User talk:TonyBallioni/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

→

Archive 20

Question...

I added a POV tag on an article that is subject to 1RR/consensus - the tag was removed. If I restore the tag, would I be in violation? If another editor removes the tag I restore, what happens then? ^{Atsme📞📧} 02:45, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

My gut says yes, Atsme. El C wrote the guide on that restriction. Maybe they can provide an 2O. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:17, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

TY, Tony - I'm looking forward to his response. It's all so confusing. I'll quickly add another question - if an AP2 article shows up in the NPP queue without the "DS warnings", how soon are the DS warnings added? The 1RR/consensus sanctions are over & above the general DS, correct? So an article in the queue is not subject to the 1RR/consensus sanction unless the warning shows up on the TP and/or in edit view, correct? I plan to keep this discussion for future reference...and hope to hell I'll remember where I saved it. I guess bookmarks for WP responses, acronyms and online discussions have taken the place of human interaction, notes on a coffee shop napkin and dependence on the memory of a significant other. ^{Atsme📞📧} 00:36, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

The page level sanctions are not automatic. They require an admin specifically placing them. You can add a talk page notice using Template:Ds/talk notice, but you should not place any template that includes specific page level sanctions. All editors editing any page in the topic area are subject to discretionary sanctions: meaning that an admin may impose them on an editor for conduct issues, regardless of whether or not page level sanctions exist. The notice lets editors know this, but it does not impose specific restrictions on the page. For that to happen, an admin must create an edit notice noting the sanctions and record them at WP:AELOG. Hope this has been helpful. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:43, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Your newsletter

Hi. Just a quick note about format on your recent newsletter - see [1]. You left a <small> tag unclosed. No big thing... heh... I'm not fixing the one directly above this so that you can see the "glitch" live... Cheers. -- Begoon 06:12, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Begoon, Thanks. Heh, oddly enough, it has no visible impact while I’m on mobile. Must have happened when I was fixing the time stamp for the archive. Thanks for the note, and sorry about that. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:39, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

You're welcome. On desktop, for me, it "smalls" everything that follows (up to any other </small> that might be in another message). I've seen it often. I think the reason Mediawiki doesn't catch it and "auto-close" the tag is that it has no way to know that the "small" span doesn't intentionally encompass multiple divs/sections. As for what mobile does... I'm not going there. (looks scared and makes sign of cross...) -- Begoon 06:51, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Makes sense, I’ve seen it in the past too, so I know what you’re talking about. It also doesn’t show on the mass message preview for obvious reasons. I normally include dummy text below the newsletter and preview it for stuff like this, but didn’t this time. I’ll see if it’s something someone with AWB can fix in the AM since it covers a fair number of talk pages. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:57, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Well, I haven't used AWB for a while, but I just fired it up and did a couple of test replacements that seem ok - so I'll run through your list. -- Begoon 07:18, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Ok, I did 91 (up to Curb Safe Charmer) and got a complaint I was flooding watchlists, so best get someone with a bot flag to finish it off. -- Begoon 07:32, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

People have complained about bots clogging Watchlists, so that isn't anything new. That being said, I can submit a BRFA tomorrow to have my bot fix it if no one else volunteers. Nihlus 07:38, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Well GMG says he wasn't actually complaining, but I think it's a fair point nevertheless, so if you don't mind... -- Begoon 07:42, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Eh..I noticed and fixed the error on Ritchie's t/p and was thinking along the lines of running AWB....But would leave the idea:)~ Winged Blades^Godric 08:17, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I stopped because although it wasn't a "complaint" as such I still thought it was a valid consideration. That's why I was agreeing it might be a good thing for Nihlus to address with a bot flag. (It's not because I was getting tired of clicking 'save' anyway, I promise...) -- Begoon 08:28, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Message delivery error

Nice work on the small tag! You had me scratching my head there for several minutes wondering why my font seemed so small, then I refreshed the page and it was back to normal suddenly. Only then did I notice the bot in the edit history. Thanks for the laugh! Home Lander (talk) 21:01, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Heh, yes. Sorry for thank. Thanks to Nihlus for fixing it. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:02, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

question

Hi, I just wanted to clarify; is the Template:Sockpuppet not to be used anymore because of this essay? I've seen this template added to numerous IP user pages, are they all to be removed now? Thanks - ^theWOLFchild 00:19, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Oh give over, no one is suggestion any such thing. If a blocking admin, checkuser, clerk etc, specifically chooses not to include a sockpuppet tag or block template when blocking a sock then there is probably a good reason; you don't need to make silly arguments questioning whether all tags should be removed just because you were reverted when you added the unneeded info.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 00:32, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Ponyo How about you calm down? There is no need for you too get so upset and start attacking someone, just because they asked a simple question, and on someone else's talk page no less. I think the question is reasonable and was asked in a civil manner. I think it's also reasonable to assume that Tony can answer for himself, and if he has an issue with question, he can let me know (and judging by his response, which is much more calmer and diplomatic than yours, he doesn't). Hope your day gets better - ^theWOLFchild 01:40, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Thewolfchild, it's a known Kumioko IP, and most admins are familiar with the IPs he uses (and in this case, the block log makes it clear). I didn't tag or include a block notice because there is no need to do so. If it is Kumioko, he's well aware of how blocking works, and any acknowledgement only gives him attention. If someone else uses the IP, they see the block reason in the screen. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:43, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Tony, at the time I edited the page, there was no block notice. I added one, so that if someone else, other than Kumioko, tries to access WP with that account, they will know that it's blocked and for how long. These pages can become long, out of date and 'messy' after awhile so I try to clean them up from time to time, when I come across them, (and using pre-established templates for that purpose). So when you removed that template, and only cited an essay as a reason, I wanted some clarification. Now I understand that it's not a policy, but rather your personal preference. That's fine it's just an IP user talk page and not something I'm looking to debate over. No sock notice. We'll leave it at that.

But, while typing out this reply, I see you've removed my notice again, so well I'm here, I'll ask for clarification on that as well (if you don't mind). I simply noted that the page is blocked for one year, with the start date. But you've now removed even that. Your edit summary states: "I didn't notify for a reason", but here's where I'm confused... I didn't add a reason. (and while we're at it, you actually did add a reason when you blocked: "Vandalism, know Kumioko IP, so making it a year".) But if you don't want the block reasons noted on the talk page, that's fine (again, nothing worth debating), I'm just curious why other potential users can't know the length of the block? Lastly, I just want to add, these are simply questions. I'm not upset about any of this, I hope you aren't either. I just want to be clear on what to expect going forward. Like I said, I clean these pages up frok time to time, but I don't want to waste my time if it's going to be undone, and I certainly don't want to anger anyone ( anyone else, that is). I thank you in advance for your response. Cheers - ^theWOLFchild 01:40, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

No, I'm not mad. I didn't give a block notice because it's a user who is banned globally by the WMF. He doesn't need a block notice, and other users don't need to know about on the talk page: the account is blocked for a year, it won't have any interactions for others for that time, and anyone who needs to know can see the block log/block notice in the contributions. A note on the talk only brings more attention to him, which is something we try to avoid in cases like this. Block notices in cases like this are basically theatre, and we want the audience to be as small as possible. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:48, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough. I will keep that in mind when/if I clean up any other IP user talk pages in the future, especially ones used by Kumioko or others like him. Thanks for the reply. - ^theWOLFchild 02:56, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Moving drafts?

Hi I wonder if you might consider reviewing two drafts that I've created and optimised:

• Draft:Laponia (documentary)
• Draft:Shocking Exposures: Images That Changed Science

The references are checked and the stills are currently processed through OTRS. They should therefore both be ready for publication now. Could you please consider moving them from Drafts? Much obliged:) In my solitude (talk) 20:11, 8 February 2018 (UTC) In my solitude (talk) 20:11, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi In my solitude, I don't really do much work with AfC these days. My friends @Drewmutt, Chrissymad, and Winged Blades of Godric: all do a fair amount of work there, however. We typically don't rush reviews, but I'm pinging them to see if they have any thoughts. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:18, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

I have commented at the latter.~ Winged Blades^Godric 07:48, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

RevDel request

Please can you revdel this edit on Jose Aristimuño - the edit summary is defamatory. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 02:23, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Bellezzasolo, I think you mean another edit summary on that page, and I don't think it falls within the revision deletion criteria. Also, in the future, it is generally best to contact an administrator privately either via email or by going to #wikipedia-en-revdel ^connect on the Freenode IRC network and following the instructions there. If content if oversightable (which RD2 content often is), you can also email the oversight team by following the instructions at WP:OVERSIGHT. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:29, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Revdel some edits?

Hi, sorry to ask you again but I've noticed another Asian editor with poor English copy-pasting the exact words of a source without indicating as much. (Actually, it was User:Nishidani who noticed it here; I missed the very close paraphrasing because it was taken out of context and made to say something completely different.) It's everything between this edit and this one that needs to be revdelled.

While I suspect this problem is probably endemic to Koryosaram (talk · contribs)'s edits, I would ask you not to do anything beyond hide the edits and possibly warn them about COPYVIO. There's an ongoing SPI, and if they try to more carefully paraphrase and reinsert the material again without using the talk page even after I warned them, this will probably need to go to ANEW, but I was accused of "canvassing" in relation to that page before, and you're obviously sympathetic, so I'm only asking you to do deal with the copyvio issue. (And that only because you're the admin I know who does that kind of thing.)

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:40, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Hijiri88, done the revdel for the first case. Can you give me a bit more detail about the second user? If you just want me to leave a note about Wikipedia and copyvio, I can do that, but are there any specific contributions you are worried about? TonyBallioni (talk) 23:49, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Nevermind, I'm an idiot. I just recognized we were talking about the same user. I need more coffee. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:55, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

For future reference, I just noticed a problem with writing "I am an idiot" in your edit summaries. See, I didn't see the need to reply directly to thank you because of the "thank" tool, but thanking you for the first of the above would be nonsense, and thanking you for the second could theoretically be taken as affirming your good-humour self-deprecation ("Yes, you are an idiot; thank you for recognizing that"), and so I felt the need to respond in words and clarify that that's not what I mean. And in case it wasn't clear, I'm just kidding and will almost certainly be a massive hypocrite and continue calling myself an idiot in edit-summaries going forward. :P Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:39, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Shoman Productions

Hi, you recently closed Shoman Productions as no consensus. I don't agree with the "no consensus" close especially since the Keep !voters failed to provide an reasoning based on policy/guidelines and failed to provide any references, but since you haven't provided an explanation I don't know what reasoning you may have had. Can you explain your reasoning please? HighKing⁺⁺ 13:31, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

HighKing, sure. There was not s consensus to delete. Those opposing deletion felt that it was significant, which means that sourcing is likely to exist. We are supposed to take this into account per WP:NPOSSIBLE, especially for regions were English sourcing is lacking. Even if we weighted the arguments weaker (which I did, for what it’s worth), they shouldn’t be discounted completely as they are reasonable arguments with a policy basis even if there was no ALLCAPS appeal. There was not a consensus to delete the article, and we require consensus to hit the delete button rather than consensus to keep. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:41, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Tony. Hmmm ... not only did nobody put forward that argument as a reason to Keep, surely any AfD can argue that sourcing is "likely to exist" as a reason without having to produce references? Does that mean they should all immediately be kept? And what sourcing is "likely to exist"? There are no indications that this topic is notable or that a reference that meets the criteria for establishing notability on this topic actually exists, especially since those comments refer to the films and tv series produced by the company and not of the company itself. I agree that sources might exist that would refer to the films and tv series and as one Keep !voter noted, "one of which was notable enough to be mentioned by the BBC", but notability is not inherited. At the very least, can you perhaps reopen this one and relist to see if it attracts another comment or two? HighKing⁺⁺ 13:54, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

I don’t think people need to put forth ALLCAPS arguments for them to be valid: admins are supposed to be able to identify policy and guideline based arguments even if the participants in a discussion don’t cite th chapter and verse. The idea was that this production company was significant in the country that it existed in was raised, and that because of this it was likely to be notable. That is a valid argument under our policies and guidelines. Additionally, someone raised redirecting as a valid ATD, which also puts a delete closure in this type of discussion on shakier ground. I won’t be relisting as there was already a full conversation and I don’t think further relists would clarify consensus. You’re free to take it to a deletion review if you want. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:04, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks again Tony. I'll leave it for the original nom to decide if it warrants a review. I appreciate you providing a detailed explanation. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:02, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Dhaka edit warring

Hi TonyBalloni. I see you've page protected Dhaka. Was wondering if it would be appropriate to revert back to the last stable revision before the edit warring began per WP:STATUSQUO? I had done that once already in an attempt to encourage the IP adding the content to try and engage in discussion, but was reverted. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:48, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Marchjuly, there’s currently a discussion at RSN about the sourcing. I’m not going to edit through the protection per meta:Wrong version. Thanks for raising the question, though. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:52, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

That's fine. Thank you for clarifying. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:06, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Please remove my wiki block from my javascript page

I placed a self imposed block on Saturday for a week’s duration and would now like to remove it, but I can’t. Pardon any incorrect terminology that I’m using but please remove the code the prevents me from logging in from my js page. – JocularJellyfish ^Talk_Contribs 21:09, 12 February 2018 (UTC) – JocularJellyfish ^Talk_Contribs 21:09, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

JocularJellyfish:  Done. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:15, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni: Thank you! – JocularJellyfish ^Talk_Contribs 21:37, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Redirect log

Hi Tony, Received the New Page Reviewer Newsletter on 8 February, and notice the the redirect review is part of NPP task. Could I know where I could find the direct log and which guild page to read up on reviewing a redirect. Thanks in advance. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 02:47, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

@CASSIOPEIA and PamD: since you've both asked about it: this link should take you to the log of newly created redirects. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:01, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Tony. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 03:48, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Autopatrolled review for Werldwayd

Hi TonyBallioni. Would you or one your admin talk page watchers please review Werldwayd's autopatrolled status. I went though creations since December (e.g. Samra (album), La Voix de l'Est (Granby), La Patrie (French newspaper), West African Linguistic Society, José Escajadillo Farro, Fuera de Clase, Zé Felipe, 2:30 min, El Shark, Ayk (daily), and Hayastan (periodical)) and found them lacking adequate sourcing. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:41, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

JJMC89, thanks for letting me know. I’ve revoked the flag. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:01, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Tony. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:06, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Sockpuppet identity

Hi TonyBallioni, I think (in fact I'm certain) that Kanjuncgtion is a sock of Nsmutte, not BattleshipMan (you blocked Kanjuncgtion as a sock of an unknown user, but added a "suspected sock of BattleshipMan" notice to their user talk page). Various Nsmutte socks have recently been linking to an old unrelated AfD at ANI, just like Kanjuncgtion did here, and NSM's writing style is also rather different from BattleshipMan's. The main thing is that the sock is blocked and there is no particular reason to formally link the account to Nsmutte (maybe best to deny recognition), but BM should not be suspected of socking here. --bonadea contributions talk 11:02, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) That'd be good news Bonadea (exc. for Nsmutte, but you know what I mean) as frankly BM did little enough for his reputation with that AN thread already, without socking suspicions on top. Just a point of order though, it was Todds1 who addedd the "Sock of BM" tag, here. Hope all's well! >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 11:19, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Bonadea, yes. I didn’t block BM and had no idea who the master was. Toddst1 placed that template. Thanks for the note. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:23, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Oops. I'm sorry, that was sloppy of me - I noticed you'd blocked and then I clearly didn't look closely enough at the talk page history. It wouldn't surprise me if the first two letters of the user name registered and translated into Tony rather than Todd in my brain. --bonadea contributions talk 13:44, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Outhentic

Hello Toni Ballioni, I tried to make the changes that were required from me in this article: Outhentic. I created a new draft here which waiting for review: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Outhentic. I wonder if you might consider reviewing it. I also would like to say that I sent an e-mail to permissions-en@wikimedia.org about the copyright of the text in the article but I didn't receive an answer.

About that "Why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia?", I think that folklore is a substantial part of the unique cultural heritage of every nation. For that reason I think this article is very important for the the people all over the world, It's going to enrich their knowledgment about cultural and musical diversity. The bulgarian folk band - Outhentic is very interesting and popular here in Bulgaria and they present bulgarian folk music in a very different and atractive way. The band also has a success outside the borders of Bularia and last year took part in amazing festivals like one of the biggest festivals in the world - Glastonbury Festival 2017. I think the article is useful for everyone in the world and think it is notable and should be published here in Wikipedia. Cheers, Raina Vassileva (talk) 09:24, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Raina Vassileva, even if there were OTRS permission, I wouldn't restore to mainspace because the deleted article meets our A7 criteria for speedy deletion as it did not assert why the subject was important. Honestly the draft version is much better (though it did include copyrighted text which I have removed). I would suggest working on that version through the AfC process as the best way forward. TonyBallioni (talk) 10:57, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Honestly the draft version is much better--How worse was the first?!~ Winged Blades^Godric 11:17, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Sorry: strike that. I was looking through mobile at the time, and the deleted page view is not exactly the most mobile friendly page, so things rendered where it looked to be different, and I must have been comparing different parts: they aren't different. My fault. That actually makes this process pretty simple: someone will review the OTRS ticket, and if the permission is valid, you can use the text. We can keep the draft in AfC for now, and if you improve it to a state where it would be likely to survive in mainspace, and AfC reviewer will move it. TonyBallioni (talk) 12:26, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Mobile and Wikipedia never seem to go well together:)~ Winged Blades^Godric 12:30, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

February 14th

(1860-1880) Museum of London	Happy Valentine's Day!
	It wasn't easy to come up with an innocuous Valentine's Day greeting to share with collaborators on Wikipedia, so I went with "evolutionary". Nobody will ever win the battle of the sexes. There’s too much fraternizing with the enemy. ~Henry Kissinger Atsme📞📧 13:21, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi

User 86.133.229.118 is sock puppet of JellyBaby1. AndreasThaler (talk 14 February 2018 (UTC)

AndreasThaler, I've blocked. They'll likely be back within the next few hours given how dynamic British IPs are. If they do and it is on specific pages, let me know and I'll block and/or protect the pages. Welcome to Wikipedia, by the way! TonyBallioni (talk) 15:48, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, mate. AndreasThaler (talk 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Deletion review for Bernie Singles

User:Davey2116 has asked for a deletion review of Bernie Singles. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. —Cryptic 03:54, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Cryptic. I've commented. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:05, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Tools within Rules

• Hi Toni, you may give me some tools; whatever you think, can be suitable; otherwise, thanks too.SwordOfRobinHood (talk) 16:59, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

SwordOfRobinHood, sorry for the late reply. Just apply for whatever permissions you think you qualify for and will use at WP:PERM, and explain why you feel they would be useful for you. I or another admin will review it there. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:45, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for, I was also out of Wiki, very busy. I will do as you suggested. SwordOfRobinHood (talk) 13:28, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Adding SCCAP & APA vetted resources due to contagion effect

Hi, Tony, Thanks for the work that you are doing to edit Wikipedia! I am working to try to add list of resources has been reviewed by the Society of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology and multiple presidents of divisions of the American Psychological Association. The list of resources is being disseminated over multiple professional listservs. This is not medical advice. It is information that is geared towards the general public and is of a public health nature to help people decide if they should seek consultation, and to make it easier for people to access services. It is well-established that exposure to traumatic events in the news can be activating for people who have experienced trauma in the past, so it is appropriate to add these curated sources now. If you check the page traffic, it is obvious that there is a 1000x increase in traffic to these pages in the days after the Florida event. This is precisely why it is in the public interest to add links to the information here. We identified these sites by looking at the 12 most visited pages today. Feel free to contact me on my talk page or by email, eay@unc.edu. I am happy to talk by phone as well. I would like to stress that these are good faith edits, trying to put curated information where the people who would benefit can find it. Thank you again! Prof. Eric A. Youngstrom (talk) 21:12, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Eric, I'll ask Doc James (James, for context, we are discussing edits like this) to weigh in here as he is a medical professional who edits Wikipedia in a volunteer capacity as well, and is one of our most prolific medical contributors. My view is that the inclusion of resources is typically outside the scope of a Wikipedia article, and while they may be very good mental resources, adding them to articles on school shootings without consensus is a form of soapboxing and giving undue weight to the mental health resources as compared to the rest of the subject. This is especially true if someone has already challenged the inclusion of the text. Also, thanks for your work to integrate Wikipedia at Carolina's campus, I appreciate that a lot as an alumnus. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:25, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

What the Society of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology needs to do is create one page that lists all these resources.

Than we add ONE link to this page calling it maybe "Resources from the SCCAP" or whatever.

12 links in the EL section is not appropriate IMO.

That these group of links are being added across multiple articles is concerning. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:38, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, both of you! I am grateful for the feedback and guidance. I see the wisdom in Doc James's suggestion. Adding a single internal link to a Wikipedia page will be more elegant, less cluttered, and easier to update if a new resource becomes available. More space for framing for different contexts, too. I am going to work on getting a Wikipedia page put together. I am also working on getting input from the professional societies about the resources (including the new Wikipedia page). I am organizing a "flash" edit-a-thon tomorrow between 1:00 pm and 6:00 pm Eastern (10 am- 3 pm Pacific for Doc James) that will work on building out the page and adding links. Hopefully this will work to funnel a lot of energy and ideas from outside Wikipedia into a focused effort that you can help guide. I am grateful for a "middle way" that will let us add links to resources on pages where the traffic is surging after a traumatic event, too, as contagion and activation are well established issues.

If helpful, I can forward any of the correspondence happening outside Wikipedia on the professional society lists. It's fascinating to me to see this developing in both the Wikipedia and the psychology community. I still have a lot to learn about how to work within the Wikipedia community, and I am deeply appreciative of any pointers and assistance.

Looking forward to next steps! Prof. Eric A. Youngstrom (talk) 19:45, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

James would be better at providing feedback for this type of article than I would (he and I work very closely on things involving conflict of interest and promotional editing, but my content work here deals mainly with history of religion, not medical things.) If there is anything that you might need an admin bit for during this or future edit-a-thons, feel free to let me know. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:50, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

My proposal was to have the SCCAP create a page that includes all these links and than we could link to this one EL.

Curlie might be interested in such a page of links aswell. We could than link to that. We do not generally host lists of links here. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:18, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi, again, what we are working on is (a) one page, that (b) contains the links, and (c) contains expository text that will describe what types of resources are available and when they are appropriate. I think that the combination of organized links to a variety of resources, organized by intended audience, and with context, will be much better than what we were originally envisioning.

Again, LMK if you want to see emails or drafts. The title of the page is not going to be tied to one society (multiple ones are contributing, and hopefully that also helps allay any concerns about self promotion for any one society). I think that the result coming into focus is a resource that will be available for future crises, and also can start to accrue citations to the reviews and evidence about the different information (using secondary sources! Cochrane, meta-analyses, and systematic reviews or practice parameters preferred :-)). That will come later as soon as possible, but the first pass will most likely be resources and framing. We are doing the best we can. Thanks, and looking forward to next steps....01:46, 18 February 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eyoungstrom (talk • contribs)

hi

the page was last moved in 2014. Whatever sanctions you were talking about is unrelated.

besides, there are rules you have to follow 1) be objective, nobody's talking about bomb control or anything else control, 2) freedom, if the edit's deemed controversial only by you, you're breaching your power. There's no rule saying a controversial topic cannot be edited.

Plus, is what's currently on there not biased and controversial?

I'm sorry Wikipedia is run by people like you. I apologize on behalf of the Wikipedian community.

You clearly don't understand a thing about Wikipedia. Don't blabber about your admin status. You Donald John knows much about gov? He's the head of it. 張泰銘 (talk) 22:14, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Stuff like this has happened before. Yeah, you'll win for now but we'll see whether facts win in the end and bias dies in the end. It's up to the people to wake up. Not me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 張泰銘 (talk • contribs) 22:14, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

張泰銘, page moves can be controversial. I have not taken any stance on the content issue. All I did was alert you that discretionary sanctions exist in all areas involving the governmental regulation of firearms. I have no opinion on the content, and my notification of you does not imply any wrongdoing, as the template says. It only informs you that an administrative situation exists on Wikipedia. If you have any questions, please feel free to let me know. All the best, TonyBallioni (talk) 22:19, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

And exactly why would I have to be informed on that? It's unrelated...張泰銘 (talk) 22:23, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Pretty sure the articles Gun Reform and Gun politics in the United States are related to "governmental regulation of firearms" - TNT^❤ 22:26, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

張泰銘, see above. You also did a page move without discussion for the main article in a discretionary sanctions area. The template only lets you know that this area has been contentious, and that administrators have been given authority to issue sanctions to help limit any potential disruption in the area. Again, if you have any other questions, please let me know. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:31, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm asking you clearly: you deemed something as controversial and targeted me to "inform"? Why? 張泰銘 (talk) 22:33, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Because if I didn't trigger a disruption then why did you do that? Okay you have the power. I'm happy you do. Long as you don't go around using it like drumpf does. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 張泰銘 (talk • contribs) 22:33, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

張泰銘, you're missing the point entirely. The DS notice was not placed because you did anything wrong. It's simply a notice that there are sanctions in place and that you should read up on those sanctions. Primefac (talk) 22:34, 18 February 2018 (UTC) (talk page stalker)

I'm editing in accordance with the rules of WP. Then what does sanctions have to do with me? If I didn't do anything wrong and didn't trigger anything within the sanction, then? Do you see my point? Or did some people worry I was gonna trigger something in that sanction? If so, point it out straight. I don't got time to read a bunch of words.

All my edits did was so people on a cold start on this topic can find link to all the info they would have been lookin for. Instead of digging through the entire complication of the different pages. They can be linked and it helps? Why not. 張泰銘 (talk) 22:38, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

If you're following the rules then you have nothing to worry about. The DS notice is basically the same as the warning labels they put on electronics to not use them in the bath - if you weren't planning on doing it anyway, you're set, but if you use it in a way that's specifically listed as "not okay" you can't get mad when there are negative repercussions. Primefac (talk) 22:42, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

This is about viewpoints. When people come in, given this time being, they type in gc on wp, they're likely from the states as literally no one else refers to it as gc. That's why it's important to relate it to other topics like gun violence in the US or gun politics or so on and so forth. I don't really think linking existing pages can cause any controversy. 張泰銘 (talk) 22:48, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Altho this isn't a label on electronics. I was specifically warned. As in it was sent to me, I mean anyone would be weirded out if they were specifically warned. And I was like so you think I was gonna trigger something, so what is it? Tell me so I won't trigger it. Don't refer me to "please read the rules of wikipedia." Say "you have to say neutral, please read..." See what i mean? Say I put in an ad page, you removed the page and then sent me "please read the rules" but it would be actually helpful to tell me what you were thinking that I have or may trigger. 張泰銘 (talk) 22:48, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

• 張泰銘, I'm sorry. I thought the template was pretty self-explanatory as you have only been working in the gun control area. In terms of Gun control, I have procedurally reverted you after a request at WP:RM/TR, and I have move protected the page as an arbitration enforcement action. If you want to move the page, you are free to seek consensus for such a move by starting a WP:RM. If you don't know how to do that, please feel free to post your reasoning for a move here, and I can start one for you procedurally. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:53, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks so much!!

Hey Tony, just wanted to drop by to say that I truly appreciate the input regarding the adding of links to the various shooting pages! We were grateful for the input. :) We'll be sure to drop you a talk message before making these edits! Appreciate you seeing that we were making these edits in good faith. Keep rocking! Ongmianli (talk) 01:31, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Origen

Hello! I have spent the past month or so rewriting the article Origen and I have just nominated it as a "Good Article." Since the GA nominations page is perpetually backlogged and I do not think that Origen is well-known enough today to attract reviewers on his own, I thought I would endeavor to try to find editors who might be willing to review the article. I do not know how much you know about the Church Fathers, but I was wondering if you would be willing to review it, since I know you regularly edit articles related to Catholicism and you seem to be the most qualified editor in this subject area that I know has been actively involved in reviewing GA nominations. --Katolophyromai (talk) 22:16, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Heh, about 1000 years before the time period where I start being familiar with things, but I know enough about the Church Fathers that I could probably do a GA review. I won't claim it yet, but I'll take a look in the next few days. Regardless, thanks for your work improving history of Christianity articles. It's one of the areas the encyclopedia still needs very serious work in terms of quality improvement, so I appreciate it anytime anyone tries to bring articles up to GA or FAC in the field​. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:27, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

It looks like you missed your chance to claim it; another user that I talked to about one of my other nominations just opened reviews for all the articles I have nominated for GA. --Katolophyromai (talk) 04:05, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. 張泰銘 (talk) 07:32, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

張泰銘, you're free to discuss the proposed changes in the requested move discussion I opened on the talk page for you. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:56, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for

[2]—I missed a trick there; of course, leave a note to someone one has just mentioned. Odd circumstances though I have to say. Take care! >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 19:13, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Heh, my dear integer, I only just hate seeing redlink talk pages. I'm sure CheckUsers are interested in that account anyway, and after talking to one I've blocked it. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:16, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Excellent :) should learn to trust the spidey sense a little more! Cheers! >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 19:23, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

WP:CBAN for Krajoyn

On Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard, I have started a discussion of a potential CBAN of Krajoyn which you might have been involved in.

The discussion is linked at WP:CBAN for Krajoyn. Iggy (Swan) 19:24, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks

Was just fixing that error, and then saw you did - instinctively went to press "THANK" on it for you! — xaosflux ^Talk 04:16, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Heh, and that is the only time I will edit the MediaWiki namespace :). TonyBallioni (talk) 04:18, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Recent block

I'm just wondering: why did you block SallyPlease as a sock? You seem to not even know who the account is a sock of. That they edited someone's RFA seems like a pretty thin reason, all by itself, to justify saying that the account is a blockable sock. Their edit seemed pretty benign, too. Perhaps there's something I'm missing, though, and I'm certainly all ears if you want to explain. Every morning (there's a halo...) 00:58, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Well they did so after talking to a CU so I'm guessing there is something you are missing. Something that probably meets DENY if tags weren't applied to the user page in question. --Majora (talk) 01:01, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Everymorning, I discussed this with DeltaQuad, and she told me to go ahead and block. I believe DoRD did a second round of checks and issued CU blocks to other accounts. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:02, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Thanks for the quick answer. Every morning (there's a halo...) 01:07, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, there were a number of disruptive accounts that needed blocking besides this one. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 01:09, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Futher to this could be—just could be—[3] >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 12:50, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

CU says likely a different user. Not enough technically to block it, I’m afraid. Might be worth tagging as an SPA. TonyBallioni (talk) 12:57, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Clearing AIV

Probably best to let declined AIV reports sit a little longer, should any new activity arise. Plus ideally some reporters will check back and learn. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 02:14, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, Amorymeltzer. I do both, but have found that personally that clearing is easiest when reviewing in order to avoid conflicting with other admins and also to avoid complaints about there being a backlog. SQL was actually the person who recommended the practice of clearing to me, and I liked his reasoning. I can see the benefits of both sides. I'm not particularly concerned about the complaints, though, and if anyone complained, I'd just suggest they rereport if the vandalizing continued. Personally, I'd rather clear them quickly and get a note on my talk than not clear them and have someone complaining about a backlog because no one bothered. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:20, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Yeah I hear ya. I think the larger issue is that one sysop's decline is frequently another's block. I've been slowly building up toward starting a discussion somewhere, don't really want the stink, but it sends mixed messages to reporters. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 02:26, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Agreed - I've done this in a few cases to discourage bad habits of reporting things to AIV that absolutely don't belong there - because someone will eventually put in the time to investigate and block it, reinforcing/rewarding the editor's choice to make a bad report (hillariously once this was TonyBallioni himself). AIV should be more of a '911'/ clear and easy emergency thing. SQL^{Query me!} 02:27, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

(tps) To be honest, and just thinking out loud, I wish that the bot would clear declined reports as well, or perhaps moved them to a "recently declined" subpage for a while before clearing them. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 02:40, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

I think Amorymeltzer's suggestion here is good. Make it like RFPP or PERM. I'd prefer a relatively quicker clearing for the reasons SQL pointed out, but to be fair, he and I are probably more on the decline-prone end of the spectrum at AIV, and I can see why others would prefer a logner period. I think one of the issues with the bot thus far has been that from what I can tell, all the people who maintain the AIV bots are basically not active anymore, so we'd likely have a new "AIVArchiveBot" or something of the sort. I've bugged a few botops about it, but will try knocking around again in the next few days. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:51, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

There are a LOT of things I wish an AIV bot would do. SQL^{Query me!} 02:52, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

User:Darkness Shines

Thanks for this. I completely missed it. Bishonen | talk 11:47, 22 February 2018 (UTC).

No problem, Bish. I assumed as much and didn’t want to make a big deal out of it because of the previous dramah. Probably should have asked you first, but didn’t think you would mind . Always great to have you on my talk. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:52, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Unblock

Hi, would you mind unblocking this IP? IP addresses should usually never be indefinitely blocked, and besides, the reason given for the indefinite block would only be convincing for a temporary block. Thanks! ToThAc (talk) 19:42, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Have you talked to Jimfbleak about it? He was the blocking admin. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:46, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Tony. ToThAc, isp now unblocked Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:24, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Suzanne Olsson close

I note that in closing the Suzanne Olsson AfD as Delete, you applied a administrator access requirement for recreation. Given that once before the subject's page was deleted for lack of sufficient notability, and the subject herself then recreated a whitewashed version as Suzanne M. Olsson, and when that was deleted because she had a topic ban at the time, she used a sock puppet to create it again as Suzanne Marie Olsson. If the goal in applying the creation-protection of the main namespace was to ensure that we don't have to go through the same cycle yet again, then these other two namespaces need to be similarly protected. Agricolae (talk) 17:00, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

​ Done TonyBallioni (talk) 17:07, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Quick question

If an editor challenges/removes a block of text from an article that is under 1-RR/consensus to restore, and another editor reverts that removal without getting consensus to restore, is that a violation of DS that requires consensus to restore a challenged edit, or is that ok as that editor's 1RR? The way I see it, an editor can revert once as long as that 1st revert is not restoring a challenged edit. Right or wrong? ^{Atsme📞📧} 23:48, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Atsme, El C has written a quick and dirty guide to those questions at WP:CRP. I think that page deals with the question in a pretty straightforward way, but if it doesn't answer the question or if I'm missing something, let me know. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:57, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Ohhh, my head hurts. In the following sequence:

1. Editor 1 removes text, Editor 2 reverts/restores - that is 1 RR for Editor 2, or not❓ and Editor 1 must get consensus to add back remove it again, right?
2. Editor 3 adds text - all cool (breaks the consecutive sequence of editor 1) ✅
3. Editor 1 adds text in a different section on article, Editor 2 reverts it - does that not count as a 2 RR vio for Editor 2 who now has 1 restore and 1 revert.
4. Editor 1 removes another block of text - is that now a 2 RR vio for Editor 1? Editor 2 reverts/restores. Editor 2 is now at 2RR vio, or is it ok to revert/restore as many times as needed without a vio? Yes, no?
5. Editor 3 removes text that Editor 2 restored in #1 - is that a vio? In other words, if more than 2 editors are going back & forth, can a 3rd editor revert the material Editor 2 restored?
6. Editor 3 reverts Editor 2's revert in #3, adding back Editor 1 text - is that a vio?

In real life editing, it's not always a simple 1-2. It can be a 1, 1, 1, 2, 1, 1, 2, 1, 1 if you get what I mean. That's where I get confused. If editor 2 can do unlimited "restores" of editor 1's removals in a 24 hr period, that invites WP:STONEWALLING and promotes WP:OWN. Please feel free to interperse your comments within the applicable numbers in the sequence. ^{Atsme📞📧} 01:03, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

I'll try to respond to this later tonight or tomorrow. Had an early morning today and not much sleep, so I'm a bit too foggy to delve into DS-land now. Just wanted you to know I wasn't ignoring it :) TonyBallioni (talk) 17:52, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Atsme, the situation above is complicated, and I might be misunderstand you, so I'll try to respond the best I can, with the disclaimer that admins typically look at the totality of the situation when determining these things (i.e. is it normal editing or a revert).

1. This would not be a revert for the person who removes the text if the text is in general just there and you can't tell without spending an inordinate amount of time who added it. That's normal editing. Reverts are typically seen as undoing specific edits, in whole or part, not just removing text. Restoring the text by editor 2 would be a revert.
2. Not a revert, all good.
3. Editor 2 would have two reverts now, yes.
4. It depends on if the text was a revert or just normal editing. Editor 1 hasn't reach a revert yet in this scenario if all this is is normal editing and not reverting specific edits. It looks like editor 2 is on 3 reverts now.
5. At this point, it's getting confusing in hypotheticals, but if I'm reading it correctly, editor 3 restored an edit that was challenged via reversion (the removal of text). This is in violation of the consensus required provision. The best thing at this point is to talk about it, because it is getting into a multi-party edit war.
6. I'm not going to count vios here, because even reading this scenario, I'm getting confused as to who did what :) I'd likely full protect if it wasn't full protected already as it appears to be a multi-party edit war, but that's just my personal way of handling things. Other admins might view it differently.

Again, so much depends on the context of the specific article in question. In general, the rule of thumb should be "if in question, don't revert." Talking on the talk page is always preferred :) TonyBallioni (talk) 13:35, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Ok, what you described is what I was thinking - yes, it's confusing but it's what we're dealing with day-to-day in the trenches, and it can all take place in less than an hour.😳 The DS warning in edit view states: "must not reinstate any challenged (via reversion) edits without obtaining consensus on the talk page of this article" but editors are misinterpretating that statement; e.g. editor 1 removes a block of text, challenging it as noncompliant with NPOV in a BLP (policy considers the 2 inseparable). Editor 2 reverts (restores) the text without getting consensus first. Per the 1RR-consensus in the banner, the vio would be editor 2 restoring (by reverting) challenged material without getting consensus first. Drumroll, please...here comes the confusion...Wikipedia:Consensus_required#Removal contradicts what the banner states. WP:CRP overrides 1RR-consensus and encourages status quo stonewalling by giving Editor 2 (the reverting editor) the advantage in both Addition and Removal. The result we're getting is that Editor 2 controls the article by not allowing new information to be added or any existing material to be removed. See what I mean? I'm pinging El C regarding this issue and would very much appreciated his input regarding the latter. I think it's important that we get clarity or we're going to lose more editors to TB and blocks. ^{Atsme📞📧} 14:46, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Well, the point of the restriction is to promote the status quo. It's about challenged edits not challenged material. Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:57, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Actually, promote article stability/reduce edit warring which means promoting the status quo. Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:05, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

That works well for long established articles that are stable, such as GAs and FAs, but not so well for political and other controversial topics that are not, especially BLPs where NPOV is at issue. Then it can quickly become Wikipedia:Status_quo_stonewalling or OWN which is disruptive behavior. It also gives paid/COI/advocacy editors an advantage, which can be harmful to the project.

In cases of DS 1RR-consensus only, when a standing edit is challenged and removed based on a policy vio, it should not be restored until after consensus has been reached. If a new edit is added and later reverted, the editor who reverted should be responsible for providing a PAG-based edit summary to justify the revert, which eliminates the "IDONTLIKEIT" revert. If no policy is cited, the editor who added it should be free to revert once. Then if removed again by a 3rd editor, consensus would be required. Each revert should count as 1RR.

Adding:

Editor 1 adds

Editor 2 reverts (1RR) - provides policy based edit summary

Editor 1 reverts (1RR)

Editor 3 reverts (1RR)

Editor 1 needs consensus to add.

Removal:

Editor 1 removes standing text (1RR)

Editor 2 restores text (1RR)

Editor 3 removes text (1RR)

Consensus is needed to restore.

What am I not seeing that prevents us from doing it that way? ^{Atsme📞📧} 17:20, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

SPI

You may wish to see this SPI, given your extensive knowledge about the user-work-styles etc.:)~ Winged Blades^Godric 07:31, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Godric, yeah, I saw it. Bbb23 was right to close. No evidence there (and I looked through the contribs myself before he closed it.) TonyBallioni (talk) 12:41, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Bots Patrolling and Moving

Hi TonyBallioni, you mentioned me in Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#A_Bot_for_Creating_Arthropod_Stubs,_Trial. Can you describe the step-by-step scenarios that need some blanks filled in a little more? Some notes:

• Bot flagged accounts include autopatroll, if they create a page (e.g. a Draft) it will already be patrolled, if the page is later moved to mainspace by the bot it will also still be patrolled.
• If an autopatroller (such as a bot) makes a draft, and a non-autopatroller moves it to mainspace it will be in the newpages feed, and be un-reviewed. Does that help? — xaosflux ^Talk 14:27, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, perfect, you answered the questions without my needing to explain it. I was unaware that bots are autopatrolled (which I still find somewhat disturbing for mainspace, but that's another matter). Thanks as always for your help. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:30, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Though, Xaosflux, before I say something stupid at VPR, could you verify that an account with the autopatrolled permission moving an autopatrolled draft to mainspace will not cause it to be autopatrolled. It seems implied in your last bullet, but just want to be clear. Thanks again. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:32, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Bots are autopatrolled because their edits are supposed to be made by trusted editors using an approved process. Keep in mind that some bots create pages in namespaces besides (Article) and that patrolling is used in all namespaces (example: unpatrolled new user-talk pages).

So for the example you want:

1. A page is created in Draft: space by a bot
2. The same page is moved by the same bot to mainspace. (Assuming w/ redirect, with talk page?)

Correct? — xaosflux ^Talk 14:41, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I get it in terms of the non-article namespaces . No the process I was asking about was:

1. Bot creates Draft:Foo, it is autopatrolled.
2. Human Editor A who is autopatrolled moves the draft to mainspace.

Would the article hit the new pages feed? Thanks again. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:45, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

I went ahead and DID this so you can see. A bot (User:Fluxbot) created Draft:The weather in London in winter and an autopatrolled editor (User:Xaosflux ep) moved it to The weather in London in winter. It is ALREADY reviewed and PATROLLED. All pages hit the NewPages feed, however most people would filter it out as it is already patrolled:

Take a look at it, let me know if you have any more questions before I delete it. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:58, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Perfect, thanks! Feel free to delete it now! Sorry for being so annoying on this. Bots typically aren't my thing (and I have no strong opinions on bot policy as a whole), but the creation of new pages is something I do care about. All the best! TonyBallioni (talk) 15:01, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Please also note, the "being patrolled" in mainspace was about the person doing the move, not about how it was created in Draft so much; if a non-autopatrolled person move the page it would be unpatrolled in mainspace. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:15, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Yep, got that. Thanks again. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:16, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Rollback

Hey, Tony. I previously requested Rollback and was intercepted by Oshwah, who politely refused and advised garnering more experience with vandalism. My contributions feed should now host a few examples of my intercepting vandalism through Pending Reviewership. Shall I continue or is this sufficient to proceed into Rollback? - Conservatrix (talk) 09:57, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Wouldn't this be a better question to ask Oshwah? Primefac (talk) 13:28, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, Oshwah is better for such things than me :) TonyBallioni (talk) 13:44, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

I have pinged Oshwah in the past but he does not respond. - Conservatrix (talk) 02:32, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Make a request at WP:PERM then. It is easier to review there, and other people can have a look too, which I think is good. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:34, 27 February 2018 (UTC)