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 30 | ← | Archive 32 | Archive 33 | Archive 34 | Archive 35 | Archive 36 | → | Archive 40 |
News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2020).
|
Arbcom RfC regarding on-wiki harassment. A draft RfC has been posted at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Anti-harassment RfC (Draft) and not open to comments from the community yet. Interested editors can comment on the RfC itself on its talk page.
Just thought I'd drop by and send along my best wishes. Hope you're doing well in these trying times! Sorry to disagree with you at ACN, it always pains me. ~Swarm~ {sting} 18:11, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi Tony, my primary concern here is a history of copyright violations, primarily from town websites. Secondly, there's the cruft. Any assistance would be great. Cheers, and be well, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 ( talk) 00:38, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi TonyBallioni, can you tell if Vancouverwiki001 existed when you did a CU sweep in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kashish Mittal? The account was created right around the time of the SPI, and I'm extremely suspicious of it being someone's sock, but I don't want to request CU if it would have been caught in your prior check. Cheers! creffett ( talk) 12:46, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
Time passes quickly and before one realises it, another Arbcom election will be lurking. Not that I'll be around, but if I were able to put together a Committee, you would be one of the people on it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 02:52, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
Mr rnddude ( talk) 06:14, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi there. It seems that you are pretty familiar with this case. I am one of the nerdy editors in the chemistry project, one that rarely looks around beyond that realm. I have worked on this project for several years, and for almost all of that time, one of the main arbiters and common sense managers was Edgar181. We did not interact often, but his presence was always felt. So I am pretty despondent because he was sort of a leader, or seemed that way. I am very puzzled by why he did this sockpuppetry and what his betrayal means. It even hurts to say that Edgar181 was explicitly dishonest. In any case, I started this message with the hopes that I could pose a question to you that would help bring some resolution to my sadness. But there is no well formulated question. In any case, I am grateful that the situation was resolved by you and your colleagues. -- Smokefoot ( talk) 02:33, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
...for this. I still believe that it's ArbCom's obligation to come clean with the community on the voting, but I will heed your advice after this last comment here.
I am not an ArbCom- or admin-basher by nature, I think that the Committee(s) and the admin corps generally do a good job, but when they fuck up, and have it pointed out by multiple people that they fucked up, I expect both Arbs and admin to admit their errors and do what they can to make good. In this case, the Committee has totally failed to fulfill its obligations to the community, and you can believe that I will be asking hard questions at election time. I am extremely disappointed in ArbCom, many of whose members I know to be good admins who are right much more often then they are wrong -- but in this case, while they may not have been wrong to warn Bbb23 (I have no way of knowing because of privacy issues) there is not a scintilla of doubt in my mind that they are wrong not to tell the community who voted for and against the warning once the warning was made public. At the moment, I have no choice but to hold their error in judgment against the entire committee, each and every Arbitrator. If that's the way they want it, they will have to live with the consequences, one of which is that Wikipedia just got a little less safe than it was. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 05:17, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
For reference purposes, what sockmaster is responsible for the accounts you recently blocked, User:Mr Tramp gonna got big defeat on ERECTl0N day and User:There are T00 many lDl0Ts in W.H.? I see their long usernames with OFFENSIVE statements in ALL CAPS sometimes impersonating other users in block logs quite often and was wondering who was behind it. Passenger pigeon ( talk) 02:28, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
MrClog ( talk) 19:07, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
Hey Toni, hope all is well. I would like to request that this investigation be renewed to "CU REQUESTED" since I requested a CU on Queenplz, compared to WorldCreaterFighter. As far as I'm aware that hasn't been done. This case (the one I filed) needs more attention. I gave pretty solid evidence Qiushufang was recruiting meatpuppets on Reddit, and it's gone 48 hours with no response.
/info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Qiushufang - Hunan201p ( talk) 11:21, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
Dear Toni, thanks a lot for re-listing the investigation on Qiushufang. I am sorry to report another problem. I keep opening an investigation for a suspected sockpuppet (Tobby72) of a notoruous sockmaster (WorldCreaterFighter), which keeps getting shut down. In my opinion, it is being shut down because someone mistakenly thinks that it was closed, when what actually happened was another investigation before it ws closed. See the message Amanda(DeltaQuad) left on my talk page:
/info/en/?search=User_talk:Hunan201p#Stop_restoring
There appears to be nothing in these links indicating the Tobby72 ingestigation was ever closed. Only one before it, for a suspected IP sock, was closed. But Tobby72 still needs investigating and closing. Tobby72 continues making malicious stealth edits that multiple people have complained about, such as his recent edits to Timur where he restores demonstratably falsified material:
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Timur&action=history
Plese help me get the Tobby72 investigation re-opened. I'm 95% sure it's WorldCreaterFighter and he's being allowed to screw up ethnic and history related articles. Sorry to trouble you. - Hunan201p ( talk) 14:02, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
Where is the best place to discuss whether there should be a new logo for Oversight? Interstellarity ( talk) 12:59, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
[1]. Am I allowed to know which LTA please? Guy ( help!) 21:04, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
Hello. Forgive the length of my inquiry, as I'm relatively new to this type of request.
I was interested in reading about Rain Man (DJ) who is Kris Trindl on Wikipedia. However, the articles were deleted. As I looked into it, I couldn't find the reason that they were deleted.
Based on the tags I see on the deleted pages, it looks like there was a consensus to move the page Kris Trindl over to Rain Man (DJ). So the Rain Man (DJ) page was deleted with a G6 tag (non-controversial/make way for the move).
However, the Rain Man (DJ) page is no longer up, apparently due to problems with copyright.
I did, however, manage to find my way to the page Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2020 April 5, where I found the entry for Rain Man (DJ) listed on that page.
So far, I've been unable to locate any of the discussions.
My interest as an editor is to see if I can fix the article. To do this, I need access to the talk pages Talk:Rain Man (DJ) and Talk:Kris Trindl.
Per Wikipedia guidelines, contacting you is the first step in this process.
Regards,
Fantasticawesome ( talk) 16:04, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
Hey Tony! I stumbled upon this mess of an article which looks like it was barely ever sourced even from the start. It's a complete mess but I thought it might be up your ally if you had time. HickoryOughtShirt?4 ( talk) 00:46, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
the lay faithful– Speaking of sects... E Eng 01:51, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
@Ad and Creffett: as a point of clarity, the prevailing position within the Roman Catholic Church these days is that that the episcopate is a distinct order from the presbyterate and that bishops are ontologically distinct from priests.
It is an acceptable alternative, however, to hold that a bishop is a priest with added jurisdiction, similar to how the Pope is simply a bishop with added jurisdiction. There isn't an ontological difference in the nature of the Pope's soul upon being elected to the papacy than before (assuming he was already a bishop upon his election which has been the case for a few hundred years.) This doesn't change the position of the RCC that the Pope is the Vicar of Christ and Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church. It's a question of authority vs. how divine grace changes the nature of a soul.
If you want to look at some of the existing support in the liturgy past and present for the minority position, you can see phrases such as fullness of the priesthood used to describe being a bishop, a phrase which could be read something along the lines of a priest with the full authority to administer the sacraments without the need of anyone else's permission there's a very strong sense in Catholicism (not using the Roman identifier because this is true of both Latin and non-Latin sui iuris Churches) that the practiced tradition and prayers of the Church themselves hold teaching authority as a way of conveying Apostolic Tradition.
A more philosophical argument would go something along the lines of: upon his ordination a priest's soul is already configured in a way beyond description to Jesus Christ. He already has undergone one of the most profound ontological changes that can happen to a human being. It is not believed that a priest is any less of an Alter Christus than the bishop while performing the sacraments. Logically a priest doesn't really need to have his soul changed anymore because by virtue of his ordination he already is another Christ.
That is currently the minority position, and it's honestly not one that's debated that much even in academia. After Vatican II, where the whole of episcopacy was given a more visible role in the governance of the Church, the flow came somewhat naturally. As I mentioned, the prayers and small traditions of the Church are seen as a way that Apostolic Tradition is conveyed, and you're seeing the shift towards the "distinct ontologically from priests" position there. Even if the RCC were to formally take what is now the minority position, it wouldn't fundamentally change the understanding of what a bishop is: they are the heirs of the apostles. They have the authority to teach, to ordain priests, deacons, and other bishops, to hear confessions without the permission of another bishop, to confirm the faithful in their diocese at any time without special conditions or permission from another bishop, and to be the Vicar of Christ for the see entrusted to them.
What the debate boils down to is: is the episcopacy added authority (like the papacy) or is it a change to the nature of a man's soul. This is one of the few parts of Catholic sacramental theology that still does not have a defined answer. Like I said, it's not particularly discussed that much these days, but if you ever want to clear a party you now have an insanely minute discussion on the intersection of Catholic sacramental theology and ontology to get people out of your house. TonyBallioni ( talk) 03:47, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
Tony, could you please indefinitely semi-protect my talk page. I'm out of Wikipedia, but having to return now and again to remove grave-dancers and trolls is beginning to become tiresome. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 22:03, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
Can you please tell me what is the criteria for becoming a beurocrats Maizbhandariya ( talk) 01:09, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
Thanks tonu Maizbhandariya ( talk) 01:14, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
And what will be the criteria for confirmed user Maizbhandariya ( talk) 01:16, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
Thanks Maizbhandariya ( talk) 01:22, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
Hello, I just wanted to ask if I'm going to be blocked? I noticed the case had been closed but I want to use {{*SPI case status*}} to prove that I'm not a sockpuppet. ( Sapah3 ( talk) 07:10, 19 April 2020 (UTC))
Since I have more time at home now to the present situation; I've decided that I'm going to do a DYK or GA a week until 20 June 2020. I'm here to build an encyclopedia, but because of work and other real life commitments, I've focused my limited time here on CU/OS matters for the last year or two because I thought (and still think) it was probably the best way to deal with the commitments I had while still giving back to a project I care deeply about. I also have the goal of finishing the 17th century conclaves GA series, though I may need to order another book to do that. Anyway, I'm making this challenge and I'll update it weekly. If you want to publicly commit to a goal like this, I'd encourage you to post something to your talk page or even here. Saying you'll try. Most of us came here because of the content and then drifted behind the scenes. Showing a commitment to improving or expanding content by the admin corps is important, and also reminds us of the challenges those who focus primarily on content deal with. TonyBallioni ( talk) 20:36, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi @ TonyBallioni: Recently Innocent Paki was blocked for puppetry]. Is there a reason his block is only for one week instead of indefinite? Alishernavoi ( talk) 21:30, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
Ah, I didnt realize that more than one sock had to be created in order to be indef'ed. I thought it was a "if you sock, you get indeffed" policy. Thanks. Alishernavoi ( talk) 23:36, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
I just wanted to say that I think you gave a fair, thoughtful, reasoned close to the RFC. I didn't participate in the RFC because I couldn't make up my mind, or rather I could see points on all sides, so I admire your willingness to go through all of the arguments and digressions and passion to identify the consensus. Thanks for taking that on. Schazjmd (talk) 23:30, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
Hey! Just to confirm: is MustafaO banned due to 3X (they're not listed as blocked on their use page)? A CU has confirmed sock puppet abuse twice since their initial block. -- MrClog ( talk) 21:32, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Did you get my email? Doug Weller talk 17:55, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for dealing with my fan club last night. That'll teach me not to sign off for something as frivolous as a night's sleep. Cabayi ( talk) 06:32, 28 April 2020 (UTC) |
I need your help for my article Saqib Iqbal Shami to make it more acceptable as per wp gn policies so that it will be added in a good article list thanks have a great day Maizbhandariya ( talk) 17:07, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
Meh.
Well.
Hi TonyBallioni,
Regarding Special:Contributions/Souniel_Yadav, I shouldn't have touched this block without asking you before. I'm stumbling with an alarming frequency regarding checkuserblocks in the recent past. Having a close look at the blocking policy again, as the user wasn't pleading innocence, I hope the decision was in line with it, but I should perhaps better not touch any topic labelled "checkuser" in the next months. I'm sorry.
I hope the decision is fine and mostly a problem for formal reasons only. I'll take a break.
Best regards,
~ ToBeFree (
talk) 10:56, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
Hey Tony,
With regards to your comment on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Icewhiz/Archive#24 April 2020: I'm as familiar with Icewhiz's editing patterns as the OP, yet I wasn't pinged to that case despite his statement that he will "inform several other editors familiar with [this]". My comments had nothing to do with any ongoing content disputes, only with the OP's claims, and his conduct within the TA. The OP regularly states that he wishes to "calm down the TA" and criticizes any use of ANI/AE, yet he makes liberal use of SPI - he has now filed five such requests against Icewhiz, all failed - and makes frequent accusations of "sockpuppeting" against new editors. This sort of conduct is not conducive for building good faith within the TA, is a deterrent of new editors, and a waste of administrators' time.
That said, I appreciate your firmness in this matter. If in the future I find myself in a situation where other editors make off-color comments about myself, I trust I could approach you to enforce the relevant policies to keep discussion on track.
Best regards,
François Robere ( talk) 11:01, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for your advice on the mailing list. The guideline is a bit ambiguous, so it's good that you offered some advice based on your experience. MrClog ( talk) 22:21, 1 May 2020 (UTC) |
Hello Tony Ballioni, I have just checked that a disruptive IP user 176.88.142.166, have been vandalising and making disruptive edits in some Articles, he have been blocked for a period of 48 hours by User:331dot. I asked him so a Check User could be made to verify if he is a Sock Puppet and ban him. I have been checking his edits and he have the same behaviour as a previous SockPuppet that vandalised articles in February March 2020.
Hope you could use that Tool to check on this accounts.
1)
User:RandomAccount13343413
User:RandomAccount1235423
User:KasimMejia
User:Gilesartq
User:SyriaAnalyst
User:Nabu-Kudurri-Usur Yaniv
110.168.30.203
176.88.143.228
2) If not maybe this another account
User:Gala19000
User:Hakan3400
User:Türk260000
Thanks. Mr.User200 ( talk) 23:02, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2020).
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Retaliatory SPI?. Nil Einne ( talk) 04:57, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
If you would consider limiting the scope or duration, I would appreciate it. I do plan on filing a formal appeal. Wikieditor19920 ( talk) 01:05, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
Working fine now. 😀 Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 17:06, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
Miraclepine is requesting unblock on UTRS. They have addressed all the issues and I am inclined to unblock, albeit earlier than anticipated. Please let me know if you are agreeable. Thanks, -- Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 18:10, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, Tony. Restoring TPA sounds like a good first step. But maybe not till tomorrow. -- Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 21:15, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
A while ago it was pointed out that there is a technical error [2], in the article sourcing expectations the text states to cover all articles on the topic of Polish history during World War II (1933-45), but it should state 1939-1945.This wasn't changed. Can somebody fix this or should petition be made?-- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 12:05, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
Hello. I received an email from User:Wumbolo completely out-of-the-blue this afternoon, in which they reported an alleged sock puppet on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tara Reade. I thought the email was odd, and didn't immediately remember that Wumbolo had been indefinitely blocked a few months ago. Seeing as you were the blocking admin, I thought I would bring this to your attention just to be on the safe side. Sorry if this is an overreaction. For reference, the text of the message is as-follows:
There's a sock at
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tara Reade. Napoleonjosephine2020 is a sock of Monab2020. The names are similar, they registered their accounts within an hour, they are both SPAs, and they both posted in a same AfD. This is a bit old situation, but it should be taken care of, so there is no way it can influence the current Tara Reade AfD. Please report it to SPI.
Thanks, KidAd ( talk) 23:29, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
I see you closed this AN thread. No issue with you instating (reinstating) the block. However, I'd like a chance for my proposal to gain consensus. The discussion is obviously not new but my proposal is and so far had a favorable reception. Could it be re-opened so that there would be a chance to see what the consensus for it might be? Thanks and best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 03:41, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
But could someone deal with this sorts of edits? diff -- Ealdgyth ( talk) 12:08, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
There is little I can do, but I've semi-protected a couple of them for really, really long. Drmies ( talk) 00:55, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
Please consider checking contribution made by user: Alex1981march he added a non-notable and fake name to cast list after adding it to IMDB to create a fake reference — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.59.1.61 ( talk) 08:16, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
I trust that this is satisfactory. Now kindly unblock the IP; having to log in is a major nuisance to me. Iaritmioawp ( talk) 20:25, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Editing under multiple IP addresses, or editing under both a named account and as an IP, may be treated as the same level of disruption as editing under multiple accounts when it is done deceptively or otherwise violates the principles of this policy.In my mind, getting into disputes over policy nuances while logged out quite clearly violates the intent of the policy. It also clearly isn't actually a major nuisance for you as evidenced by this message. If you're going to pick fights, log in to do so. TonyBallioni ( talk) 20:33, 22 May 2020 (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 30 | ← | Archive 32 | Archive 33 | Archive 34 | Archive 35 | Archive 36 | → | Archive 40 |
News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2020).
|
Arbcom RfC regarding on-wiki harassment. A draft RfC has been posted at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Anti-harassment RfC (Draft) and not open to comments from the community yet. Interested editors can comment on the RfC itself on its talk page.
Just thought I'd drop by and send along my best wishes. Hope you're doing well in these trying times! Sorry to disagree with you at ACN, it always pains me. ~Swarm~ {sting} 18:11, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi Tony, my primary concern here is a history of copyright violations, primarily from town websites. Secondly, there's the cruft. Any assistance would be great. Cheers, and be well, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 ( talk) 00:38, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi TonyBallioni, can you tell if Vancouverwiki001 existed when you did a CU sweep in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kashish Mittal? The account was created right around the time of the SPI, and I'm extremely suspicious of it being someone's sock, but I don't want to request CU if it would have been caught in your prior check. Cheers! creffett ( talk) 12:46, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
Time passes quickly and before one realises it, another Arbcom election will be lurking. Not that I'll be around, but if I were able to put together a Committee, you would be one of the people on it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 02:52, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
Mr rnddude ( talk) 06:14, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi there. It seems that you are pretty familiar with this case. I am one of the nerdy editors in the chemistry project, one that rarely looks around beyond that realm. I have worked on this project for several years, and for almost all of that time, one of the main arbiters and common sense managers was Edgar181. We did not interact often, but his presence was always felt. So I am pretty despondent because he was sort of a leader, or seemed that way. I am very puzzled by why he did this sockpuppetry and what his betrayal means. It even hurts to say that Edgar181 was explicitly dishonest. In any case, I started this message with the hopes that I could pose a question to you that would help bring some resolution to my sadness. But there is no well formulated question. In any case, I am grateful that the situation was resolved by you and your colleagues. -- Smokefoot ( talk) 02:33, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
...for this. I still believe that it's ArbCom's obligation to come clean with the community on the voting, but I will heed your advice after this last comment here.
I am not an ArbCom- or admin-basher by nature, I think that the Committee(s) and the admin corps generally do a good job, but when they fuck up, and have it pointed out by multiple people that they fucked up, I expect both Arbs and admin to admit their errors and do what they can to make good. In this case, the Committee has totally failed to fulfill its obligations to the community, and you can believe that I will be asking hard questions at election time. I am extremely disappointed in ArbCom, many of whose members I know to be good admins who are right much more often then they are wrong -- but in this case, while they may not have been wrong to warn Bbb23 (I have no way of knowing because of privacy issues) there is not a scintilla of doubt in my mind that they are wrong not to tell the community who voted for and against the warning once the warning was made public. At the moment, I have no choice but to hold their error in judgment against the entire committee, each and every Arbitrator. If that's the way they want it, they will have to live with the consequences, one of which is that Wikipedia just got a little less safe than it was. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 05:17, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
For reference purposes, what sockmaster is responsible for the accounts you recently blocked, User:Mr Tramp gonna got big defeat on ERECTl0N day and User:There are T00 many lDl0Ts in W.H.? I see their long usernames with OFFENSIVE statements in ALL CAPS sometimes impersonating other users in block logs quite often and was wondering who was behind it. Passenger pigeon ( talk) 02:28, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
MrClog ( talk) 19:07, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
Hey Toni, hope all is well. I would like to request that this investigation be renewed to "CU REQUESTED" since I requested a CU on Queenplz, compared to WorldCreaterFighter. As far as I'm aware that hasn't been done. This case (the one I filed) needs more attention. I gave pretty solid evidence Qiushufang was recruiting meatpuppets on Reddit, and it's gone 48 hours with no response.
/info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Qiushufang - Hunan201p ( talk) 11:21, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
Dear Toni, thanks a lot for re-listing the investigation on Qiushufang. I am sorry to report another problem. I keep opening an investigation for a suspected sockpuppet (Tobby72) of a notoruous sockmaster (WorldCreaterFighter), which keeps getting shut down. In my opinion, it is being shut down because someone mistakenly thinks that it was closed, when what actually happened was another investigation before it ws closed. See the message Amanda(DeltaQuad) left on my talk page:
/info/en/?search=User_talk:Hunan201p#Stop_restoring
There appears to be nothing in these links indicating the Tobby72 ingestigation was ever closed. Only one before it, for a suspected IP sock, was closed. But Tobby72 still needs investigating and closing. Tobby72 continues making malicious stealth edits that multiple people have complained about, such as his recent edits to Timur where he restores demonstratably falsified material:
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Timur&action=history
Plese help me get the Tobby72 investigation re-opened. I'm 95% sure it's WorldCreaterFighter and he's being allowed to screw up ethnic and history related articles. Sorry to trouble you. - Hunan201p ( talk) 14:02, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
Where is the best place to discuss whether there should be a new logo for Oversight? Interstellarity ( talk) 12:59, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
[1]. Am I allowed to know which LTA please? Guy ( help!) 21:04, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
Hello. Forgive the length of my inquiry, as I'm relatively new to this type of request.
I was interested in reading about Rain Man (DJ) who is Kris Trindl on Wikipedia. However, the articles were deleted. As I looked into it, I couldn't find the reason that they were deleted.
Based on the tags I see on the deleted pages, it looks like there was a consensus to move the page Kris Trindl over to Rain Man (DJ). So the Rain Man (DJ) page was deleted with a G6 tag (non-controversial/make way for the move).
However, the Rain Man (DJ) page is no longer up, apparently due to problems with copyright.
I did, however, manage to find my way to the page Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2020 April 5, where I found the entry for Rain Man (DJ) listed on that page.
So far, I've been unable to locate any of the discussions.
My interest as an editor is to see if I can fix the article. To do this, I need access to the talk pages Talk:Rain Man (DJ) and Talk:Kris Trindl.
Per Wikipedia guidelines, contacting you is the first step in this process.
Regards,
Fantasticawesome ( talk) 16:04, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
Hey Tony! I stumbled upon this mess of an article which looks like it was barely ever sourced even from the start. It's a complete mess but I thought it might be up your ally if you had time. HickoryOughtShirt?4 ( talk) 00:46, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
the lay faithful– Speaking of sects... E Eng 01:51, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
@Ad and Creffett: as a point of clarity, the prevailing position within the Roman Catholic Church these days is that that the episcopate is a distinct order from the presbyterate and that bishops are ontologically distinct from priests.
It is an acceptable alternative, however, to hold that a bishop is a priest with added jurisdiction, similar to how the Pope is simply a bishop with added jurisdiction. There isn't an ontological difference in the nature of the Pope's soul upon being elected to the papacy than before (assuming he was already a bishop upon his election which has been the case for a few hundred years.) This doesn't change the position of the RCC that the Pope is the Vicar of Christ and Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church. It's a question of authority vs. how divine grace changes the nature of a soul.
If you want to look at some of the existing support in the liturgy past and present for the minority position, you can see phrases such as fullness of the priesthood used to describe being a bishop, a phrase which could be read something along the lines of a priest with the full authority to administer the sacraments without the need of anyone else's permission there's a very strong sense in Catholicism (not using the Roman identifier because this is true of both Latin and non-Latin sui iuris Churches) that the practiced tradition and prayers of the Church themselves hold teaching authority as a way of conveying Apostolic Tradition.
A more philosophical argument would go something along the lines of: upon his ordination a priest's soul is already configured in a way beyond description to Jesus Christ. He already has undergone one of the most profound ontological changes that can happen to a human being. It is not believed that a priest is any less of an Alter Christus than the bishop while performing the sacraments. Logically a priest doesn't really need to have his soul changed anymore because by virtue of his ordination he already is another Christ.
That is currently the minority position, and it's honestly not one that's debated that much even in academia. After Vatican II, where the whole of episcopacy was given a more visible role in the governance of the Church, the flow came somewhat naturally. As I mentioned, the prayers and small traditions of the Church are seen as a way that Apostolic Tradition is conveyed, and you're seeing the shift towards the "distinct ontologically from priests" position there. Even if the RCC were to formally take what is now the minority position, it wouldn't fundamentally change the understanding of what a bishop is: they are the heirs of the apostles. They have the authority to teach, to ordain priests, deacons, and other bishops, to hear confessions without the permission of another bishop, to confirm the faithful in their diocese at any time without special conditions or permission from another bishop, and to be the Vicar of Christ for the see entrusted to them.
What the debate boils down to is: is the episcopacy added authority (like the papacy) or is it a change to the nature of a man's soul. This is one of the few parts of Catholic sacramental theology that still does not have a defined answer. Like I said, it's not particularly discussed that much these days, but if you ever want to clear a party you now have an insanely minute discussion on the intersection of Catholic sacramental theology and ontology to get people out of your house. TonyBallioni ( talk) 03:47, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
Tony, could you please indefinitely semi-protect my talk page. I'm out of Wikipedia, but having to return now and again to remove grave-dancers and trolls is beginning to become tiresome. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 22:03, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
Can you please tell me what is the criteria for becoming a beurocrats Maizbhandariya ( talk) 01:09, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
Thanks tonu Maizbhandariya ( talk) 01:14, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
And what will be the criteria for confirmed user Maizbhandariya ( talk) 01:16, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
Thanks Maizbhandariya ( talk) 01:22, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
Hello, I just wanted to ask if I'm going to be blocked? I noticed the case had been closed but I want to use {{*SPI case status*}} to prove that I'm not a sockpuppet. ( Sapah3 ( talk) 07:10, 19 April 2020 (UTC))
Since I have more time at home now to the present situation; I've decided that I'm going to do a DYK or GA a week until 20 June 2020. I'm here to build an encyclopedia, but because of work and other real life commitments, I've focused my limited time here on CU/OS matters for the last year or two because I thought (and still think) it was probably the best way to deal with the commitments I had while still giving back to a project I care deeply about. I also have the goal of finishing the 17th century conclaves GA series, though I may need to order another book to do that. Anyway, I'm making this challenge and I'll update it weekly. If you want to publicly commit to a goal like this, I'd encourage you to post something to your talk page or even here. Saying you'll try. Most of us came here because of the content and then drifted behind the scenes. Showing a commitment to improving or expanding content by the admin corps is important, and also reminds us of the challenges those who focus primarily on content deal with. TonyBallioni ( talk) 20:36, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi @ TonyBallioni: Recently Innocent Paki was blocked for puppetry]. Is there a reason his block is only for one week instead of indefinite? Alishernavoi ( talk) 21:30, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
Ah, I didnt realize that more than one sock had to be created in order to be indef'ed. I thought it was a "if you sock, you get indeffed" policy. Thanks. Alishernavoi ( talk) 23:36, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
I just wanted to say that I think you gave a fair, thoughtful, reasoned close to the RFC. I didn't participate in the RFC because I couldn't make up my mind, or rather I could see points on all sides, so I admire your willingness to go through all of the arguments and digressions and passion to identify the consensus. Thanks for taking that on. Schazjmd (talk) 23:30, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
Hey! Just to confirm: is MustafaO banned due to 3X (they're not listed as blocked on their use page)? A CU has confirmed sock puppet abuse twice since their initial block. -- MrClog ( talk) 21:32, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Did you get my email? Doug Weller talk 17:55, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for dealing with my fan club last night. That'll teach me not to sign off for something as frivolous as a night's sleep. Cabayi ( talk) 06:32, 28 April 2020 (UTC) |
I need your help for my article Saqib Iqbal Shami to make it more acceptable as per wp gn policies so that it will be added in a good article list thanks have a great day Maizbhandariya ( talk) 17:07, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
Meh.
Well.
Hi TonyBallioni,
Regarding Special:Contributions/Souniel_Yadav, I shouldn't have touched this block without asking you before. I'm stumbling with an alarming frequency regarding checkuserblocks in the recent past. Having a close look at the blocking policy again, as the user wasn't pleading innocence, I hope the decision was in line with it, but I should perhaps better not touch any topic labelled "checkuser" in the next months. I'm sorry.
I hope the decision is fine and mostly a problem for formal reasons only. I'll take a break.
Best regards,
~ ToBeFree (
talk) 10:56, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
Hey Tony,
With regards to your comment on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Icewhiz/Archive#24 April 2020: I'm as familiar with Icewhiz's editing patterns as the OP, yet I wasn't pinged to that case despite his statement that he will "inform several other editors familiar with [this]". My comments had nothing to do with any ongoing content disputes, only with the OP's claims, and his conduct within the TA. The OP regularly states that he wishes to "calm down the TA" and criticizes any use of ANI/AE, yet he makes liberal use of SPI - he has now filed five such requests against Icewhiz, all failed - and makes frequent accusations of "sockpuppeting" against new editors. This sort of conduct is not conducive for building good faith within the TA, is a deterrent of new editors, and a waste of administrators' time.
That said, I appreciate your firmness in this matter. If in the future I find myself in a situation where other editors make off-color comments about myself, I trust I could approach you to enforce the relevant policies to keep discussion on track.
Best regards,
François Robere ( talk) 11:01, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for your advice on the mailing list. The guideline is a bit ambiguous, so it's good that you offered some advice based on your experience. MrClog ( talk) 22:21, 1 May 2020 (UTC) |
Hello Tony Ballioni, I have just checked that a disruptive IP user 176.88.142.166, have been vandalising and making disruptive edits in some Articles, he have been blocked for a period of 48 hours by User:331dot. I asked him so a Check User could be made to verify if he is a Sock Puppet and ban him. I have been checking his edits and he have the same behaviour as a previous SockPuppet that vandalised articles in February March 2020.
Hope you could use that Tool to check on this accounts.
1)
User:RandomAccount13343413
User:RandomAccount1235423
User:KasimMejia
User:Gilesartq
User:SyriaAnalyst
User:Nabu-Kudurri-Usur Yaniv
110.168.30.203
176.88.143.228
2) If not maybe this another account
User:Gala19000
User:Hakan3400
User:Türk260000
Thanks. Mr.User200 ( talk) 23:02, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2020).
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Retaliatory SPI?. Nil Einne ( talk) 04:57, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
If you would consider limiting the scope or duration, I would appreciate it. I do plan on filing a formal appeal. Wikieditor19920 ( talk) 01:05, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
Working fine now. 😀 Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 17:06, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
Miraclepine is requesting unblock on UTRS. They have addressed all the issues and I am inclined to unblock, albeit earlier than anticipated. Please let me know if you are agreeable. Thanks, -- Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 18:10, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, Tony. Restoring TPA sounds like a good first step. But maybe not till tomorrow. -- Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 21:15, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
A while ago it was pointed out that there is a technical error [2], in the article sourcing expectations the text states to cover all articles on the topic of Polish history during World War II (1933-45), but it should state 1939-1945.This wasn't changed. Can somebody fix this or should petition be made?-- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 12:05, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
Hello. I received an email from User:Wumbolo completely out-of-the-blue this afternoon, in which they reported an alleged sock puppet on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tara Reade. I thought the email was odd, and didn't immediately remember that Wumbolo had been indefinitely blocked a few months ago. Seeing as you were the blocking admin, I thought I would bring this to your attention just to be on the safe side. Sorry if this is an overreaction. For reference, the text of the message is as-follows:
There's a sock at
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tara Reade. Napoleonjosephine2020 is a sock of Monab2020. The names are similar, they registered their accounts within an hour, they are both SPAs, and they both posted in a same AfD. This is a bit old situation, but it should be taken care of, so there is no way it can influence the current Tara Reade AfD. Please report it to SPI.
Thanks, KidAd ( talk) 23:29, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
I see you closed this AN thread. No issue with you instating (reinstating) the block. However, I'd like a chance for my proposal to gain consensus. The discussion is obviously not new but my proposal is and so far had a favorable reception. Could it be re-opened so that there would be a chance to see what the consensus for it might be? Thanks and best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 03:41, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
But could someone deal with this sorts of edits? diff -- Ealdgyth ( talk) 12:08, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
There is little I can do, but I've semi-protected a couple of them for really, really long. Drmies ( talk) 00:55, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
Please consider checking contribution made by user: Alex1981march he added a non-notable and fake name to cast list after adding it to IMDB to create a fake reference — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.59.1.61 ( talk) 08:16, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
I trust that this is satisfactory. Now kindly unblock the IP; having to log in is a major nuisance to me. Iaritmioawp ( talk) 20:25, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Editing under multiple IP addresses, or editing under both a named account and as an IP, may be treated as the same level of disruption as editing under multiple accounts when it is done deceptively or otherwise violates the principles of this policy.In my mind, getting into disputes over policy nuances while logged out quite clearly violates the intent of the policy. It also clearly isn't actually a major nuisance for you as evidenced by this message. If you're going to pick fights, log in to do so. TonyBallioni ( talk) 20:33, 22 May 2020 (UTC)