User talk:TonyBallioni/Archive 9

This is an archive of past discussions about User:TonyBallioni. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

→

Hello.Pli help me get the autopatroll and review right

Help me know the process or help me get the right to review articles — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boy Addi (talk • contribs) 16:50, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Boy Addi, you've only created two pages, which is below what we expect for granting of autopatrolled. I've decline your request on the PERM page. Don't worry, having this permission has no impact on your editing. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:54, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

I created a Wikipedia Page but has not been indexed on Google Yet.

I created 2 Wikipedia articles but when I checked the links.They are all active and not deleted. Neither has any of them got a speedy deletion tag.When I searched for the pages by name on Google I found they have not yet been indexed.Is there a duration it takes before indexing of the articles on search engines .I will appreciate your help.Thank You — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boy Addi (talk • contribs) 17:39, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Boy Addi, I'm not familiar with Kenyan musicians. A new page reviewer will review your page and if it meets our standards for inclusion, will mark it as reviewed and it will be indexed by Google then. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:50, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

TonyBallioni,Thanks.I hope I will get someone who is well convasant.But if you can help .I will appreciate it so much Boy Addi (talk) 18:01, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello!

Hi there,

May I request your humble opinion on the matters of deletion with the article, Full Gospel Baptist Church Fellowship? --TheTexasNationalist99 (talk) 21:39, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

No clue: I might check it out later. I'm not that familiar with charismatic Christianity, so I'm probably the wrong person to ask. If you have questions about early modern Christianity or clerical biographies, that's more my cup of tea. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:36, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Check out this user

Hi Tony! I am traveling and don't have access to my tools. Could you please take a look at the IP user 5.157.7.59? They seem to have been spamming many talk pages with accusations against Volunteer Marek and possibly other users. See if you think they need some loving attention. Thanks. MelanieN alt (talk) 02:26, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Never mind. Bushranger got 'em. MelanieN alt (talk) 03:11, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Bushranger did block him for 31 hours and someone else got his new ip (5.157.7.43). Galobtter (talk) 03:40, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

AIV DOS attempt

Yeah, that's what I was trying to establish because it looked like just trying to jam the system. Does this happen often enough to discard on sight (or did I help a bit...?) Shenme (talk) 06:05, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Its one specific banned user (the name I forget). Oshwah might know. I saw that you had done a few of them and they weren't valid, so I went ahead and cleared them on the presumption that they were DOS/trolling and that if they were legitimate and actually actively causing disruption, another user would report. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:09, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Tony!

Thank you very much Tony. I just learned what auto-patrolled means. :) --Rochelimit (talk) 16:51, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Not a problem, Rochelimit. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:58, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Your eyes

Can you tell who reviewed this? *sigh* ^{Atsme📞📧} 14:23, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Atsme, the user is autopatrolled. Their style seems to be to create a work in progress stub and build it over a few hours. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:28, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Ok, TY. In the future, and in an effort to lighten your load, I will first research an editor's user-rights and try to establish a pattern for new article creation like this one. My fault - sorry for the disturbance - totally forgot I changed my curation filter settings to newest first. I got trigger happy based on a recent incident and our increasing load at NPP. ^{Atsme📞📧} 14:46, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Not a problem, Atsme. I'm always here to help :) Thanks for your dedication to NPP. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:25, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Recent Deleted Page

Hi Tony. Trust you are well today. I noticed your recent activity on the page Hollandia Yoghurt. I believe the content was written not with any biase but a rephrase from available online content. Some brand pages such as Coca Cola, Yoplait, Activia, Pepsi, The Laughing Cow and Milo were used as guides in creating the content. Any chance you can give more light as to the reason for the deletion. Thanks Aoshevir (talk) 16:03, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Blocked after reviewing behavioral evidence and consulting with a CU based on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Daphinevadhera. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:12, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Steve Laury

Hi, TonyBallioni, I've started thread at several noticeboards about this, but it's a slow hour. Any help will be appreciated. Promotional edits and block evasion for a vanity bio. Thanks, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:55, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

I've semi-protected for a few days. Since you've raised it at ANI, it should give other people a chance to look it over. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:09, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I'm looking at the edit history and links to his albums, and thinking that a stand alone article may be merited after all. It just needs to be written by someone who's not Steve Laury. Cheers, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:10, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I've also restored it to the "last good" version pre-IP invasion, as the "new" version is quite terrible. Primefac (talk) 03:11, 20 November 2017 (UTC) (talk page stalker)

Thank you, Primefac. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:12, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, thank you Primefac. Always grateful for talk page watchers who can help out when I am busy. Cheer, '99. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:14, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Vince-Gordon

Just restored a prod that was contested that you nominated. You may want to nominate it for deletion if you still believe it should be deleted. -DJSasso (talk) 17:30, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Ho Tony - have you ask for deletion again? Did you see all the comments on the talk - and the new work on Vince Gordon? It is deleted again by Patar Knight and I do not understand. Others have helped also best Rosdahl-2017 (talk) 10:37, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Rosdahl-2017, yes I asked for deletion again and the Wikipedia community agreed with me that he shouldn’t have an article, if you want me to email you the text, I can. Just follow the instructions at WP:EMAIL and post here asking for the text. Do not post your email address on my talk page. TonyBallioni (talk) 12:49, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Tony - i would like to have it because I really do not understand it. I do through have to have someone to help me - as I can not understand the instructions at WP:EMAIL. can you write it on my talk page?Rosdahl-2017 (talk) 16:47, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Tony. Thanks - I have now confirm the email - could you give me the reasons to?Rosdahl-2017 (talk) 17:08, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Emailed the article text and an explanation. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:13, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm baaaack...

2 questions:

Are the curation tools only available to an NPR if the article is in the queue, or is it full time access?
Is it appropriate to remove edits made by a vandal (now a blocked sock) in a mainspace article that is either still in the queue or reviewed and out of the queue? ^{Atsme📞📧} 00:51, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Re: 1, I think it works on any article that has recently been in the feed (so you can unreview). Not sure the exact cutoff, but I know it doesn't work on every page. Twinkle is still the tool there.

Re: 2, any editor at their discretion may revert the edits of a banned editor per WP:BMB. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:09, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Hey, Tony - I think that sock is back and he's reverting all my edits on Pardon of Joe Arpaio - can you please semi-protect it? ^{Atsme📞📧} 01:48, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Another admin seems to have beat me to it! TonyBallioni (talk) 01:50, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

It amazes me how he's able to get back in here so easily. Shucks, I'm registered and sometimes have issues logging in.

^{Atsme📞📧} 03:32, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Hate to bother you again, but can you check this new user who suddenly showed up at Pardon of Joe Arpaio and wants to remove all the work I just did getting that article compliant with NPOV & BLP? I'll ping The Bushranger. ^{Atsme📞📧} 05:13, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

I think I'm hearing quacking. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:21, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Caption1
Caption2

Request to userfy Apostle Suleman Johnson

Could you kindly userfy Apostle Suleman Johnson as you appeared to be the deleting admin. I intend to work on it tonight. Cheers! ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 21:19, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Mahveotm, see User:Mahveotm/Suleman Johnson. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:23, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

silva.jpg

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	You have taken the Admin bit and run with it, as expected. Good work! bd2412 T 14:02, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! Much appreciate. Even if I'm still trying to figure out what all the new buttons on Twinkle do. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:05, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

NPP Coordinators and Awards

I know that there was some voting for NPP coordinators back in March, which you didn't run for but somehow have ended up doing the newsletters and other coordination work. I also have noticed that nobody seems to be giving out the NPP Awards. I'd like to volunteer to do a bit of coordination work; suggest stuff for newsletters, pass out awards to those that meet the criteria, etc. Is that ok or am I likely to step on some toes? — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 04:25, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Go ahead. I've been handing out awards when I can, but I've currently been swamped dealing with work on the intersection of paid editing and new pages (and chipping in at SPI since I send them enough from the paid editing...) I really didn't record them anywhere, so some people already have the relevant level of award for their number of reviews. I have tended to be focusing on users who review mainspace articles (you can check in their logs) for the awards: userspace is important, but the focus of the project has always been mainspace and I wanted to encourage that and show the people who are focused on getting pages there reviewed before the Google index that there work was noticed. Not saying you have to do the same, but explaining my methodology. Template:The New Page Patroller's Barnstar works for all the awards (see the parameters in the documentation). TonyBallioni (talk) 04:47, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Cool. I just gave out a bunch of standard barnstars today (everyone with +100 in the last month), as well as sent a bunch of invites out to people to join NPP. I'll focus on this aspect of 'patrolling' for a little while, as the lack of hands is the biggest issue at NPP at the moment. Encouraging good editors to review more, and encouraging other good editors to join in is probably a better use of my time in the long run then just reviewing myself (not that I am going to stop :). Cheers and thanks for all your help. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 07:11, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Not a problem. Yes, I agree more hands are needed, and thanks for your help. My focus of late has been largely answering questions and reviewing PERM requests. TonyBallioni (talk) 07:25, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, I've had a few bites. Mind reeling them in for me? — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 10:37, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you scrutinising them. I have been a little bit scattershot, and while I did check that they had enough experience, I wasn't checking how recent it was. Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Insertcleverphrasehere (talk • contribs) 18:35, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks for recruiting people. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:37, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Protection request

Hi, Tony! I'm still away from my tools. Could you (or one of your stalkers) please consider semi-protecting the page William Orrick III? He is a federal judge who just made a controversial decision, and vandalism started immediately. One of the deleted edits listed a "residential address". I have no idea if it was legitimate but it should probably be revdeled. Possibly oversighted as well but probably not necessary. Thanks for checking. (I sure hate posting from my phone! Apologies for any errors. ) MelanieN alt (talk) 16:06, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi'd for a week on BLP grounds given the concerns. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:10, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Wow, that was fast! Thanks. MelanieN alt (talk) 16:12, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Not a problem. I also contacted an oversighter regarding the address, and it should be gone now. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:13, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

NPP invite impact statistics

I was chatting with a friend of mine today and working out how to encourage people to do community outreach for NPP.

We thought up a neat way to show how much of an impact that inviting others to NPP makes in the long run by working out a way of easily collecting statistics on the number of reviews that are completed by users that a given reviewer has invited.

Essentially the idea would be to maintain a page listing 'Inviters' and 'Invitees' (people who invited others who requested and were subsequently granted the NPR flag, and the people they invited). This will allow a bot to easily identify all the users that any reviewer/admin has invited, and count up their total review count. This can be listed alongside a reviewer's own review count, and be added to it to show the user's total impact to NPP.

I've made a mockup at User:Insertcleverphrasehere/Top_new_article_reviewers with a supplementary page at User:Insertcleverphrasehere/Top_new_article_reviewers/Invite list. (Please forgive the usage of all our names and the relatively random assigning of inviter and invitee, it is just a demonstration)

In other words, someone who spends time identifying a lot of promising editors and inviting them to the project can be just as valuable as an editor who spends a lot of time reviewing themselves, so long as those editors subsequently start reviewing a lot of articles cumulatively. This would create a way of visualising what the impact is.

What would need to happen:

Have the Community Tech bot prepare an additional list of all reviewers+admins, and their review counts, rather than just the top 100 (yearly only). --we should be doing this anyway at the very least as a way of identifying how many users there are that do not ever review articles.
Have a bot (possibly even the Community Tech bot) use the list of inviters and invitees to calculate the numbers and insert them into two additional sort-able columns on the Wikipedia:Database reports/Top new article reviewers: 'Invitee reviews' and 'total impact'.

What do you think? is this a worthwhile idea, or do you think it is more trouble than it is worth? — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 12:06, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

I'll take a look at this in the next few says (sorry to not do it now). Busy both IRL and on-wiki currently. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:03, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

I think that this idea probably is more trouble than it is worth, but I am going to be requesting some changes to how the statistics on reviewing are gathered (I'd like a list of the top 1000 reviewer/admins, as well as an "all time" top list). — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 01:43, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for fixing that. I'm not sure what happened there. I was cleaning pages in my user space, when I went to my talk page and suddenly found the RfA redlinked. :-)—CYBERPOWER (Around) 01:36, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Hey, I figured. I guess d-batch saw it linked there and got it. Its okay. Yesterday I full protected all of the ACE2017 pages because I clicked the wrong button in p-batch :-) TonyBallioni (talk) 01:38, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

At least no one else noticed, hopefully. :p—CYBERPOWER (Around) 01:39, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Question

Hi Tony, not really sure how this works. I noticed an article I had published for a long time was deleted by user: Primefac which also listed your name in this users history. my username is piucaprim. Can I get this article back or ask for your help to find out why it was deleted. Thanks so much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Piucaprim (talk • contribs) 17:32, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Piucaprim, Frank Melli was deleted foremost because it was copied directly from other sources, and what remained was rather promotional; a total rewrite was really the only way to salvage the page. If you decide to rewrite the page, I suggest you use the Article wizard to do so; the original page didn't meet our guidelines for referencing, and a Draft will be reviewed by experienced editors after submission to make sure it conforms to our policies. Please note, however, that you will have to write everything in your own words (and not copy from other sources). Primefac (talk) 17:45, 25 November 2017 (UTC) (talk page stalker)

Strip patroller from banned socks.

Can you please strip off the new page reviewer flags from Oluwa2Chainz and Kajuran? They are both indef banned for sockpuppetry. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 18:20, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Done TonyBallioni (talk) 18:28, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Binamra Deb sock

No harm done - I think gut feel is important and I respect yours. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 20:12, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Curb Safe Charmer. Thanks. Apologies to Sir Sputnik as well. If you look at my userpage you'll see a little userbox that says This user has been A7'd by Drmies. Basically some random user that I never met created TonyBallioni as a gag: I'm sympathetic to the idea that random new accounts find experienced users and do silly things, and given that there were also good faith contributions, I wasn't comfortable blocking. Looking back, it would have been better just to note that and suggest a CU. My concern there was with a self-identified minor's privacy since I didn't see an obvious issue. You live and you learn. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:23, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

NPP

Hi again Tony. A page to which I contributed significantly was [reviewed] and that prompted me to look at the WP:NPP page. I am interested in joining, but having read the requirements, I am very reluctant to reply before undertaking much further reading on the process and related policies. While examining the NPP permissions page, I noticed that you play an active role in the assessment of permission requests. I'm therefore contacting you to ask what advice you might have for expediting my understanding of the reviewer process and requirements, with the aim that I might one day be eligible to apply.
One idea I had was to simply learn the review process and then informally review new articles as a standard editor, tagging them as required, collaborating with an approved reviewer and communicating with the editors who created the pages with advice for improvement.

I've noticed also that you are busy at the moment and stress that I'm in no rush and have plenty to read in the meantime!

Many thanks in advance for your time and advice!

Elliott Edaham (talk) 06:10, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi. I'd suggest just going for it. you seem to have enough edits, and recently enough, to qualify for the flag and I don't see anything worrying on your talk page (to the contrary). You need the NPR flag to use the page curation tools, so you kind of have to learn 'on-the-job'. The other thing about reviewing is that some are easy and some are not, do the easy ones that you feel comfortable with, and for others, tag the stuff you know about and then leave the article as 'un-reviewed' and keep it on your watchlist. Then you'll get a feel for what additional stuff you should be doing when another reviewer comes along and finishes the review.

I'd suggest installing some of the scripts mentioned on the NPP tutorial page, and have a look at the flowchart near the top of the page. It looks complicated, but when starting with a new article, it is fairly easy to simply follow the steps in the chart until you reach the end. You'll find that certain types of articles are pretty common, so you'll get the hang of it more and more and won't have to refer to the flowchart as often. Ping me on an article's talk page if you have any problems.

All in all I'd say apply for the flag and have a go. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 06:33, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi, Edaham. Doing a cursory look, I think you'd do fine. We have a talk page for the NPP project at WT:NPR which helps with collaboration and to ask questions. I don't like assigning permissions without a request at PERM for a few reasons (one of which being its just a lot easier to process there.) I'd suggest you make a request at WP:PERM/NPR and myself or another administrator will review it. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:35, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Templates

Hi, can you please tell me why the DS template at Talk:Roy Moore is so huge compared to the DS template at Talk:Roy Moore sexual abuse allegations? Do they mean something different? The small size of the latter one got me pretty confused, thinking it was not subject to as many restrictions. Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:52, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Anythingyouwant, they were placed under the same page level sanctions but under different arbcom rulings. The main Roy Moore article is under sanctions from the American politics case, which has a special template. The sexual abuse allegations are under sanctions from the BLP case, which just uses a standard template. I placed the sexual assault page under BLP sanctions specifically to avoid Wikilawyering as to whether it was “highly visible.” Additionally, page level sanctions are placed and users made aware not primarily by talk page templates, which are an additional measure, but by edit notices. Both pages contain nearly identical edit notices, with only the case differing. TonyBallioni (talk) 07:03, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

If the sanctions are the same, may I suggest that the templates be re-jiggered to have a more similar appearance instead of looking vastly different? Regarding edit notices, I see you just left me one, but they don't say which articles, right? For that we would have to look atop the articles' talk pages? Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:26, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Anythingyouwant, no, I will not be adjusting the templates. The one at Talk:Roy Moore is for the American politics case. The discretionary sanctions I placed on Talk:Roy Moore sexual abuse allegations are under the BLP case so it would not be appropriate to use it. The actual template you see every time you edit both pages is virtually identical: compare Template:Editnotices/Page/Roy Moore sexual abuse allegations and Template:Editnotices/Page/Roy Moore. Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions#Page_restrictions makes it clear that this is how editors are to be informed of page level restrictions. They are identical except for the case on both pages, so you should know that the sanctions are identical. TonyBallioni (talk) 07:34, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I see what you mean. I was very lucky today that someone alerted me at my user talk to a mistake I made in this regard, so I was able to self-revert. I'm just here to explain what happened to me, and it was because the templates looked so different superficially. Maybe other editors won't be so clueless as I was. Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:37, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Not a problem, and sorry I am being so firm on this, but I specifically applied BLP sanctions to that one page for a reason, so I don't think it would be appropriate to change the talk templates. Thank you for being so understanding. Have a great night. TonyBallioni (talk) 07:39, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I have not expressed myself well enough to you. I am not suggesting that you switch from a BLP-based template to an American politics-based template at Talk:Roy Moore sexual abuse allegations. I am suggesting that the BLP-based template be re-designed so that it looks more like the American politics-based template. The former template is now much smaller and insignificant-looking than the latter template, even though they carry the same sanctions. Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:43, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

The place to have that conversation would be at the talk page of Template:Ds/talk notice which is the generic discretionary sanctions talk page notice. TonyBallioni (talk) 07:51, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Will do, thanks. Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:55, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Did this instead. Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:24, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

I've reverted. Thank you for your concerns, but I placed the templates on those pages intentionally, and you shouldn't change them. If you want to open up a discussion, please do so on the template talk page(s). TonyBallioni (talk) 00:26, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

No, I see no reason to go to the template talk pages. If you have an objection to what I did, then I see no reason why you (or someone else) wouldn't likewise object to doing it some other way. I did not change the substantive content one iota, so if you have a problem with that, then I don't see why you wouldn't have a problem accomplishing the same thing via a different and more cumbersome process. So I'm going to just forget about it, which is unfortunate, because the present disparity is confusing (it confused me at least). However, it might have been nice to learn what your reason is, beyond "do not do that". Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:39, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

I have no opinions on the general format of the AP2 sanctions template. If you want to make a case that it should look like the rest of the DS talk templates, I will not object one bit. I placed Roy Moore under AP2 sanctions and Roy Moore sexual abuse allegations under for a reason, and they have the templates that match those cases.

My reason is this: Roy Moore is the more visible article, and the AP2 sanctions are so well known that using that template there makes sense. I sanctioned the sexual abuse page under the BLP case because I wanted to avoid Wikilawyering over whether a split from the main article qualified as "highly visible", so I didn't use the AP2 template on it. There is a large edit notice anytime you edit either page, so no one should be in the dark that there are active sanctions, and while I am sorry you were confused, I don't see a need to change it.

Also, as a helpful piece of advice (and it is meant this way, so please take it as such), it is a really bad idea for a non-admin to make any changes to a discretionary sanctions template placed by an administrator. You are free to ask about it, but don't change it. It is also an especially bad idea to make changes to the DS template on a page that you have just been put under discretionary sanctions on. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:44, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

I discussed the general problem here first and you expressed no objection to fixing it. Did I do anything more than formatting? If so, I apologize. Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:49, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

I like the AP2 template on Roy Moore better because it contains more information and will be helpful to users who are not familiar with our discretionary sanctions system. As the sexual abuse article is a split, its less likely to have new editors who will need this information. You didn't change anything in terms of what the restrictions are, but you still shouldn't have changed the template because as I hope you understand by now, I was very intentional with the way I dealt with both pages.

I also hope you know that I really am not mad and aren't out to get you: I have no idea where you stand on any of these disputes (except the one I sanctioned you on), and I am far removed from the American politics battleground so I'm not trying to enforce one "side" or another. I just want to decrease disruption on those pages, so that our readers benefit, and I've done it the best way I know how. You don't have to agree with it or like it, but I do ask that you leave it that way. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:57, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

No problem. Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:00, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Topic ban violation from DHeyward

I've answered the question posed, and I don't think further conversation here will do anything but inflame the situation. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:42, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Since User:DHeyward is topic banned from US politicians, and since the WP:AE request concerns Roy Moore, a US politician, this would appear to be a topic ban violation (only few days after the ban was imposed), afaict. In general, DHeyward really shouldn't be commenting on this request, per WP:BATTLEGROUND. Volunteer Marek 04:59, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

And you're TB from Donald Trump broadly construed, so how do you explain talking about it here and here. What makes you think you are free to discuss what is or isn't related to Donald Trump and that no-one else can discuss anything related to their TB? DHeyward believed it was about BLP sanctions not politics - you believed it was about Moore, not Trump. You take the cake, VM. ^{Atsme📞📧} 05:24, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

I am NOT banned from Donald Trump broadly construed, so please stop repeating that lie. Volunteer Marek 05:50, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek, I suppose it normally would be, though me being the new admin who is not that experienced at AE (and doesn't want to be), worded it as articles, so I'm willing to extend some good faith here. I'm also not particularly in the mood to block someone for a comment in a case I'm specifically staying out of while an appeal from their sanction is pending at AN. I would caution DHeyward that it does seem like a particularly bad idea to be commenting on an AE action on the same article that caused them to receive a topic ban a few days ago.

Marek, I'm not going to take any action here personally, but I'm also not opposed to any other admin taking action if they think it is warranted. Thank you for the post here, however. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:45, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm fine with him just removing it or striking it. Volunteer Marek 05:50, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

I think that would likely be a good idea, considering it does go against the spirit of the TBAN if not the exact letter, but will leave it up to the other admins at AE to decide. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:55, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm not okay with striking it since AE is not an article and none of the editors commenting are politicians. What's amazing is VMs broad construction for everyone else but such a narrow one for himself. --DHeyward (talk) 06:00, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

I haven't filed a WP:AE on it, have I? Honestly, the fact that you're engaging in WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior is the more problematic here. Volunteer Marek 06:15, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Oh please. You came here in a petty attempt to exact a sanction while you are subject to sanction and involved in numerous AE requests. You run to AE with every conflict that you create. That's BaTTLEGROUND behavior. I've not requested any action against you except in reply to your frivolous requests. I'm only here because you summoned me with your nonsense. Just stop whining and start editing. --DHeyward (talk) 06:40, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Per the Atsme result, the Roy Moore sexual abuse allegation article is within Volunteer Mareks topic ban.

Per the Atsme result, the Roy Moore sexual abuse allegation article is within Volunteer Mareks topic ban. Reverting topic banned editors is not considered a revert. Please lift my topic ban in light of this finding. You can trout me with the same fish that was given Atsme. --DHeyward (talk) 15:49, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

No. That is not clear, and GoldenRing did not think that it was. It was also far from clear at the time that it was within his topic ban. Your topic ban still stands. I will not be lifting it. Also, for the record, if I had been commenting on that case, I would have strongly opposed the idea that it was within Marek's topic ban: that would be a de facto ban from all AP2 articles, which was clearly not the intent. I don't think there is a consensus among administrators on that point, and I would oppose sanctioning Marek for it in the future. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:51, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Tony would this be because the new rendition does not cause abandonment of an older finding?--MONGO 16:17, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Its because the actions by DHeyward were disruptive, indicated an intent to game the system, and at the time before Sandstein's close of the new AE thread, I saw no possible way even under the broadest of constructions how Moore as an individual could fall within a Trump ban unless GoldenRing had intended it to be an AP2 ban entirely, which in the AE thread that Sandstein closed, he said he did not intend. If there are questions as to if an action counts as a revert for edit warring/1RR/3RR purposes, editors should generally assume it does. DHeyward also didn't seem to come to this belief that it fell within Marek's topic ban until after he was at AE. It was just edit warring, plain and simple, and I don't think that it should be WikiLawyered out of because of an unclear sanction placed by another admin.

Also, to address criticisms of me at DHeyward's talk page: I'm new, in my RfA I described no intent of working in AE, and I still don't really have an intent to work in it. I just happened to be the first uninvolved admin to come across Roy Moore the day the scandal broke, and I put it under DS because it was obvious that it would need it. Same with the sexual abuse one. I don't like working in this area, and I don't like sanctioning experienced editors, but I also try to be fair, and always to explain my reasoning if people have issues. I don't mind saying I'm wrong or taking criticism, but I don't think this was a case where I was wrong. Anyway, thank you for dropping by, MONGO (and I mean that). I always appreciate when people drop by, even if its on contentious things :) TonyBallioni (talk) 16:32, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

That's not true. I will raise some issues though. First, Volunteer Marek I believe is under a topic ban for articles related to Donald Trump. is my first statement regarding the reverts. Anyway, I brought it to AE in light of the fact that two other editors violated 1RR DS to revert two other editors subject to the Goldenring topic ban. Those two editors were not sanctioned. Anyway, off we go again[1]. --DHeyward (talk) 17:00, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Tony...I recognize you're a newer Admin and I thank you for taking on the roles and for the thankless job of working as an AE admin as well. This is a difficult set of articles, drawing very polarizing views and with the Senate having such a narrow majority led by the Republicans at present, I'm concerned that the Moore articles and related ones are being used as a coatrack for every negative piece of information imaginable, and NPOV as well as BLP are being put to the test and Wikipedia is being misused as an advocacy platform. This is not to say you are doing anything other than what you think is best. Best wishes.--MONGO 17:12, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, MONGO, that is appreciated. I also have concerns about the neutrality of articles, but I think that it should be worked out by consensus on the talk page, and that the edit warring here is more harmful than things that can be addressed through consensus and are not clear BLP violations. Thank you agan for your work here :) TonyBallioni (talk) 17:16, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

MONGO, I don't think there's any precedent for the Moore situation. He's a person credibly accused of the sexual molestation and assault of multiple young teenagers, and yet he's running for the US Senate with the tacit (and increasingly, the explicit) approval of the Republican Party—despite the Party leadership's agreement that the accusations are credible and likely true. I'm not sure what the right balance is for a Wikipedia biography under those circumstances, but I'm hesitant to say that it's just people throwing negative stuff into a BLP. Presenting the facts alone paints a pretty negative picture, both of Moore and of the Party, to many people. It's our job to be fair and accurate, but it's also our job not to pretend that every set of facts has a separate and equally valid set of alternative facts.
Tony, I think you're a good admin and quite possibly will turn out to be a great admin. I do think it's wise to go slow when it comes to getting involved at WP:AE. Over the ten years I've been here, I've been active in nearly every corner of this site, and I can say that WP:AE is, without exception, the most challenging and demanding administrative corner of the project. By its nature, it attracts and concentrates the most difficult topics, and the most difficult editors, on the project. The only error I think you made in this case was in underestimating the capacity of DHeyward and others for wikilawyering. Once you've been an admin a little longer, you'll become cynical enough not to make that sort of mistake again. :P I hope to see you active at WP:AE down the line—it's historically been quite understaffed—but I also think, as you alluded to, that it's best to gain some experience in dispute resolution in slightly less treacherous terrain before taking that on. In any case, thanks for your work and I hope to see you around. MastCell ^Talk 20:37, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, thanks for the advice, I agree :). AE was not something that I wanted to get involved in at all, to be honest, I just stumbled upon Moore after the scandal and put the DS on it to try to prevent the situation from getting out of hand. It definitely isn't my goal to be a regular AE admin: I try to stay away from drama, and have not particularly enjoyed the whole Roy Moore saga. Anyway, thanks again for posting here :) TonyBallioni (talk) 20:44, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

To put it more concretely, DS covers contentious topics. Topics become contentious when two or more opposing groups of editors disagree. Ideally these groups maintain a balance and the resulting articles are a satisfactory compromise; that's rare. More common is that the group with greater numbers dictates content. That's a consequence of the consensus model and editing restrictions like 3RR. Because the cost of recruiting new editors is high - it takes months or years to learn to edit difficult articles properly - and the cost of topic banning editors is low - a week or so of back and forth at AE - numbers are determined more by who's banned than who's recruited. Thus article content is controlled by bans. The fewer administrators who dispense the bans the more power each has to control content. This is amplified if the administrators coordinate explicitly off wiki, or implicitly though shared biases.

If that model is correct is predicts: higher correlation between editor and outcome than action and outcome, high correlation between topic and administrator, high correlation in known biases - expressed in article edits and casual discussion - of participating administrators, and hostility to new administrators whose biases are unknown, or known but conflict with the existing consensus. I'll leave it as an exercise to the reader to determine whether those predictions are confirmed. 107.77.223.97 (talk) 22:45, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Premature ending of RfC

I object in the strongest possible terms to your early closure of that Request for Comment. The process is meant to last thirty days, and if my understanding is correct, an automatic means to solicit feedback had yet to even begin (and which your action assumingly aborts).

As I had just made clear in my last comment, any argument that the issue has been conclusively settled, is flat out wrong - currently, on a survey of just seven people, one of whose actions as an Administrator (Dennis) is the direct inspiration for the question, there is clear disagreement over whether journalists can or cannot contact Wikipedia users, and if they can, whether they should declare themselves as paid editors or not. It goes without saying that such an issue cannot be settled formally as undecided (and so leave it to chance) on such a low turnout and short time period.

I genuinely hope this is just a case of you not having properly read the question, or thought through the implications of the responses (do not be misled by the mere existence of only "oppose" responses, what matters is their reasoning, given the question). Unless you can convince me this is not what has happened here, for example by telling me exactly what an Administrator is supposed to learn from this outcome (with reference to the precise wording of the question, in a way that is consistent with the responses so far), I have to dispute it.

If you cannot explain this action, I will absolutely challenge it, because journalists do not deserve to be left in limbo like this, unsure whether they will be blocked on basic principle (Alan, Dennis?), blocked if they do not declare as paid editors (Dennis? Cullen) or should not be blocked at all (Justin, Risker), plus whatever Carrite thinks is the common sense approach to each unique situation. I hope that mini-summary alone illustrates the perversity of GMG declaring there is "unanimous opposition" to the question, and you apparently acting on it.

I am loathe to give Dennis' words any more gravitas than he is seeking with his stream of unceasing insults and insinuations, but on a point of fact, in case you gave it any consideration when deciding to end this RfC early, I have not "shopped this all over" - after being brushed off by him on his talk page, I asked at the Help Desk what I should do, and they suggested a Request for Comment at the Village Pump, and so there I went.

Until your premature ending of the process, I was confident of generating enough responses to either produce a clear and authorative protocol, or at least a widely agreeable advice page, if clarity was still lacking. But what can I write with this handful of contradictory views? I can have a go, but I suspect the very first reaction from others on seeing it, would be to dismiss it as illegitimate.

In anticipation of the right outcome, thank you for your consideration.

James Marshall Y (talk) 19:44, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

James Marshall Y, please see WP:SNOW. There was no way your RfC was ever going to have a conclusive answer because members of the Wikipedia community all agreed that they did not want to consider your RfC as it was instruction creep and not needed. It is routine for administrators or other experienced editors to close discussions early when the result becomes clear and keeping it open any further will simply waste the community's time. You are free to request a review of my closure at WP:AN, but I don't think you should. We had opposes from some of the most respected members of our community that come from very different places on the WikiPhilosophy spectrum. Further discussion of this would be a waste of the community's time and would be extremely unlikely to change the result. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:50, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Six minutes seems barely enough time for you to have read my request and posted the reply, let alone go back and review the RfC to understand what I was asking you to do. Thus, I am not convinced.

Can I ask you one last time to properly read what I wrote above. I don't want there to be any misunderstandings or mistakes made in this process due to inattentivenesss, because whatever happens, I intend to write an advice page for journalists seeking to contact Wikipedia users. If it makes no sense or lacks legitimacy, the first port of call in understanding why it doesn't, will surely be the premature end to the consultation that led to it.

I can certainly understand the concepts of instruction creep and not wasting people's time, the issue is, do the respondents? Do you appreciate the potential for future wasted time in ending this early, with contradictory and incompatible statements left on the table?

James Marshall Y (talk) 20:24, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @James Marshall Y: Hullo! By much the same token, one could argue that twenty-one edits and four days' tenure "seems barely enough time" for you to want to start creating policy pages concerning publicity issues... in these situations I usually recommend doing some article work, you know, good practice and all that, and it has the beneficial side-effect of showing other, more experienced editors that you are, indeed, here to build an encyclopaedia. Incidentally, regarding your intention "whatever happens" to create this page, it's probably worth pointing out that re-creating a page that has been deemed unnecessary by the community could be seen as at best a misuse of server-space, or- at worst, mind you- disruptive. Happy editing! Serial Number54129^{...speculates} 20:33, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

James Marshall Y, I think my friend the integer is right on point here, but to respond to your question: yes, I read your reply, and then went to the RfC again, came back here, and wrote my reply. It's not that difficult to do: there was no chance at all of there being another outcome. Again, you are free to take this to WP:AN, but the result isn't going to be any different. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:39, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Your friend apparently doesn't even realise his own recommendation that I do some article work isn't backed by HERE at all, indeed it is explicitly called out as wrong. And if he had studied my time here as closely as he claims, would have known I would be very familiar with its contents. I know nothing of NOTWEBHOST, but if he had a point he'd probably not have to be so vague in this piece of advice (and how does one recreate a page that never existed?).

So, all things considered, by championing his advice as if it was informed and well given, and yet again doing nothing to convince me you have read anything I said or done anything I asked, except to simply insist you have, then I hope it will come as no surprise when I do challenge this.

I will, at least, give you a chance to review the complaint first, because I think once you see it, you will realise I am serious, and there is every chance the result could be different. It was a very simple request, after all, and I've been as reasonable as anyone could be expected to be in the circumstances. James Marshall Y (talk) 21:29, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

(Having been named) Then, as you have been advised, take your request to the relevant noticeboard. Rehashing the same argument here whilst concomitantly failing to parse the difference between WP:HERE and WP:YOURFIRSTARTICLE means that you must be in need of good venue (one of those "universally acknowledged truths," you see. Just FYI. SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 21:43, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

And... thank you, Alex Shih. This was getting really boring :) SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 21:46, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Arifhidayat

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Arifhidayat. Regards:) Winged Blades^Godric 05:15, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

I've blocked but left open in case a passing CU wants to do a sleeper check. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:23, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

That was lightning fast !

Winged Blades^Godric 05:27, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Special:Undelete has its perks. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:28, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Let it go

This AE filing against DHeyward does not paint you in a flattering light. The T-ban you imposed was overkill and a bit confusing, causing you to have to explain it at multiple venues. Your request for enforcement kind of feels like an attempt at revenge. Just let it go. His edits improved the encyclopedia, which should not result in punishment. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:24, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Mr Ernie, I withdrew the AE filing. There was no intent to be personal or revenge, and I'm sad it came off to some that way. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:01, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello Tony, In practice, it is easier to issue topic bans from 'the entire domain of X' when X is an Arbcom case. Especially if the topic ban is rather short (one month in this case). Many filings at AE involve people who are unclear on the limits of their ban, and anything that reduces the uncertainty is good. This happened to me a year ago when trying to specify a set of Indian topics that someone was banned from. It led to endless complexities. A better choice would have been a 'ban from all of WP:ARBIPA'. EdJohnston (talk) 23:46, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Ed. You live and you learn. The advice is appreciated: I don’t plan to be too involved in AE, but if I ever get into it again, I’ll definitely take this advice into account. I was trying to be nuanced, but I clearly didn’t strike the right balance with clarity. My mistake, and I own it. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:51, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

(silently taking notes). Alex Shih (talk) 05:08, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

I gather...

...that didn't really have anything to do with me, just TC mistook me for an admin? E Eng 01:52, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

EEng, yep. I dealt with it: nothing at all related to you. I always remove posts like that, especially on pages that have a fair amount of visitors. Sorry if there was any confusion. Should have emailed you. Hope you're doing well this weekend. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:58, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Tiny issue

We have Chapter Three:Yellow which is a redirect to Bea Miller from a move, and now there is also Chapter Three: Yellow which should probably be a speedy since we don't need two, and neither are notable enough to be a standalone. ^{Atsme📞📧} 00:56, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Adding a bigger issue

Yuka & Chronoship - wanna be stars - source links to a fund raising scheme to get public to fund their music video. I tagged it A7 but had no way to explain about the public funding drive. ^{Atsme📞📧} 01:08, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Chapter Three:Yellow and Chapter Three: Yellow now both redirect to Bea Miller. For what it's worth, the latter title is the better location to hold such content, as there actually is a space after the colon. I agree that it's not (yet) worth having an article on, but if I'm reverted I'm not going to fight it and you'll probably have to take it to AFD. I notice the other two "chapters" have their own articles, so I suspect that it will soon cease being a redirect.

As for Y&C, it was a borderline A7, but the article as a whole was one big promo piece so I went ahead and deleted as both A7 and G11. Primefac (talk) 01:34, 26 November 2017 (UTC) (talk page stalker)

A favour.

I invited Babymissfortune last night (intentionally not pinging), and had an interesting comment from them. Apparently they are keen to become a reviewer and start reviewing pages again, but not super keen on applying for the user-right at PERM (see their talk page). After reviewing their submissions, I see that they have had a few of their submitted articles deleted (but not any of their recent ones from the past year and a bit). Could you perhaps have a look at them on the down-low when you have time and if you think they are appropriate add them to the patroller user-right group? — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 16:59, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

I typically prefer people apply at PERM. It allows other admins to look at them and also makes granting the right and reviewing the request much easier. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:29, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

I have passed on the message. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 21:23, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Just curious...

How is Roy Moore sexual abuse allegations not a POVFORK, or attack page - or both? They are allegations, WP:NOTNEWS, no one has rushed to create Al Franken sexual abuse allegations...the NPOV-BLP issues are blindingly political. ^{Atsme📞📧} 13:54, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

I don’t get into American politics pages if I can help it. I only applied sanctions to that page because I thought that given the content, it made sense for the page restrictions to match that of the main Roy Moore page. I think Melanie nominated it for deletion and nothing came of it. Might be worth trying again at AfD if he loses the election (if he wins I doubt the outcome will be any different than the last.) TonyBallioni (talk) 14:03, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

You're the smart one - I get suckered in because without strict adherence to BLP policy, AfD will quickly become a nightmare and our work at NPP & AfC won't be far behind. Dealing with the dichotomy between inclusionists and deletionists at AfD can be exhausting. What I can't figure out about the Moore article is why it was proposed that we wait until after the election to nominate it for AfD? How does that not scream politically motivated POV to any common sense editor? WP should not be used to promote or detract from anything - COI applies equally to advocacies as it applies to edit for pay. We each should do what we can to prevent our encyclopedia from turning into a political SOAPBOX or advertising/marketing tool. When one of our 500lb gorillas sees a POV Fork, I think it's time for us to pay attention. I've expressed my views on the current situation at AE. Oh, and I started an essay in my sandbox the other day based on a recent experience at BLPN (you're welcome to review it) in an effort to help new editors understand policy and hopefully avoid potential issues. Our policies can be ambiguous at times but there are aspects of BLP that are very clear so why are they still being ignored? I was happy to see that Masem initiated a survey at VP regarding NOTNEWS issues, and it appears the prevailing consensus will be stricter enforcement. ^{Atsme📞📧} 16:55, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

I generally agree with Drmies on these sorts of things: he is one of our editors who takes BLP issues the most seriously and for all the shit he has to take for his service to this project, he should seriously be thanked. I didn't participate in the AfD and don't know the specific arguments on either side in this case. As a general principle, I support a stronger enforcement of NOTNEWS, but have been busy lately with working on paid editing concerns, because I view that as the biggest threat to our project currently. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:51, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

I couldn't agree with you more!! The stinker didn't put his name in the hat for ArbCom. 😞 Well, on a brighter note, his TP may return to being his "happy place" again. BTW, I sought a bit of guidance and requested a review of the close. It was quickly re-opened, so hopefully there will be some productive discussion over the next few days. In the interim, I'll keep my fingers crossed hoping that when it's time to wrap things up, a BLP savvy admin will be lined-up next in the queue to close. ^{Atsme📞📧} 03:26, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Question: What does this mean in layperson terms: there does seem to be agreement that this was not BLP exempt? ^{Atsme📞📧} 18:15, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

That there did seem to be agreement amongst the admins who were participating in the AE request that there was not a BLP violation in the article, and that it wouldn't have qualified under WP:3RRBLP (which deals with 3RR, but is also applicable to 1RR and consensus required restrictions). While there was disagreement as to whether or not a sanction should be imposed, I found SPECIFICO's comment that ...it's very disheartening to see Admins at AE bending over backwards to find reasons not to enforce DS to be convincing, so I went with 0RR in hopes that it would force talk page discussion and to avoid blocking. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:24, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Interesting, thank you for sharing. While I understand your reasoning - and please don't think for one minute that I'm judging or questioning your decision because that is not the case. I probably would have taken a different route...not that my opinion means anything...I'm just trying to sort things out in my head. I evaluated the responses in the "statements" section, and let the admin section tip the scales in whatever direction the valid arguments determined. I gave more weight to the BLP arguments because of the liability aspects of defamation. I saw a prevailing determination that a BLP violation did exist, and while the ONUS argument is important, I didn't think it should trump BLP policy because of the potential liability involved, and the exposure it may create for individual editors who worked on the article. Does that make sense? Admittedly, my thinking may be remnants from a former broadcast/publishing career with a splattering of past litigation (copyvio and defamation but not as defendant), so my reasons for favoring BLP policy are valid. I realize the political arena is a different animal, and something I've avoided like the plague, but here we are...and pigs still can't fly, and horses still eat hay and oats no matter how many vitamins you add to the grain. The following is what I concluded: (you can archive this whole discussion if you'd like)

Yes, a BLP vio exists

Masem - "...did properly identify that this was definitely in the realm of possibly being a BLP violation"

Dennis Brown - "but there were some BLP consideration. Honestly, this straddles the fence between WP:CRYBLP and genuine BLP concerns, but if it erred, it erred on the side of protecting the individual, the lesser of the two available evils here."

GoldenRing - "My personal opinion of the BLP claim chimes with that of Dennis Brown and I won't reiterate what he has said.."

Not BLP

Vanamode - "The BLP exemption does not apply in this situation, because the the edits in question were not removing BLP violating content, but were adding commentary to a statement which was certainly not a clear-cut BLP vio."

Bishonen - "Reply to Anythingyouwant's question: Yes, I do disagree that the current wording, "Moore denied the initial allegations of sexual assault, but did not deny approaching or dating teenagers", which Melanie restored after you amplified it into "but did not deny approaching or dating teenagers who were not underage", is a BLP violation."

Drmies - I have defended the BLP in Judge Moore-related articles a few times, and I wish that the "accusations" article didn't exist, but this was no BLP violation--this was just POV edit warring which deserves a sanction."

Neutral

Sandstein - "I would take no action here on formal grounds."

The consensus actually shows a BLP vio. ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:30, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Atsme and Anythingyouwant:, thank you for the message. Your thoughts and questions are always welcomed here, and I never mind explaining my reasoning. In terms of WP:3RRBLP, the exemption is specifically for Removing violations of the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy that contain libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced contentious material. This is because spotting BLP violating content and removing it is a lot easier to do and more easy to agree on than it is adding additional content that is meant to balance a BLP. The latter can be contentious as well, which is why when it is reverted, especially if an article is under discretionary sanctions, it should be discussed on the talk page so that the wording can be agreed upon.

Re: your counting, my reading of the full discussion was that there was general agreement that there wasn't a BLP violation. I read Bish's comments as firmly putting her in the "No BLP violation" camp, and Dennis Brown/GoldenRing as thinking there likely wasn't a BLP violation that needed removing, but that someone shouldn't be sanctioned or sanctioned that strongly for it. GoldenRing specifically stated that the BLP policy only applies to removing material, though he thought the principle should apply, and Dennis Brown saw the actions as a "technical violation" of the sanctions, and only suggested an admonishment. On the whole, I think there was agreement that this wasn't the strongest claim for being exempted from a revert restriction based on BLP grounds.

There was not a consensus among admins as to how to respond to the violation. I went with 0RR because 1) I firmly believe that sanctions should never be punishment, and I don't see what a block would have done, 2) it will help move the conversation to the talk page until after the election, which is when these articles are going to be in their most contentious state, and 3) I thought it was the narrowest possible sanction that could be crafted that was above an admonishment, and I thought something more than an admonishment was needed to help prevent disruption on a highly visible American politics page.

Anythingyouwant, you are free to appeal this sanction at WP:AE. I think it is a fair one, but I never mind having my judgement reviewed by other administrators. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:10, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

And your response is why you have my utmost respect. Thank you for explaining. You are a treasure. Thank you. ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:24, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) You've put me under the wrong header there, Atsme. I was saying the version AYW was complaining about, and insisting on making additions to, and in fact asked me about, was not a BLP violation. (=I disagreed with AYW that the version he kept changing was a BLP vio.) Feel free to disagree, but that was my opinion, which I posted at AE. Sorry it wasn't clear, I might should have put it more simply. Bishonen | talk 23:56, 27 November 2017 (UTC).

My question at AE was: “@User:Bishonen, you think it’s fine and dandy for a BLP lead to say the BLP subject has not denied something, even though uncontradicted reliable sources say he has partly denied it? Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:24, 26 November 2017”. So it seems the answer is “yes”. Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:36, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

What to do about...

...a banned user’s creation of multiple TPs, most of which are for users who have no edits or user pages, and the few who do are minimal? Notice the dates. ^{Atsme📞📧} 13:46, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Noticing that since that was two and a half years ago (*April 2015), I would sugest: very little. Why does it matter? — fortunavelut luna^{Rarely receiving (many) pings. Bizarre.} 13:51, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Does it not make those user names unavailable for new users?
If the banned user created the accounts and knows the login & password, could they not use them for block evasion, or is that not possible?

^{Atsme📞📧} 14:05, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Seen. Well; firstly, the accounts have been created already, so they are now unavailable to new users regardless of who created the accounts (although having said that, per [[WP:USURP], with such insiginicant activity, someone else usurping the account shouldn't be a problem). Secondly, I assume on principle, that yes they could, and socks do seem to love giving themselves barnstars, warnings etc (I assume it's a way of logging them for their own reference- but still odd. Do't they have a pen and paper.) However, technically, if they created them from the same place (and looking at the closeness of the times that seems possible) then Misheu's hardblock might stop them. Or the fact that the accounts were created before the block might mean it doesn't. Where are these tecnical wonks when you need them. Mind you, if they are sleeper accounts, then that means they've been sleeping for the same 2.5 years ;) — fortunavelut luna^{Rarely receiving (many) pings. Bizarre.} 14:52, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Seems odd, but we also some users who basically go through the account creation log and welcome new users who have made no edits for what appears to be no reason (I can think of at least one good-faith user now who is a prolific "welcomer" of vandals and socks, unwittingly). I wouldn't worry about it. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:05, 28 November 2017 (UTC)