by an administrator. You are free to ask about it, but don't change it. It is also an especially bad idea to make changes to the DS template on a page that you have just been put under discretionary sanctions on. TonyBallioni ( talk) 00:44, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
{{ User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}}
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Since User:DHeyward is topic banned from US politicians, and since the WP:AE request concerns Roy Moore, a US politician, this would appear to be a topic ban violation (only few days after the ban was imposed), afaict. In general, DHeyward really shouldn't be commenting on this request, per WP:BATTLEGROUND. Volunteer Marek 04:59, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
{{ User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}}
Per the Atsme result, the Roy Moore sexual abuse allegation article is within Volunteer Mareks topic ban. Reverting topic banned editors is not considered a revert. Please lift my topic ban in light of this finding. You can trout me with the same fish that was given Atsme. -- DHeyward ( talk) 15:49, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
I will raise some issues though. First, Volunteer Marek I believe is under a topic ban for articles related to Donald Trump.is my first statement regarding the reverts. Anyway, I brought it to AE in light of the fact that two other editors violated 1RR DS to revert two other editors subject to the Goldenring topic ban. Those two editors were not sanctioned. Anyway, off we go again [1]. -- DHeyward ( talk) 17:00, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Tony, I think you're a good admin and quite possibly will turn out to be a great admin. I do think it's wise to go slow when it comes to getting involved at WP:AE. Over the ten years I've been here, I've been active in nearly every corner of this site, and I can say that WP:AE is, without exception, the most challenging and demanding administrative corner of the project. By its nature, it attracts and concentrates the most difficult topics, and the most difficult editors, on the project. The only error I think you made in this case was in underestimating the capacity of DHeyward and others for wikilawyering. Once you've been an admin a little longer, you'll become cynical enough not to make that sort of mistake again. :P I hope to see you active at WP:AE down the line—it's historically been quite understaffed—but I also think, as you alluded to, that it's best to gain some experience in dispute resolution in slightly less treacherous terrain before taking that on. In any case, thanks for your work and I hope to see you around. MastCell Talk 20:37, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
{{ User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}}
I object in the strongest possible terms to your early closure of that Request for Comment. The process is meant to last thirty days, and if my understanding is correct, an automatic means to solicit feedback had yet to even begin (and which your action assumingly aborts).
As I had just made clear in my last comment, any argument that the issue has been conclusively settled, is flat out wrong - currently, on a survey of just seven people, one of whose actions as an Administrator (Dennis) is the direct inspiration for the question, there is clear disagreement over whether journalists can or cannot contact Wikipedia users, and if they can, whether they should declare themselves as paid editors or not. It goes without saying that such an issue cannot be settled formally as undecided (and so leave it to chance) on such a low turnout and short time period.
I genuinely hope this is just a case of you not having properly read the question, or thought through the implications of the responses (do not be misled by the mere existence of only "oppose" responses, what matters is their reasoning, given the question). Unless you can convince me this is not what has happened here, for example by telling me exactly what an Administrator is supposed to learn from this outcome (with reference to the precise wording of the question, in a way that is consistent with the responses so far), I have to dispute it.
If you cannot explain this action, I will absolutely challenge it, because journalists do not deserve to be left in limbo like this, unsure whether they will be blocked on basic principle (Alan, Dennis?), blocked if they do not declare as paid editors (Dennis? Cullen) or should not be blocked at all (Justin, Risker), plus whatever Carrite thinks is the common sense approach to each unique situation. I hope that mini-summary alone illustrates the perversity of GMG declaring there is "unanimous opposition" to the question, and you apparently acting on it.
I am loathe to give Dennis' words any more gravitas than he is seeking with his stream of unceasing insults and insinuations, but on a point of fact, in case you gave it any consideration when deciding to end this RfC early, I have not "shopped this all over" - after being brushed off by him on his talk page, I asked at the Help Desk what I should do, and they suggested a Request for Comment at the Village Pump, and so there I went.
Until your premature ending of the process, I was confident of generating enough responses to either produce a clear and authorative protocol, or at least a widely agreeable advice page, if clarity was still lacking. But what can I write with this handful of contradictory views? I can have a go, but I suspect the very first reaction from others on seeing it, would be to dismiss it as illegitimate.
In anticipation of the right outcome, thank you for your consideration.
James Marshall Y ( talk) 19:44, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
James Marshall Y ( talk) 20:24, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
{{ User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}}
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Arifhidayat. Regards:) Winged Blades Godric 05:15, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
{{ User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}}
This AE filing against DHeyward does not paint you in a flattering light. The T-ban you imposed was overkill and a bit confusing, causing you to have to explain it at multiple venues. Your request for enforcement kind of feels like an attempt at revenge. Just let it go. His edits improved the encyclopedia, which should not result in punishment. Mr Ernie ( talk) 20:24, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
{{ User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}}
...that didn't really have anything to do with me, just TC mistook me for an admin? E Eng 01:52, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
{{ User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}}
We have Chapter Three:Yellow which is a redirect to Bea Miller from a move, and now there is also Chapter Three: Yellow which should probably be a speedy since we don't need two, and neither are notable enough to be a standalone. Atsme 📞 📧 00:56, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
Yuka & Chronoship - wanna be stars - source links to a fund raising scheme to get public to fund their music video. I tagged it A7 but had no way to explain about the public funding drive. Atsme 📞 📧 01:08, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
I invited Babymissfortune last night (intentionally not pinging), and had an interesting comment from them. Apparently they are keen to become a reviewer and start reviewing pages again, but not super keen on applying for the user-right at PERM (see their talk page). After reviewing their submissions, I see that they have had a few of their submitted articles deleted (but not any of their recent ones from the past year and a bit). Could you perhaps have a look at them on the down-low when you have time and if you think they are appropriate add them to the patroller user-right group? — Insertcleverphrasehere ( or here) 16:59, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
How is Roy Moore sexual abuse allegations not a POVFORK, or attack page - or both? They are allegations, WP:NOTNEWS, no one has rushed to create Al Franken sexual abuse allegations...the NPOV-BLP issues are blindingly political. Atsme 📞 📧 13:54, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
Question: What does this mean in layperson terms: there does seem to be agreement that this was not BLP exempt? Atsme 📞 📧 18:15, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
...it's very disheartening to see Admins at AE bending over backwards to find reasons not to enforce DSto be convincing, so I went with 0RR in hopes that it would force talk page discussion and to avoid blocking. TonyBallioni ( talk) 18:24, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
Removing violations of the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy that contain libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced contentious material.This is because spotting BLP violating content and removing it is a lot easier to do and more easy to agree on than it is adding additional content that is meant to balance a BLP. The latter can be contentious as well, which is why when it is reverted, especially if an article is under discretionary sanctions, it should be discussed on the talk page so that the wording can be agreed upon.Re: your counting, my reading of the full discussion was that there was general agreement that there wasn't a BLP violation. I read Bish's comments as firmly putting her in the "No BLP violation" camp, and Dennis Brown/GoldenRing as thinking there likely wasn't a BLP violation that needed removing, but that someone shouldn't be sanctioned or sanctioned that strongly for it. GoldenRing specifically stated that the BLP policy only applies to removing material, though he thought the principle should apply, and Dennis Brown saw the actions as a "technical violation" of the sanctions, and only suggested an admonishment. On the whole, I think there was agreement that this wasn't the strongest claim for being exempted from a revert restriction based on BLP grounds.There was not a consensus among admins as to how to respond to the violation. I went with 0RR because 1) I firmly believe that sanctions should never be punishment, and I don't see what a block would have done, 2) it will help move the conversation to the talk page until after the election, which is when these articles are going to be in their most contentious state, and 3) I thought it was the narrowest possible sanction that could be crafted that was above an admonishment, and I thought something more than an admonishment was needed to help prevent disruption on a highly visible American politics page.Anythingyouwant, you are free to appeal this sanction at WP:AE. I think it is a fair one, but I never mind having my judgement reviewed by other administrators. TonyBallioni ( talk) 22:10, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
...a banned user’s creation of multiple TPs, most of which are for users who have no edits or user pages, and the few who do are minimal? Notice the dates. Atsme 📞 📧 13:46, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | → | Archive 15 |
Help me know the process or help me get the right to review articles — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boy Addi ( talk • contribs) 16:50, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
I created 2 Wikipedia articles but when I checked the links.They are all active and not deleted. Neither has any of them got a speedy deletion tag.When I searched for the pages by name on Google I found they have not yet been indexed.Is there a duration it takes before indexing of the articles on search engines .I will appreciate your help.Thank You — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boy Addi ( talk • contribs) 17:39, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Hi there,
May I request your humble opinion on the matters of deletion with the article, Full Gospel Baptist Church Fellowship? -- TheTexasNationalist99 ( talk) 21:39, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Hi Tony! I am traveling and don't have access to my tools. Could you please take a look at the IP user 5.157.7.59? They seem to have been spamming many talk pages with accusations against Volunteer Marek and possibly other users. See if you think they need some loving attention. Thanks. MelanieN alt ( talk) 02:26, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, that's what I was trying to establish because it looked like just trying to jam the system. Does this happen often enough to discard on sight (or did I help a bit...?) Shenme ( talk) 06:05, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Thank you very much Tony. I just learned what auto-patrolled means. :) -- Rochelimit ( talk) 16:51, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Can you tell who reviewed this? *sigh* Atsme 📞 📧 14:23, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Hi Tony. Trust you are well today. I noticed your recent activity on the page Hollandia Yoghurt. I believe the content was written not with any biase but a rephrase from available online content. Some brand pages such as Coca Cola, Yoplait, Activia, Pepsi, The Laughing Cow and Milo were used as guides in creating the content. Any chance you can give more light as to the reason for the deletion. Thanks Aoshevir ( talk) 16:03, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Hi, TonyBallioni, I've started thread at several noticeboards about this, but it's a slow hour. Any help will be appreciated. Promotional edits and block evasion for a vanity bio. Thanks, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 ( talk) 02:55, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Just restored a prod that was contested that you nominated. You may want to nominate it for deletion if you still believe it should be deleted. - DJSasso ( talk) 17:30, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Ho Tony - have you ask for deletion again? Did you see all the comments on the talk - and the new work on Vince Gordon? It is deleted again by Patar Knight and I do not understand. Others have helped also best
Rosdahl-2017 (
talk)
10:37, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
Hi Tony - i would like to have it because I really do not understand it. I do through have to have someone to help me - as I can not understand the instructions at WP:EMAIL. can you write it on my talk page? Rosdahl-2017 ( talk) 16:47, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
Hi Tony. Thanks - I have now confirm the email - could you give me the reasons to? Rosdahl-2017 ( talk) 17:08, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
{{ User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}}
2 questions:
Hey, Tony - I think that sock is back and he's reverting all my edits on Pardon of Joe Arpaio - can you please semi-protect it? Atsme 📞 📧 01:48, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
{{ User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}}
Could you kindly userfy Apostle Suleman Johnson as you appeared to be the deleting admin. I intend to work on it tonight. Cheers! ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ ( talk) 21:19, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
silva.jpg
{{ User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}}
The Admin's Barnstar | |
You have taken the Admin bit and run with it, as expected. Good work! bd2412 T 14:02, 20 November 2017 (UTC) |
{{ User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}}
I know that there was some voting for NPP coordinators back in March, which you didn't run for but somehow have ended up doing the newsletters and other coordination work. I also have noticed that nobody seems to be giving out the NPP Awards. I'd like to volunteer to do a bit of coordination work; suggest stuff for newsletters, pass out awards to those that meet the criteria, etc. Is that ok or am I likely to step on some toes? — Insertcleverphrasehere ( or here) 04:25, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
{{ User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}}
Hi, Tony! I'm still away from my tools. Could you (or one of your stalkers) please consider semi-protecting the page William Orrick III? He is a federal judge who just made a controversial decision, and vandalism started immediately. One of the deleted edits listed a "residential address". I have no idea if it was legitimate but it should probably be revdeled. Possibly oversighted as well but probably not necessary. Thanks for checking. (I sure hate posting from my phone! Apologies for any errors. ) MelanieN alt ( talk) 16:06, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
{{ User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}}
I was chatting with a friend of mine today and working out how to encourage people to do community outreach for NPP.
We thought up a neat way to show how much of an impact that inviting others to NPP makes in the long run by working out a way of easily collecting statistics on the number of reviews that are completed by users that a given reviewer has invited.
Essentially the idea would be to maintain a page listing 'Inviters' and 'Invitees' (people who invited others who requested and were subsequently granted the NPR flag, and the people they invited). This will allow a bot to easily identify all the users that any reviewer/admin has invited, and count up their total review count. This can be listed alongside a reviewer's own review count, and be added to it to show the user's total impact to NPP.
I've made a mockup at User:Insertcleverphrasehere/Top_new_article_reviewers with a supplementary page at User:Insertcleverphrasehere/Top_new_article_reviewers/Invite list. (Please forgive the usage of all our names and the relatively random assigning of inviter and invitee, it is just a demonstration)
In other words, someone who spends time identifying a lot of promising editors and inviting them to the project can be just as valuable as an editor who spends a lot of time reviewing themselves, so long as those editors subsequently start reviewing a lot of articles cumulatively. This would create a way of visualising what the impact is.
What would need to happen:
What do you think? is this a worthwhile idea, or do you think it is more trouble than it is worth? — Insertcleverphrasehere ( or here) 12:06, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
{{ User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}}
Thank you for fixing that. I'm not sure what happened there. I was cleaning pages in my user space, when I went to my talk page and suddenly found the RfA redlinked. :-)— CYBERPOWER ( Around) 01:36, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
{{ User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}}
Hi Tony, not really sure how this works. I noticed an article I had published for a long time was deleted by user: Primefac which also listed your name in this users history. my username is piucaprim. Can I get this article back or ask for your help to find out why it was deleted. Thanks so much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Piucaprim ( talk • contribs) 17:32, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
{{ User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}}
Can you please strip off the new page reviewer flags from Oluwa2Chainz and Kajuran? They are both indef banned for sockpuppetry. — Insertcleverphrasehere ( or here) 18:20, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
{{ User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}}
No harm done - I think gut feel is important and I respect yours. Curb Safe Charmer ( talk) 20:12, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
{{ User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}}
Hi again Tony. A page to which I contributed significantly was [
reviewed] and that prompted me to look at the
WP:NPP page. I am interested in joining, but having read the requirements, I am very reluctant to reply before undertaking much further reading on the process and related policies. While examining the
NPP permissions page, I noticed that you play an active role in the assessment of permission requests. I'm therefore contacting you to ask what advice you might have for expediting my understanding of the reviewer process and requirements, with the aim that I might one day be eligible to apply.
One idea I had was to simply learn the review process and then informally review new articles as a standard editor, tagging them as required, collaborating with an approved reviewer and communicating with the editors who created the pages with advice for improvement.
I've noticed also that you are busy at the moment and stress that I'm in no rush and have plenty to read in the meantime!
Many thanks in advance for your time and advice!
Elliott
Edaham (
talk)
06:10, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
Hi, can you please tell me why the DS template at Talk:Roy Moore is so huge compared to the DS template at Talk:Roy Moore sexual abuse allegations? Do they mean something different? The small size of the latter one got me pretty confused, thinking it was not subject to as many restrictions. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 06:52, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
I have no opinions on the general format of the AP2 sanctions template. If you want to make a case that it should look like the rest of the DS talk templates, I will not object one bit. I placed Roy Moore under AP2 sanctions and Roy Moore sexual abuse allegations under for a reason, and they have the templates that match those cases.
My reason is this: Roy Moore is the more visible article, and the AP2 sanctions are so well known that using that template there makes sense. I sanctioned the sexual abuse page under the BLP case because I wanted to avoid Wikilawyering over whether a split from the main article qualified as "highly visible", so I didn't use the AP2 template on it. There is a large edit notice anytime you edit either page, so no one should be in the dark that there are active sanctions, and while I am sorry you were confused, I don't see a need to change it.
Also, as a helpful piece of advice (and it is meant this way, so please take it as such), it is a really bad idea for a non-admin to make any changes to a discretionary sanctions template placed by an administrator. You are free to ask about it, but don't change it. It is also an especially bad idea to make changes to the DS template on a page that you have just been put under discretionary sanctions on. TonyBallioni ( talk) 00:44, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
{{ User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}}
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Since User:DHeyward is topic banned from US politicians, and since the WP:AE request concerns Roy Moore, a US politician, this would appear to be a topic ban violation (only few days after the ban was imposed), afaict. In general, DHeyward really shouldn't be commenting on this request, per WP:BATTLEGROUND. Volunteer Marek 04:59, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
{{ User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}}
Per the Atsme result, the Roy Moore sexual abuse allegation article is within Volunteer Mareks topic ban. Reverting topic banned editors is not considered a revert. Please lift my topic ban in light of this finding. You can trout me with the same fish that was given Atsme. -- DHeyward ( talk) 15:49, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
I will raise some issues though. First, Volunteer Marek I believe is under a topic ban for articles related to Donald Trump.is my first statement regarding the reverts. Anyway, I brought it to AE in light of the fact that two other editors violated 1RR DS to revert two other editors subject to the Goldenring topic ban. Those two editors were not sanctioned. Anyway, off we go again [1]. -- DHeyward ( talk) 17:00, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Tony, I think you're a good admin and quite possibly will turn out to be a great admin. I do think it's wise to go slow when it comes to getting involved at WP:AE. Over the ten years I've been here, I've been active in nearly every corner of this site, and I can say that WP:AE is, without exception, the most challenging and demanding administrative corner of the project. By its nature, it attracts and concentrates the most difficult topics, and the most difficult editors, on the project. The only error I think you made in this case was in underestimating the capacity of DHeyward and others for wikilawyering. Once you've been an admin a little longer, you'll become cynical enough not to make that sort of mistake again. :P I hope to see you active at WP:AE down the line—it's historically been quite understaffed—but I also think, as you alluded to, that it's best to gain some experience in dispute resolution in slightly less treacherous terrain before taking that on. In any case, thanks for your work and I hope to see you around. MastCell Talk 20:37, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
{{ User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}}
I object in the strongest possible terms to your early closure of that Request for Comment. The process is meant to last thirty days, and if my understanding is correct, an automatic means to solicit feedback had yet to even begin (and which your action assumingly aborts).
As I had just made clear in my last comment, any argument that the issue has been conclusively settled, is flat out wrong - currently, on a survey of just seven people, one of whose actions as an Administrator (Dennis) is the direct inspiration for the question, there is clear disagreement over whether journalists can or cannot contact Wikipedia users, and if they can, whether they should declare themselves as paid editors or not. It goes without saying that such an issue cannot be settled formally as undecided (and so leave it to chance) on such a low turnout and short time period.
I genuinely hope this is just a case of you not having properly read the question, or thought through the implications of the responses (do not be misled by the mere existence of only "oppose" responses, what matters is their reasoning, given the question). Unless you can convince me this is not what has happened here, for example by telling me exactly what an Administrator is supposed to learn from this outcome (with reference to the precise wording of the question, in a way that is consistent with the responses so far), I have to dispute it.
If you cannot explain this action, I will absolutely challenge it, because journalists do not deserve to be left in limbo like this, unsure whether they will be blocked on basic principle (Alan, Dennis?), blocked if they do not declare as paid editors (Dennis? Cullen) or should not be blocked at all (Justin, Risker), plus whatever Carrite thinks is the common sense approach to each unique situation. I hope that mini-summary alone illustrates the perversity of GMG declaring there is "unanimous opposition" to the question, and you apparently acting on it.
I am loathe to give Dennis' words any more gravitas than he is seeking with his stream of unceasing insults and insinuations, but on a point of fact, in case you gave it any consideration when deciding to end this RfC early, I have not "shopped this all over" - after being brushed off by him on his talk page, I asked at the Help Desk what I should do, and they suggested a Request for Comment at the Village Pump, and so there I went.
Until your premature ending of the process, I was confident of generating enough responses to either produce a clear and authorative protocol, or at least a widely agreeable advice page, if clarity was still lacking. But what can I write with this handful of contradictory views? I can have a go, but I suspect the very first reaction from others on seeing it, would be to dismiss it as illegitimate.
In anticipation of the right outcome, thank you for your consideration.
James Marshall Y ( talk) 19:44, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
James Marshall Y ( talk) 20:24, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
{{ User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}}
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Arifhidayat. Regards:) Winged Blades Godric 05:15, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
{{ User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}}
This AE filing against DHeyward does not paint you in a flattering light. The T-ban you imposed was overkill and a bit confusing, causing you to have to explain it at multiple venues. Your request for enforcement kind of feels like an attempt at revenge. Just let it go. His edits improved the encyclopedia, which should not result in punishment. Mr Ernie ( talk) 20:24, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
{{ User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}}
...that didn't really have anything to do with me, just TC mistook me for an admin? E Eng 01:52, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
{{ User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}}
We have Chapter Three:Yellow which is a redirect to Bea Miller from a move, and now there is also Chapter Three: Yellow which should probably be a speedy since we don't need two, and neither are notable enough to be a standalone. Atsme 📞 📧 00:56, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
Yuka & Chronoship - wanna be stars - source links to a fund raising scheme to get public to fund their music video. I tagged it A7 but had no way to explain about the public funding drive. Atsme 📞 📧 01:08, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
I invited Babymissfortune last night (intentionally not pinging), and had an interesting comment from them. Apparently they are keen to become a reviewer and start reviewing pages again, but not super keen on applying for the user-right at PERM (see their talk page). After reviewing their submissions, I see that they have had a few of their submitted articles deleted (but not any of their recent ones from the past year and a bit). Could you perhaps have a look at them on the down-low when you have time and if you think they are appropriate add them to the patroller user-right group? — Insertcleverphrasehere ( or here) 16:59, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
How is Roy Moore sexual abuse allegations not a POVFORK, or attack page - or both? They are allegations, WP:NOTNEWS, no one has rushed to create Al Franken sexual abuse allegations...the NPOV-BLP issues are blindingly political. Atsme 📞 📧 13:54, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
Question: What does this mean in layperson terms: there does seem to be agreement that this was not BLP exempt? Atsme 📞 📧 18:15, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
...it's very disheartening to see Admins at AE bending over backwards to find reasons not to enforce DSto be convincing, so I went with 0RR in hopes that it would force talk page discussion and to avoid blocking. TonyBallioni ( talk) 18:24, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
Removing violations of the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy that contain libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced contentious material.This is because spotting BLP violating content and removing it is a lot easier to do and more easy to agree on than it is adding additional content that is meant to balance a BLP. The latter can be contentious as well, which is why when it is reverted, especially if an article is under discretionary sanctions, it should be discussed on the talk page so that the wording can be agreed upon.Re: your counting, my reading of the full discussion was that there was general agreement that there wasn't a BLP violation. I read Bish's comments as firmly putting her in the "No BLP violation" camp, and Dennis Brown/GoldenRing as thinking there likely wasn't a BLP violation that needed removing, but that someone shouldn't be sanctioned or sanctioned that strongly for it. GoldenRing specifically stated that the BLP policy only applies to removing material, though he thought the principle should apply, and Dennis Brown saw the actions as a "technical violation" of the sanctions, and only suggested an admonishment. On the whole, I think there was agreement that this wasn't the strongest claim for being exempted from a revert restriction based on BLP grounds.There was not a consensus among admins as to how to respond to the violation. I went with 0RR because 1) I firmly believe that sanctions should never be punishment, and I don't see what a block would have done, 2) it will help move the conversation to the talk page until after the election, which is when these articles are going to be in their most contentious state, and 3) I thought it was the narrowest possible sanction that could be crafted that was above an admonishment, and I thought something more than an admonishment was needed to help prevent disruption on a highly visible American politics page.Anythingyouwant, you are free to appeal this sanction at WP:AE. I think it is a fair one, but I never mind having my judgement reviewed by other administrators. TonyBallioni ( talk) 22:10, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
...a banned user’s creation of multiple TPs, most of which are for users who have no edits or user pages, and the few who do are minimal? Notice the dates. Atsme 📞 📧 13:46, 28 November 2017 (UTC)