User talk:TonyBallioni: Difference between revisions

User:Westernways and User:Uupnow

I don't know if I may be right but I believe that Westerways and Uupnow is a sock puppet of User:Smallmouthbassboost who edit the sandbox more that ten times and vandalize Taylor Swift related articles based on the report I made earlier at the AIV. Is it possible that both accounts may be Smallmouthbassboost? Raritydash (talk) 16:55, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, TonyBallioni. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 00:59, 23 June 2019 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

GAB^gab 00:59, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Repeated tendentious sockpuppetry accusations

Hello, TonyBallioni. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:58, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Recent Changes Patrol Help

Is there any way you configure RCP so it shows edits likely needing patrol? Recent Changes Patrol seems very daunting...the list grows by 30 or 40 every second... Awesome Aasim 01:06, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

I may have figured it out. I know of the filters available, but I do not know which ones you tend to use (which may be helpful given you are an experienced editor and admin). Awesome Aasim 01:15, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Awesome Aasim, (talk page stalker), I hope you don't mind another opinion.I use these settings: [1], which excludes registered users and bot edits and highlights probably bad edits. I sometimes include registered users, but I find that they are much less likely to be problematic. StudiesWorld (talk) 13:26, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Starship.paint

Hi Tony. What is the precipitating event or events that caused you to indefinitely block Starship.paint?. Also, why was his talk page access revoked? Thank you.- MrX 🖋 14:06, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Read the block notice on Starship.paint (talk · contribs)'s talk page. Also look at roughly the last several edits across enwiki and metawiki. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:12, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

You really think I didn't read the block notice? Awesome.- MrX 🖋 14:17, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Well, you asked what caused TonyBallioni (talk · contribs) to block Starship.paint (talk · contribs), and the reason is clearly given in the block notice. I assumed you hadn't noticed it, so I pointed it out. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:26, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi MrX, see my comments here and the previous warning he received by Nick here. Even if identities are known, this is not something we allow. It is the harassment of other human beings based on where they work or their perceived side in a on-wiki dispute. In cases of harassment where the harassment involved the abuse of user talk pages of others, I typically revoke TPA to prevent further issues from occurring on-wiki. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:13, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) diff, diff, [2] seems enough to be going on with... ——SerialNumber54129 14:14, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

I forgot about the Rob thing, but this still seems excessive under the circumstances.- MrX 🖋 14:19, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

• Seriously, Tony? This is indef-worthy stuff, from a contributor who has written excellent content and is not a flyby drama-monger? Since, Nick's warning to him counts, I will expect that stuff like this shall get a warning too for the 2 involved admins, right? I can surely point out others, who have asked the same query including ex-arbs, warn all of them? There are also multiple longstanding editors, who have raised/commented on the issue of the staffs (esp. T&S folks) liking Maher's tweet, warn/block them for infringing on OUTING and all that? ∯WBG^converse 14:30, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
• He’s free to appeal (and has). My identity here isn’t public, but I always try to put myself in the shoes of the person the actions are taken against. The message being sent is we’re watching your every action because of your job, which I do consider to be targeted harassment, especially when taken in context. If the reason the WMF stepped in was because they thought that we couldn’t handle cases like this, the way to prove them right is to not take any action when someone targets their staff members. Yes, this whole situation is a complete mess, but blocking people for inappropriate actions in it and letting the appeals process play out shows that we do have community self-governances and that it should be taken seriously. The other option would have been for T&S to lock themselves, and that would be less than ideal in the current circumstances... TonyBallioni (talk) 14:34, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

  Nice. Since we're entering newer territories, let me understand something. Floq over Jimbo's t/p noted:- Is it true that users with Twitter profiles "Trust & Safety @Wikimedia/@Wikipedia" and "Community & Audience Engagement Associate" both liked your CEO's tweet?. Does it qualify under watching your every action because of your job i.e. harassment? Does it show any fake concern? ∯WBG^converse 14:44, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

• Block is not only justified, but mandatory until they can adequately explain the error of their behavior, make it clear they understand our policies against harassment and vow to never repeat it.--MONGO (talk) 14:36, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
• There is no way for volunteers to communicate with WMF or its staff. Unresponsive on-wiki, blockworthy off. It's a horrible way to treat volunteers. One could suspect that elements in WMF are deliberately winding things up in order to cause editor blow-ups, and get critics blocked. DuncanHill (talk) 15:12, 28 June 2019 (UTC)