Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Jump to content

User talk:TonyBallioni/Archive 44

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 40←Archive 42Archive 43Archive 44Archive 45Archive 46

New Pages Patrol newsletter June 2023

Hello TonyBallioni,

New Page Review queue April to June 2023

Backlog

Redirect drive: In response to an unusually high redirect backlog, we held a redirect backlog drive in May. The drive completed with 23851 reviews done in total, bringing the redirect backlog to 0 (momentarily). Congratulations to Hey man im josh who led with a staggering 4316 points, followed by Meena and Greyzxq with 2868 and 2546 points respectively. See this page for more details. The redirect queue is steadily rising again and is steadily approaching 4,000. Please continue to help out, even if it's only for a few or even one review a day.

Redirect autopatrol: All administrators without autopatrol have now been added to the redirect autopatrol list. If you see any users who consistently create significant amounts of good quality redirects, consider requesting redirect autopatrol for them here.

WMF work on PageTriage: The WMF Moderator Tools team, consisting of Sam, Jason and Susana, and also some patches from Jon, has been hard at work updating PageTriage. They are focusing their efforts on modernising the extension's code rather than on bug fixes or new features, though some user-facing work will be prioritised. This will help make sure that this extension is not deprecated, and is easier to work on in the future. In the next month or so, we will have an opt-in beta test where new page patrollers can help test the rewrite of Special:NewPagesFeed, to help find bugs. We will post more details at WT:NPPR when we are ready for beta testers.

Articles for Creation (AFC): All new page reviewers are now automatically approved for Articles for Creation draft reviewing (you do not need to apply at WT:AFCP like was required previously). To install the AFC helper script, visit Special:Preferences, visit the Gadgets tab, tick "Yet Another AFC Helper Script", then click "Save". To find drafts to review, visit Special:NewPagesFeed, and at the top left, tick "Articles for Creation". To review a draft, visit a submitted draft, click on the "More" menu, then click "Review (AFCH)". You can also comment on and submit drafts that are unsubmitted using the script.

You can review the AFC workflow at WP:AFCR. It is up to you if you also want to mark your AFC accepts as NPP reviewed (this is allowed but optional, depends if you would like a second set of eyes on your accept). Don't forget that draftspace is optional, so moves of drafts to mainspace (even if they are not ready) should not be reverted, except possibly if there is conflict of interest.

Pro tip: Did you know that visual artists such as painters have their own SNG? The most common part of this "creative professionals" criteria that applies to artists is WP:ARTIST 4b (solo exhibition, not group exhibition, at a major museum) or 4d (being represented within the permanent collections of two museums).

Reminders

Loose cannon

Regarding this comment: did you mean to say that it would hurt you more than help you? isaacl (talk) 02:19, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm an idiot. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:25, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
I was trying to think of other possibilities (maybe it would help more than hurt to have an endorsement from a loose cannon that was an admin versus one who was not), but a simple reversal of words seemed to be most likely possibility. isaacl (talk) 02:31, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

New pages patrol needs your help!

New pages awaiting review as of June 30th, 2023.

Hello TonyBallioni,

The New Page Patrol team is sending you this impromptu message to inform you of a steeply rising backlog of articles needing review. If you have any extra time to spare, please consider reviewing one or two articles each day to help lower the backlog. You can start reviewing by visiting Special:NewPagesFeed. Thank you very much for your help.

Reminders:

Sent by Zippybonzo using MediaWiki message delivery at 06:59, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – July 2023

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2023).

Administrator changes

added Novem Linguae
removed

Bureaucrat changes

removed MBisanz

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

  • Two arbitration cases are currently open. Proposed decisions are expected 5 July 2023 for the Scottywong case and 9 July 2023 for the AlisonW case.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:59, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious
Six years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:24, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

My block some years ago

Could explain me my block from some years ago? There was no evidence presented, no diffs, and there were also no signs of disruptive editing, edit warring reports or others that I tried to manipulate voting outcomes nor did I receive a message at my talk pages. You seem to have opened the investigation, then also closed it by yourself and after blocked me indef. with no talk page nor email access. For what? I have presented now also a case where there was rather obvious evidence (battleground behavior on same pages on same topic of discussions exactly the same article of the same author, both created the same article in the relevant wikis on Kurdish immigration into Syria...etc.) and the report I made was closed with no action taken. Would be grateful if you could explain me a bit what is a valid report.

Paradise Chronicle (talk) 06:12, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Gladly - I've already explained it to you over email, but I am more than happy to explain it publicly. You were blocked on a sister project as an abusive sockmaster and remain blocked there as one. A steward reported you to me as a crosswiki sockmaster who was engaging in similar conduct here with multiple accounts that led to you being blocked on de.wiki, one of the hardest project to get sock blocked on. Essentially, your initial edits, which you classify as reverting vandalism, were classic ethno-nationalist debates over what languages to include on pages. New editors who are blocked on other projects who then come to our project to continue their struggle to right great wrongs are inherently disruptive.
As you admitted to me via email, you then deceived the arbitration committee into unblocking you. Based on a minor technical detail that in my opinion should not have led to an unblock because of how strong the totality of the technical evidence was, they unblocked you as an assume good faith block. I strongly opposed that unblock and was unwilling to make it myself as I do not believe in unblocking socks who view Wikipedia as a battle ground for ethnic conflict, which you apparently still do based on that SPI, which multiple CUs told you did not have sufficient evidence to run a check, but you insisted it did.
So the short of it - you were an ethnic battleground sockmaster blocked on another project. We always block ethnic battleground sockmasters, especially if blocked on sister projects. It was an easy block to make, and it was the right call. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:29, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for the additional information on the blocking process which you follow. I didn't know about the Steward. And since you mention our email conversation, you didn't reply to my last email in which I was rather open and voluntarily shared some information that might help in adapting the CU process. I approached you after I felt I was to oppose a candidate you promoted for an RfA, which I then didn't believe was fair to the candidate and then supported the candidacy.
Yes, I did deceive the Arbcom at the time, but I felt harassed. By editors like you, or who you believe. So I applied WP:IAR which is allowed if it is for the better of wikipedia. The Arb who answered me when I came clear to them, made me understand that the English ArbCom has no authority over the German wikipedia, so that block there doesn't affect my situation in the English wikipedia except if I was explicitly told so. You didn't tell me about the block in the German Wikipedia, nor did the ArbCom mention it during my appeal. Yet you again claim the block was correct! Actually you could just apologize and say you'll not consider a block in a sister project for a block in the English wikipedia again. The block in the German Wikipedia was motivated by 3 (out of a total 8) constructive, undisputed and still valid edits such as here, here and here.
In the English wikipedia I doubt such a report would be made for constructive edits by an experienced editor, much less considered. Also my other German account was not blocked at the time nor is it today.
On your comment about my SPI report being If you had reviewed my SPI report in the English wiki, you'd have noticed I filed the report motivated by the fact that the suspected sock had begun making the same discussion with the same editor who had held a very similar discussion before with the account with the TBAN.
If that is viewing Wikipedia as a battleground and won't be considered,...ok, I learn. It was my first report and based on successful reports with much lesser evidence such as the one against me.
Then that you classify reverting edits by an at least disruptive and eventually blocked IP, as ethno-nationalist debates that merit a block, leaves me a bit wondering how many constructive editors you might have blocked mistakenly. You can also apply some AGF and be glad someone is adding a source to something that usually doesn't need a source.
I'd be interested in the CU process getting adapted so other editors blocked in sister projects do not automatically get blocked in the English wikipedia. If they are disruptive ok, they merit a first temporary block. If they are constructive, they should be allowed to edit. What are your ideas on this? Paradise Chronicle (talk) 00:51, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
You are correct that I did not reply to your last email, which contained the admission that you lied to the arbitration committee to get unblocked followed by advising me on how to be a better CU. You clearly violated policy by using multiple accounts, were engaged in ethnic battleground conduct, have been warned by the arbitration committee since then for conduct in that same area, and are now using SPI to target other editors in that same area, while using your block for cross-wiki socking in the same area to justify a check without mentioning that you lied to get an unblock, and that you then after the unblock posted on your talk page with your own sock account to pretend to be different people and apologize to yourself for getting blocked.
To be blunt: you were not a constructive editor then, and you were not blocked by mistake. You were blocked for a clear sock policy violation, with rock solid technical evidence, after having been blocked for the same thing on another project, and coming here to continue the same disruptive conduct. And the only reason you are unblocked now is because you lied to get unblocked. IAR does not apply to inherently unethical behaviour such as lying, which is corrosive in any community.
I'm not going to relitigate your block - I've clearly explained why I made a 3 year old block now two times in two different years. I'm also not at all interested in making the sock policy looser. If someone is being disruptive here with multiple accounts, as you were, they should be blocked.
Also, for what it is worth, Paradise Chronicle, your page User:Paradise Chronicle/Diff Archive is a clear violation of WP:POLEMIC because you're storing diffs against Daniel Case and Lee Vilenski while providing negative commentary. You also added a diff of my block of you to it recently, which I don't really mind - I have no problem pointing people to this conversation if they have questions about it.
Anyway, now that we've done this exercise for two years in a row, I'd ask that you drop the stick. TonyBallioni (talk) 08:00, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) I've looked over this discussion and I can find no fault with TonyBallioni's synopsis and previous actions. I agree that User:Paradise Chronicle/Diff Archive was problematic. I also agree there are sticks which should be dropped here and now, if User:Paradise Chronicle wants to avoid being blocked on en.wikipedia as well. BusterD (talk) 12:30, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
Just a quick note that I don't really care if someone stores diffs of comments I've made, but I'd rather have a conversation about it. I had a look at the archive and I can't really see what's wrong with my diff, but it's a lot nicer than finding out you are being stored later. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:24, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
Let me one up Buster and say I've looked over this discussion, the 2019/2020 unblock appeal and the 2021 "coming clean" thread in the ArbCom archives (the last of which I was on the committee for but have no recollection of) and say I find Tony's block entirely appropriate and with-in policy. The desire to get some kind of wrong admitted makes me question if the 2021 decision to do nothing after the coming clean disclosure was the right one. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:24, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
You are all aware that the initial question was quite friendly? I just wanted to know what was a valid report in order not to repeat a faulty one again.
In mine there was no diff presented. Not in the original SPI, nor in this discussion. I believe CU must be able to decide upon diffs and evidence. If anyone is interested in adapting the CU process constructively, get in touch. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 18:02, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
@Paradise Chronicle Looking back at the 2021 thread, I'm surprised I didn't move to have you ArbCom blocked. In hindsight, I think the Committee screwed up, and I think I screwed up too. I don't think it was as much as a mea culpa as Barkeep does. But our failure to reblock you is a sort of bank error in your favor, to borrow an expression from Monopoly. Regardless, I must say that you come off as callous and arrogant to openly admit you lied to and decieved ArbCom, and then have the gall to call out Tony for blocking you in the first place. If this is an attempt to change the sockpuppetry guidelines, it is both misplaced and misguided. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 21:39, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
As Eek hints in her reply, having reviewed the situation I think the 2021 Committee (myself included) messed up in not seriously discussing some kind of sanction. Especially given that the Committee had formally warned you only a few months before. And while I certainly wouldn't call your remarks to Tony unfriendly, the firm desire to get him to admit he's wrong goes far beyond I just wanted to know what was a valid report in order not to repeat a faulty one again. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:54, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
Reading through this thread, Paradise Chronicle, your comments come off as trolling, centered around an odd form of sealioning ("what is a valid report"). If you must right the great wrong of your past, then please note that it is a two-way street. You would be better off, I think, taking a yes for an answer (i.e. you shouldn't have been unblocked, you should have been (re)blocked in 2021, yet here we are today). That said, I don't think ArbCom would be in wrong at least discussing the merits of an {{ArbComBlock}} here; having served with many of the sitting arbitrators, I can see how there would be at least a few supporting a block. Maxim (talk) 22:35, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
  • I see my talk page has become an interesting place. I have a few thoughts and things to say on this to different people, but first I do want to thank the current and former members of the committee who have commented on this: I don't want to rehash old disputes, but I appreciate the openness here more than you all know.
    Next, I'll talk to Paradise Chronicle since they keep making insinuations and asking questions:
  1. As a CheckUser I do not have to publicly reveal the reasons for my checks, link diffs for why I made it publicly, or even file an SPI. You keep implying that something was out of process here because I opened and closed the own SPI with minimal diffs. That's fairly normal practice so that others are aware and can file future cases. I didn't have to do that, but I did in part because of the de.wiki block. There was the possibility this would come up on sister projects, and usually it is more helpful for them to have a public case.
  2. The ongoing insinuation here is that anyone who is creating content for the project is a constructive sock and is not being disruptive; as some people who have commented know, and I have commented here, I have really strong views on lying: it destroys trust and creates an unhealthy environment. Socking by being two users in the same area, especially if contentious, is essentially lying. Starting to good hand accounts and then developing them independently to earn community trust in a contentious area, such as the relationships between Kurds and their neighbours, is a fairly common technique used by disruptive nationalist users before engaging in tag teaming or other similar behaviour. That's disruptive because it undermines the ability of the community to adequately self-govern and control for users who use this project to push an agenda.
  3. Assume good faith goes both ways: established users fighting with IP addresses and the IP getting blocked despite being right is also a very common thing in the ethno-nationalist dispute areas. Typically both users who are engaged in reverting place names between languages are being disruptive. The IP was blocked, but you were also edit warring with it, and no, admins are not going to pick a side on what languages to include in an article.
  4. You insinuations about your de.wiki block are misleading at best: you were blocked as a sock because of disruption on your main account in the areas you were editing on en.wiki Google Translate of that block discussion. Google Translate isn't perfect, but it paints a different scenario of the situation than you do. Yes, the individual account's edits may have been uncontroversial but two bring two socks to edit in an area that a large sister project has already determined you behave problematically, while not reason for a block itself, can be considered since cross-wiki disruption is a valid reason for a check. You also had more than one sock on de.wiki, not just the one you operated here. That means you already knew that socking wasn't allowed, and did it anyway - the assumption that you didn't know what you were doing can go out the window based on behvaiour elsewhere.
  5. Anyone who says that they're just here to have a conversation to help someone improve while telling them how wrong they were about something they were not in fact wrong about is not behaving in good faith, in real life or on Wikipedia. Wikipedia policy requires I be civil in my response to you and to respond to your requests as an admin. It does not require me to agree with you or to back down. In fact, accountability for blocks will often involve explaining why a block was made in terms that will make the person requesting it look unflattering.

Now to address the question about blocks since its been implied here and I know some people want to know what I think:

  1. ArbCom should have reblocked Paradise Chronicle in 2021 especially given the context of a recent arb case. But they didn't, that was two years ago and it is not within the norm of the English Wikipedia practice to reblock for something 2 years after an event admitting a fairly large error and 3.5 years after the initial block.
  2. The fact that you PC lied to ArbCom, emailed me about it after the fact, decided to voluntarily [share] some information that might help in adapting the CU process in said email, and then essentially repeated the exercise over again after CUs refused to get involved with a dispute with an Arab user at SPI can absolutely be considered as a part of a potential block for current behaviour, as can the history on de.wiki in forming our understanding of how they act.
  3. Their history over the last few months isn't exactly great this is how their user subpage collecting diffs about people they dislike looks after I warned them and this was how it looked before. To be fair, the diffs are also educational for how Paradise Chronicle behaves with people. If you look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/عمرو_بن_كلثوم/Archive#29_June_2023 you'll see the immediate incident that led to this: two CUs declined to run a check on a user that Paradise Chronicle was in conflict with. I archived it along with several others that day, and they came here asking me both to explain their block and why other CUs didn't feel comfortable running a check on an established user on multiple project just because they agreed with someone of their presumably similar ethnic background. You'll also see a demand for an explanation of how they got blocked there.
  4. And this is how their userpage looked at the time they initiated this conversation. You'll see both I and the German Wikipedia get shout outs. Not exactly a polemic violation, but also not really the best look.
  5. And as I was writing this this post on Maxim's talk page came through.

All that to say: I think there's actually a pretty strong case here for a long-term tendentious editing block, but if it happens, it should come as a normal admin action. The fact that they lied to get unblocked is now public since they said it here. No reason for the committee to step in for a 2-3.5 year old problem. It can publicly be decided by other admins or the community if there is a current problem needing addressing. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:10, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Just to correct a few a bit heavy accusations against me. I first emailed the ArbCom in 2021 and admitted I deceived them following which they told be there was no issue and the block in the German Wikipedia didn't affect me at the English Wikipedia except if I was explicitly told so. That I came clear on the block was public for quite some time at my user page since January 2022. The other account was not active outside my userspace since my unblock in January 2020, so all the issue that I was establishing two accounts in the same contentious area...Also look at my talk page edits with any user, if you check 5, I am sure 4 are collaborative and I'd like to know which of my edits are deemed battleground behavior, I don't believe there are any. If you check some, you'd find multiple friendly edits.
Then I was not told that the block had something to do with the block in the German wiki until I read it from you in March 2022. That you opposed the unblock and that my reverting a disruptive IP is seen as ethno-nationalist debate by you...I view as a bit offensive. I and Semsuri added sources to what we re-added and it was made sure in good faith. You could just as well be glad someone adds sources and doesn't edit war with no improvement. But you turned it around and blocked me. Then on why I tried to give advice for CU processes. I was blocked, yet I edit rather constructively and reasonably successful under the same account. Isn't that an obvious mistake an admin would be interested to correct? I believe CUs should review the block in a sister project before blocking someone in the English wikipedia. And if the block was for constructive or minor edits, approach them in good faith with your concern, instead of blocking them to prevent abuse.
To reply on 4. My first SPI investigation was not motivated by some ethnic issue but for both accounts engaging in the same discussions with the same editor (which was not me) on the same article, both creating the same article in different projects... And on your so well established editor...here the findings of the ArbCom for your well established editor, an anti-Kurdish POV pusher they were found to be. But who cares.... Paradise Chronicle (talk) 05:10, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
I'm not getting into a back and forth with you any more. I've answered you as required under WP:ADMINACCT, and you're either not understanding what I said or are misrepresenting it. The last thing I will say to you on this matter is this because I want it to be clear: you were not blocked for what happened on de.wiki. I have never claimed that. Your de.wiki block for socking did however provide justification for a check on your account when another user reported you to me, and the fact that you had at least one sock blocked there showed that there was no need for a warning since you would have known that Wikimedia projects do not allow what you were doing on en.wiki. This is because you don't become a new person when you switch the project you are on. Your behaviour here was a violation of our policy on the abuse of multiple accounts, and that was why you were blocked. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:04, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Hi folks. I've looked over all the archives from 2019 to 2021, and full disclosure, I didn't participate in any of the threads (save for a minor grumble regarding the accuracy of the CU tool) - Having gone over them, I see the following. Paradise Chronicle contacted the committee from two accounts, disavowing knowledge of the other but writing it awkwardly. He also copped to some other socking from the secondary account. Combined with some technical grey area and some significant committee burnout, we incorrectly accepted the appeal. In 2021, they wrote to us and admitted to socking, and apologised, largely to grumble about German wiki. They were told that sanctions on de.wp do not prevent editing on en.wp - not that they do not affect it.
    There was a suggestion within the thread that Paradise Chronicle should make the comments publicly, so that the community, and more importantly TonyBallioni could receive the deserved apology - I wish that had been said at the time. I don't blame the committee at the time for not acting on that confession, we don't like to dragging up the past when someone is not acting poorly, but with hindsight, we should have blocked then and there. Maxim is right, there are discussions ongoing about whether to re-instate Paradise Chronicle's block today. I'm unimpressed by the invocation of IAR which slides away from "This action improves the encyclopedia" and into "The action gets what I want". I'm also disappointed that Paradise Chronicle is bothering Tony to suggest that he'd done something wrong in how he'd worked, where Tony was clearly correct in his behaviour throughout. WormTT(talk) 09:31, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Hi all. Just want to note for anyone following this thread that the Committee is currently considering a motion to block at WP:ARM. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 14:48, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
Yo L235 that's now a site ban, just FTR. SN54129 15:20, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

SPI

Thanks Tony : )

I wasn't sure how that worked, they seem to have clerks closing things in some cases.

I'd help out more there (I had in the past), but I just don't feel sure of my footing there, especially as to what I should do when I do think there is a duck test fail.

And obviously if I don't feel comfortable or confident in the process, I'm not going to use the block tool. lol

Anyway, thanks again, I appreciate it : ) - jc37 04:30, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for being willing to help out Jc37. There was a recent thread on the functionaries list about patrolling admins and clerks and the need for more admins at SPI. Something Reaper Eternal did on another SPI was point out to an admin that they could also close a case, and I figured it worth following his practice (which is also generally just a good thing.) We'd love to have more help at SPI if you're willing - closing cases where there's no sufficient evidence is something any admin can do and would be a real help, as would be making any blocks where behavioural evidence merits it. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:35, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – August 2023

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2023).

Administrator changes

added Firefangledfeathers
removed

Interface administrator changes

added Novem Linguae

Technical news

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:54, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Regarding information about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interior_Schwarzschild_metric

Dear TonyBallioni, I wanted some information about the page tagged here. There's a table on this page that lists parameters for some astronomical objects (Earth, Sun, White Dwarf and Neutron Star). I wanted to know if this table has a relevant source like a research article or a book. Would be happy if you could provide information about the same.

Regards, JackPhy JackPhy (talk) 10:23, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi JackPhy, unfortunately I know nothing about this topic. It doesn't look like there's an inline citation, but it could theoretically be in one of the sources provided in the footnotes. I'd suggest looking in those. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:37, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

About your blocking of IPs

1. Morning, nice to talk to you 2. I've noticed you've blocked a lot of IPs with low edit counts. Personally, I am a fan of those blocks as those IPs have been reverting everything and anything, but I'd just like to know what was the reason you blocked them?🤔 Becausewhynothuh? (talk) 06:33, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Becausewhynothuh?, usually it is because CheckUser indicates there is activity on the range or IP that can benefit from a block. Basically I am able to see things other people can't and policy allows me to block based on that. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:00, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
ohhhh 😲 that's new. Keep doing what you do! Becausewhynothuh? (talk) 01:55, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

LTA

That LTA is editing under 39.33.0.128 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) at Talk:Necropolis. Thanks. 2601:1C0:4401:F60:592C:6755:67BE:F9D9 (talk) 20:14, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Is that George Reeves Person? Just guessing because of the admin who dealt with it in the past. I thought we had a filter to deal with him. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:13, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Quick CU requests

Are patrolling admins allowed to decline these requests? BTW, you didn't decline the recent (very silly) one; you removed it. Makes it easier for the bot. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 23:19, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

You were always the expert on SPI procedure. I'd say do whatever you would have told anyone who asked you the question to do . My opinion is that if something is obviously a no, feel free to turn the template to decline since someone else will have the chance to look at it before the bot does its job. Yeah, I tend to remove and/or delete items that no one is going to action. Saves space and moves any dispute to my talk page rather than having a project space page with limited activity become a place where people are arguing. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:02, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
The SPI procedures are silent on the issue. However, I suspect I'd say no if someone asked me, but honestly this request was frivolous ("obvious" as you say). I don't know what you're talking about in the rest of your comment - no one ever argues on Wikipedia.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:44, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tritschler brothers

Hi Tony,

I was a little surprised by this close; while the numbers were equal, those who favored supporting only referenced WP:IARs, while those who favored deleted made policy-based arguments.

Considering this, there appears to be a consensus to delete, as ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy. BilledMammal (talk) 12:20, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, but the numbers also matter, because otherwise supervoting would be the way we decided things. GNG is not a policy, it is a guideline, which means occasional exceptions may apply. That discussion had been relisted twice. Participants acknowledged that they were making an IAR argument (i.e. an intentional deviation from the guideline) and justified why it made sense to do so under the circumstances. These were established users with understanding of policy and guidelines who were making a specific appeal to a policy (which IAR is) and justifying it with reasoning based on underlying principles that we follow as a project as a whole.
You can't just ignore that. These aren't sock accounts or new accounts making ILIKEIT arguments. They're established users considering what the guideline is, and making a specific case for why the guideline doesn't work in this circumstance. I would have relisted if it was the first week, but this had already been relisted twice and you were not able to convince enough other people that the keep side was wrong to form a consensus to delete. They also weren't able to convince enough other people to ignore all rules to form a consensus to keep. So I closed as no consensus. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:21, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
My concern is that the WP:IAR's argument directly rejects a strong global consensus - that articles on sportspeople must include at least one source containing SIGCOV before we can consider keeping them.
If that consensus didn't exist I wouldn't have been surprised by the no consensus close, but since that consensus does exist I feel that per WP:LOCALCON we should be following it; discussions involving just a handful of editors, particularly ones that don't present a clear majority in favor of the IAR position, shouldn't be rejecting explicitly applicable consensuses. BilledMammal (talk) 14:29, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
WP:IAR is a policy; one of the WP:FIVEPILLARS of the website. It is just as (if not, more so) policy-based an argument as a change to a guideline. Good close, TonyBallioni. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:42, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
You're also forgetting what WP:IAR means, BilledMammal - it means ignore all rules (i.e. SPORTCRIT, NSPORT, etc.) BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:45, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Local discussions can determine that the overall consensus does not apply in a specific case. That did not happen here. There would have been a much higher level needed to achieve that, but there wasn't also an active consensus for deletion, which we require for the use of admin tools to remove an article and its history.
What you're essentially saying is that when closing, reasoned opposition that specifically cites rationale for why to apply IAR argued by established editors who are familiar with our policies and guidelines should be ignored. That is not how we assess consensus. AfD as a whole is generally going to end up with articles being deleted. This AfD was relisted 2 times, and there was substantive discussion by experienced community members, but a consensus was not reached to delete the article. Nor was one reached to keep it. The only way to reach a delete result would have been to ignore the well-reasoned opinions of established community members on why this was a case where departure from a guideline made sense. That is not an appropriate thing for a closer to do, since departure from guidelines is more common than departure from policies, and since the discussion was relisted enough times that if there was actually wide support for deleting this article, people would have had the opportunity to comment.
I'm not saying there is a keep consensus. I'm saying there wasn't support for using the delete tool and that the only way to get there would be to super-vote. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:47, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
To explain my position perhaps a little better, my understanding of the intersection between WP:LOCALCON and WP:IAR is that you can't justify an argument that has been rejected at a higher CONLEVEL with IAR. The reason I believe this is because it opens the flood gates to relitigating the discussions that formed the policy or guideline.
To apply this to this AfD, the IAR argument here, as I understand it, was that these were historical figures, and that there was a difference in coverage compared to modern figures and there is a difficulty in accessing sources. However, this was an argument that was made - many times - in WP:NSPORTS2022#Subproposal 5, and was rejected by the community in the same discussion. BilledMammal (talk) 23:16, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
If your understanding of how consensus worked was correct, there wouldn't be a need for AfD and we would just have WP:CSD. The discussion you are citing established a guideline not a policy, and our procedures on these shows that there can be departures in individual circumstances. Even if this was a policy, policies and guidelines are applied in individual circumstances by the community members participating in the discussions on pages. When a discussion has been left open for weeks and enough community support isn't there to implement what you see as the global consensus on this specific page, that is an indication there is not consensus for the action despite what the policy or guideline might say. We require an active consensus of editors before taking deletion action on something that might be controversial.
That did not exist here, and you can't wave that away on "strength of the arguments", which is essentially a wikilawyer response for the discussion did not go like I think it should have gone, please change the outcome to my preferred outcome. This is also a no consensus outcome, not a keep outcome. You can try again in a few months if you feel that strongly about it. But our procedures and practice on determining consensus do not allow me to disregard the comments of established editors after substantial discussion because you think they should have read guidelines a different way or because you disagree with their rationale for wanting to carve out an exemption in this case. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:49, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
If your understanding of how consensus worked was correct, there wouldn't be a need for AfD and we would just have WP:CSD. Not at all. There are valid disagreements within the confines of our policies and guidelines - for instance, editors can have reasonable disagreements on what constitutes WP:SIGCOV (although unreasonable disagreements, such as arguing a single sentence of coverage constitutes SIGCOV or arguing that 100 sentences does not, should be dismissed by the closer). AfD also gives space for editors to identify sources that the nominator missed.
Considering this more broadly: How do you propose that the community says that "this argument is rejected"? Obviously, this is necessary, as otherwise WP:LOCALCONSENSUS has no weight; without such a mechanism editors can just throw up arguments that were rejected at a broader consensus, say "Ignore all rules", and get a result that the broader community has already rejected. BilledMammal (talk) 00:06, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
The broader community can reject arguments on the implementation of guidelines by participating in a discussion at AfD. It really is that simple. Consensus can change and there are individual cases where the broader guidance might not work perfectly. Also there are cases where when new guidance comes out, how it is enforced is unclear. That is all determined based on practice, which is the fundamental building block of all of our policies and guidelines. If people are unwilling to enforce a guideline at AfD consistently, and you consistently get no consensus closures, that is an indication that the RfC or guideline as written does not conform with community consensus. AfD isn't really local - it is a community-wide process where individual articles are discussed for at a minimum one week, and where our PAG are applied to individual articles. Does it have the same level of weight as a global RfC? No. Is it broader than a talk page discussion and involving more points of view? Certainly.
Going back to this specific case: our deletion policy requires an active consensus for administrators to delete an article: that can either be achieved via CSD, where the community has agreed that something does not need discussion before hard deletion; PROD, where the community has allowed for soft deletion ahead of discussion in cases likely to be non-controversial; or AfD, where the community discusses whether or not to delete an article. In this case you had multiple established editors with experience applying our policies and guidelines offering a variety of different viewpoints that were in conflict, and all of them, including you, had strong points to make. Yours were backed up by a guideline. Another interpreted the guideline differently from you. And others made an argument for why this specific article was not a good article to apply the guideline to using more than just ILIKEIT, but a thoughtful analysis that accounts for the totality of the circumstance, which is one of the reasons we have AfD. In order to get to the point where there was a consensus to delete, I would literally have to count comments arguing for keeping it, as arguing for deletion or ignore them completely. That is simply not how community-wide consensus has ever been applied on the English Wikipedia. Guidelines provide principles, but then how they are implemented remains a case-by-case issue until we have the practice sorted out.
It's also well worth noting that I did not close this as keep, but as no consensus. In a few months it might turn out that the community can come to a consensus on this. But it did not in the AfD that you started. And I am not going to super vote it to delete. I don't really know what else I can tell you. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:40, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
But IAR was only explicitly invoked by two editors, one of which was only "weakly". The other keep !votes were an editor arguing that the 2-3 single-sentence mentions were each SIGCOV and thus met GNG (which both the delete !voters and the IAR keep !voters clearly disputed), and a !vote with no stated P&G-based rationale by an editor with, at the time, only ~40 edits... There was strong consensus that this topic did not meet GNG, so IMO the argument for IAR would need to be quite strong to join the small number of "exceptions" to guidelines noted by ROUGHCON. One IAR !vote, one weak IAR !vote, and one !vote that might be agreeing with the first IAR !vote but that doesn't offer a valid rationale itself, is hardly a strong rebuttal to the deletion reasoning. JoelleJay (talk) 00:17, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
Not to be snarky, but you've written a great summary for why this is a no consensus close. The consensus was not strong enough to close as keep. But those of you advocating for delete were also unable to get significant support for implementing your proposed outcome, and it can be assumed that those who gave a long enough explanation supporting SIGCOV would have been fine with the IAR rationales as well for keeping rather than deleting it. I've had AfDs I thought went the absolute wrong way on keep before and there was no guideline or policy strong commentary for keeping (the AfD history of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tiger versus lion (3rd nomination) before the final one is the worst misinterpretation of GNG in the history of the project.) It doesn't mean I think the administrators who closed it should have used their tools when there clearly wasn't a consensus for them to use their tools. Even if the reasoning behind that was weak. This isn't even there: it is no consensus, because no consensus existed either way. In a few months, you or someone else can test that consensus again, and hopefully one will have developed either to keep or delete. But using admin tools now to delete it would be an abuse of discretion beyond what policy allows in my opinion. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:49, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
In this AfD we're starting from a requirement that the topic both meets GNG and the article contains a SIGCOV IRS source. We have 4 !votes to delete that are based on the fact that neither of those criteria is met, which at least two keep !voters even agreed with. The SIGCOV keep is solidly rebutted by both sides and so should be weighed much less. Then we have an IAR keep and a weak IAR keep. Shouldn't IAR arguments be very persuasive, i.e. convince a lot of people, for them to carry any weight in the first place? Because by their nature the reasoning behind them is not something that can be interpreted by a closer in any way other than !vote counting. Otherwise, what's stopping every ILIKEIT !vote from just citing IAR? If we could just assume everyone !voting to keep with a poor/unsupported/non-PAG-based rationale was implicitly also putting forth an IAR rationale, what would be the point of ever weighing arguments vis-a-vis their adherence to PAGs? JoelleJay (talk) 21:44, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
When people are explicitly saying that they do not think something should be deleted, you don't get to use their arguments to count in support of your point of view. They were saying it shouldn't be deleted in spite of that and then giving a well-reasoned rationale as for why. I never once said that we can assume that anything that wasn't in line with policy was a valid invocation of IAR. I said that two commenters who are experienced participants in the project and understand our policies and guidelines explicitly invoked it with a valid a reasoned rationale. The other keep vote went into great detail as to why she felt it met GNG (you disagreed) and the discussion went on three weeks. The burden is on those arguing in favour of deletion to make a case for deletion based on policies and guidelines that convinces the community that deletion is in the best interest of the project. The nomination and other delete voters did not do that after 3 weeks. And you are correct, the keep commenters didn't get an overwhelming response either, which is why I did not close it as keep, but as no consensus.
As I mentioned above, strength of the arguments when used during a close challenge usually means the people who disagree with the challenge are mad that they didn't get their way. Obviously you think your arguments are stronger. That is why you made them. But I think your understanding of the role of the closer in closing discussions doesn't give enough credit to the role of individual participants in discussions in applying the global consensus we have. There is a reason we have discussions: its because our policies and guidelines are written on principles that are generally applicable, but that rely on local implementation. The policies and guidelines should also reflect practice as ultimately consensus is what we do. The interplay between a community-wide RfC, it's implementation as a guideline or policy on the policy page, and then it's application to individual articles is complex and a dance between varying layers and levels of consensus.
If after three weeks, the community at a community-wide board such as AfD, with multiple participants who are not involved on this article and are not partisans either way in the sports notability fight, is unwilling to agree that based on our the policies and guidelines we have as well as the principles that underly them that an article should be deleted, and administrator does not have the authority to delete. No matter how strong the people who are arguing for deletion think there arguments might be. It requires community consensus to delete an article, either via an established CSD, silence (PROD) or a deletion discussion. The first two didn't occur here, and a consensus did not develop in the discussion. That means I cannot delete it.
Your best bet here if you feel really strongly that this article should be deleted is to nominate it again in 2-3 months. It was a no consensus close so that would be reasonable. WP:DRV is also an option to you, but overturning a no consensus close to delete in these circumstances in my judgement would be fairly unlikely since this outcome is at the very least within the norm of admin discretion. Not saying that to discourage you from seeking further review, but if what you actually are saying is that deletion of this article would improve the encyclopedia, you're probably better off waiting 2-3 months since a deletion review and then re-nomination would likely make it harder to delete because people would get tired of seeing it around. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:28, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
The bigger issue for me is that not only was there no establishment of GNG notability here, there also was no identification of the singular GNG-contributing SIGCOV source that global consensus requires must be cited for any athlete article to be in mainspace. So IMO an IAR argument needs to be extremely strong to overcome both the overall lack of evidence of subject notability and the additional non-compliance with SPORTSBASIC #5.
and are not partisans either way in the sports notability fight
Inasmuch as anyone is "partisan" on the sports notability front, I would say at the very least BilledMammal, me, and BF are definitely "on one side or the other". BF has been admonished at ANI for inappropriate invocations of IAR at sports AfDs in the past (although I don't feel this instance was improper), so this isn't exactly a new point of contention.
Anyway, I appreciate your continued engagement with me here and I do understand where you're coming from with the close. JoelleJay (talk) 00:53, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
FWIW, saying that I was admonished at ANI for inappropriate invocations of IAR at sports AfDs is incorrect; at said ANI, there was no consensus for anything, not even a warning or even an advisement (both of which were proposed). BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:08, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
fwiw, I don't find that part of the discussion relevant here. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:46, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
No worries, I believe strongly in accountability which I think you'll find based on my archive: I can explain myself to death even when someone disagrees with me strongly. Not everyone says that is a positive trait, but it is at a minimum what is required of policy
Actual advice: if you want to make WP:N a policy and not a guideline, propose an RfC (also, fwiw, N is much more expansive than just the GNG, but the internal tensions of N and the different consensuses documented within it has been a fight for a decade or more.)
Currently it is not and historically the community has rejected the idea of elevating it to a policy. That means local consensus has more sway over outcomes because of the weird interplay between documented guidelines and our enforcement of them. Generally the idea is that policies and guidelines reflect what we do and don't drive what we do. Policies show that there is overwhelming support for a practice and are much harder to claim IAR or deviation from (but still is possible with consensus depending on the circumstance.) Guidelines show broad community support for a general way of doing things that should overall be upheld in the supermajority of cases, but can be deviated from more easily in individual circumstances than we'd expect of a policy. If you go off the principle that policies and guidelines reflect what we do... guidelines is a much better category for N because AfD isn't uniform in it's application: to the chagrin of both deletionists and inclusionists. Not directly related to why you all are here, but my musing philosphical, which I am wont to do. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:46, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2023

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2023).

Guideline and policy news

  • Following an RfC, TFAs will be automatically semi-protected the day before it is on the main page and through the day after.
  • A discussion at WP:VPP about revision deletion and oversight for dead names found that [s]ysops can choose to use revdel if, in their view, it's the right tool for this situation, and they need not default to oversight. But oversight could well be right where there's a particularly high risk to the person. Use your judgment.

Technical news

Arbitration

  • The SmallCat dispute case has closed. As part of the final decision, editors participating in XfD have been reminded to be careful about forming local consensus which may or may not reflect the broader community consensus. Regular closers of XfD forums were also encouraged to note when broader community discussion, or changes to policies and guidelines, would be helpful.

Miscellaneous

  • Tech tip: The "Browse history interactively" banner shown at the top of Special:Diff can be used to easily look through a history, assemble composite diffs, or find out what archive something wound up in.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:22, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Battle of Vidohovë

Hello , I would like to know why you deleted Battle of vidohove article 7 days ago . No one refuted the proof given on why page should be kept . Please return it

Thabk you 62.205.98.231 (talk) 18:40, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Because Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Vidohovë (2nd nomination) had a consensus to delete (i.e. 3 people wanted to delete it, and the one person who argued keep didn't provide sufficient argumentation to cause a relist and other individuals engaged with their argument and provided sufficient justification to delete.) I'm not going to restore it. If you want, you can challenge the close at WP:DRV. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:26, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

New page patrol October 2023 Backlog drive

New Page Patrol | October 2023 Backlog Drive
  • On 1 October, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin.
  • Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled.
  • Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive.
  • Articles will earn 3x as many points compared to redirects.
  • Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:14, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Viewing deleted article

Hi, could I please see this article Vernon Jones (actor) that you deleted. I was the creator of it. Davidgoodheart (talk) 03:17, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi, I'm not willing to restore an article on a missing person to draft or user space, and I personally don't feel comfortable emailing that article to you. If you can find another admin who is willing to send you a copy of it via email, I don't object, though. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:47, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

New pages patrol newsletter

Hello TonyBallioni,

New Page Review article queue, March to September 2023

Backlog update: At the time of this message, there are 11,300 articles and 15,600 redirects awaiting review. This is the highest backlog in a long time. Please help out by doing additional reviews!

October backlog elimination drive: A one-month backlog drive for October will start in one week! Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled. Articles will earn 4x as many points compared to redirects. You can sign up here.

PageTriage code upgrades: Upgrades to the PageTriage code, initiated by the NPP open letter in 2022 and actioned by the WMF Moderator Tools Team in 2023, are ongoing. More information can be found here. As part of this work, the Special:NewPagesFeed now has a new version in beta! The update leaves the NewPagesFeed appearance and function mostly identical to the old one, but updates the underlying code, making it easier to maintain and helping make sure the extension is not decommissioned due to maintenance issues in the future. You can try out the new Special:NewPagesFeed here - it will replace the current version soon.

Notability tip: Professors can meet WP:PROF #1 by having their academic papers be widely cited by their peers. When reviewing professor articles, it is a good idea to find their Google Scholar or Scopus profile and take a look at their h-index and number of citations. As a very rough rule of thumb, for most fields, articles on people with a h-index of twenty or more, a first-authored paper with more than a thousand citations, or multiple papers each with more than a hundred citations are likely to be kept at AfD.

Reviewing tip: If you would like like a second opinion on your reviews or simply want another new page reviewer by your side when patrolling, we recommend pair reviewing! This is where two reviewers use Discord voice chat and screen sharing to communicate with each other while reviewing the same article simultaneously. This is a great way to learn and transfer knowledge.

Reminders:

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:46, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TonyBallioni/Archive_44&oldid=1181100512"