User talk:TParis/Archive 12

United States Marine Corps Forces Special Operations Command

Hey TParis, if you have nothing better to do, maybe you can have a look at this article to see if we need this much detail. Happy days, Drmies (talk) 14:28, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Just an idea but could probably be all moved to United States Marine Corps Critical Skills Operator since all that training narrative is about them. Regards, —  dainomite   16:46, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Heh, I was actually going to ping you, Dainomite, when I got to a computer. This is really your ball game. But I think the whole training part can but cut. If moved, it should be trimmed. It's way too long and overtakes the rest of the article. Too much weight given to training given that there arn't any third party sources about it.--v/r - TP 17:52, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Haha, that is pretty funny. I saw this when I was bored and browsing WP on my phone... waiting on my S4 for one signature so I can be done outprocessing. Grr. But yeah, anywho.. I'll trim it up and move relevent, NPOV stuff to the CSO page and since that's a pretty tiny stub. While I'm at it I'll try to look for some stuff to expand it. I need a new project since college football is over and my GA Nom for Bryan D. Brown was successfull yesterday, woot! —  dainomite   20:33, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Re: Nightskate

All recent edits - since July - have been vandalism, basically posting links to unrelated music videos into the article as "references" (1, 2, 3, 4, 5). For example, adding a Jay-Z music video in the middle of a word of an article and with the summary "bling-ed it a bit" doesn't seem to be good faith. The user's edits that I'd possibly consider competent and good faith were made over a couple years ago (November 2009 and September 2011), so while technically the account may not be vandalism only, everything within the past several months were all vandalism (with a very large break in between...perhaps this is a compromised account). Hm, actually now I see one edit from more recently (October) that may possibly fall under this - [1] - but again it's a disruptive fake reference that has a link unrelated to the article's content, consistent with the addition of youtube videos into the article. While not every single edit made by this account has been obvious vandalism, every single edit made within the past year has fallen into what I would consider vandalism, and I feel blocking under VOA was justified. If you feel differently, go ahead, but just keep an eye on the user's contributions. Spencer^T♦C 19:23, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, seems fair. I'll give it some though. I might just ask for an AN review. The user seems to be asking in good faith for an unblock.--v/r - TP 19:42, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good. That was my perspective, and I could be wrong, so an AN review could be reasonable. Best, Spencer^T♦C 20:11, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Merry Christmas from Cyberpower678

—cyberpower _Online^{Merry Christmas} is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

—cyberpower _Online^{Merry Christmas} 22:48, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

I was gonna smack another Christmas template to your page, but two is enough already. I hope you and yours have a Merry Christmas! Ishdarian 10:20, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Not in irc? XTool bug report

BUG report: http://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/pages/ has the wrong title (has "Top Namespace Edits"). Insert Xmas greetings here. Josh Parris 07:26, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Also, 404 on http://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/images/labs.png Josh Parris 08:35, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

MM

Apparently, TP, your recent illness (I hope you are fully recovered now) did nothing to interfere with your judgment. Your closure of the Miles topic (and subtopics), which went out of control quite some ago, was a good deed worthy of the holiday season. Regards.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:42, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I went through 3 illnesses all in a row. It started with strep p throat a few weeks ago and as I got over that, I picked up a regular cold. Finishing that up, I caught a stomach bug that was compounded by Pepto. I'm finally feeling better for the first time in about a month.--v/r - TP 16:48, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

My, hopefully you've gotten all of it out of your system, so to speak, so you will remain illness-free for all of 2014.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:50, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

New article counter failure

Hi, I tried this query and it took several minutes before throwing a 502 Proxy Error:

Proxy Error

The proxy server received an invalid response from an upstream server.

The proxy server could not handle the request GET /xtools/pages/index.php.

Reason: Error reading from remote server

--Redrose64 (talk) 14:05, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

I get something similar for http://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/pages/index.php?name=Josh+Parris&lang=en&wiki=wikipedia&namespace=0&redirects=noredirects Josh Parris 00:58, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

XTools is on GitHub

I have posted the code at Cyberpower678/xtools and added you as a collaborator. Code changes should be made there first before being made live. Bug reports and feature requests should be directed there too. I've already opened a few very vague requests that I plan to undertake in the future.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 21:11, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Hope you're feeling better. Just a friendly bump on this one.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 01:39, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Yup, I saw it :)--v/r - TP 01:40, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I was thinking about restructuring the tools, to all use common data, like a config file, and create a universal design interface for the tools. I was also think about using labs grid to do intense data process. I could use your help with that.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 01:44, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I am moving halfway around the world this month (Jan, not Dec). I won't be able to devote any time to anything for awhile.--v/r - TP 01:47, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

That's ok. You have access to the repository at any time. Just feel free to join in at anytime.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 01:50, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Happy 2014 from Cyberpower678

—cyberpower _Online^{Happy 2014} — is wishing you a Happy New Year! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the New Year cheer by adding {{subst:New Year 1}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

—cyberpower _Online^{Happy 2014} 00:06, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Barnstar of Awesome

	Barnstar of Awesome
	You are hereby awarded the Barnstar of Awesome for your much appreciated protection of Wikipedia from language snobbery [2]. Thank you! Regards, Safehaven86 (talk) 16:16, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Deity

From Latin _Deus_. My mom taught Latin and the spelling yells at me <g> Collect (talk) 22:28, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Hey, I'm still closing :P Peace.--v/r - TP 22:29, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Pax vobiscum <g>. And Happy New Year! Collect (talk) 22:32, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

MilesMoney's response on his talk page

I have seen a statement by User:MilesMoney on his talk page, in response to a request from you. There are a number of issues that I would like to respond to, as a somewhat-involved editor. What is the appropriate forum for doing that? I am reluctant to post directly on Miles' page. Do you anticipate that this statement will be in the RfC/U? StAnselm (talk) 22:58, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'm prepared to go back and forth on this. You've been pretty active on the ANI thread, is there anything new you'd like to address or would you be restating things you've already said?--v/r - TP 23:02, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Hmm. Good question - one of the things I thought of I had already explicitly stated at ANI. Another - the use of "Conservative Cloud" - I had only hinted at. A third item - regarding the "far-right politics" categorization - has not been addressed. StAnselm (talk) 23:11, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

If y'all are talking about this, I thought the point of it was that Miles wants his statement to be copied into the current ANI discussion (since he is still blocked for a bit). In which case anyone could respond there if they wish. --RL0919 (talk) 23:08, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I believe he does, per the "If you've voted to get rid of me based on false allegations, you may wish to reconsider your vote" at the end. StAnselm (talk) 23:13, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Ya'all please feel free to copy it, I'm in the middle of reading some ANI discussions. Trying to get some stuff closed.--v/r - TP 23:14, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Closed discussion garbled

This edit garbled a closed discussion. Re the assertion in there saying, "We use what the majority of sources use.", that's not what I read WP:DUE to say. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:39, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

"Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." First sentence.--v/r - TP 00:43, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Wmflabs error

Hey Tparis, is there a place to report bugs on the wmflabs site? I've checked Bugzilla and am not completely convinced that's where I need to go, but let me know if I am in error. Thanks, and have a great day! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:07, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Try this right here: [3].--v/r - TP 03:09, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Civility Barnstar
	Your summary of; and patience while working through the recent MM debacle is appreciated. VVikingTalkEdits 03:44, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

gun Control

I don't know if you are aware, but a gun control ArbCom case has opened, largely spillover from the ANI case that you commented on previously. while I certainly wouldn't consider your comments in the ANi involvement, there have been several uninvolved commenters on the case already,so yo umay wish to drop in $0.02. [[4]]Gaijin42 (talk) 18:05, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I really don't know much about the debate (the on-Wiki version of it, I'm not a political virgin) so I'm not sure what help I can provide to an Arbcom case. I'd have no idea where to get diffs to support any findings.--v/r - TP 19:08, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Based on your comments at ANI, and experience as an administrator, I was thinking you may have had some insights into larger context consensus decisions on what is an RS and what is Fringe (can opinions about the significance of established fact in fact be considered fringe?), and to what degree (if any) strong POV sources cease to be RS (for the purpose of documenting their opinions, and showing notability of the idea or undisputed facts covered) (obviously interpretations of facts should not be taken as facts themselves, nor disputed facts) - since that seems to be the crux of the disagreement between the various editors. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:15, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I have no particular expertise on fringe theories. I have a pretty healthy trust/skeptic ratio with the world and I tend to not believe some of the crueler conspiracy theories. But from WP:FRINGE, "Wikipedia summarizes significant opinions, with representation in proportion to their prominence. A Wikipedia article should not make a fringe theory appear more notable than it is." The inverse is also true, Wikipedia should not make a fringe theory appear less notable than it is. 9/11 truthers and Obama birthers are notable. Those who believe that the earth is flat arn't so much notable. Notability != right--v/r - TP 21:08, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Editing restrictions

There seems to be a difference of opinion of the restrictions imposed in the ANI thread you recently closed; please review [5]. Thanks. NE Ent 21:39, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's my mistake. You're right that I didn't include that in the close, but Sportsfan is right that there was strong support for 2 and 3. I was aware of that and for some reason spaced during the close. The confusion is my fault, I'll go fix it.--v/r - TP 21:42, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Recall

Please update http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:TParis/Recall#Editors – I'm not sure there's 5 of the listed editors still active in order to invoke your Option 3. Thanks. 66.87.145.214 (talk) 23:46, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I will certainly do that.--v/r - TP 00:14, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Please un-ban MilesMoney

I strongly object to the haste with which you closed User:MilesMoney's recent community ban. If I or any representative sample of the majority of editors who have interacted with him had had the opportunity to comment, there is no doubt in my mind that the outcome would have been far different. Why did you not open an RFC/U for at least thirty days? I ask that you please reverse yourself and do so. If you are unwilling then please tell me the instructions for how to appeal on Miles' behalf and I will gladly do so. I think you screwed up in one of the most abusive ways possible, but I have no desire to paste a trout template to emphasize my sincerity. Thank you. EllenCT (talk) 05:00, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

In my opinion, there was no haste whatsoever. The thread had gone on to where we had 3 dozen+ commentators. And earlier threads about MM went on for 2+ weeks. In those earlier threads, the majority of commentators were critical of MM. On an earlier occasion (as I recall) TP reversed a decision about MM, and the contentious editing from MM only shifted into other subjects. MM has been a disruptive presence on WP from the get-go. (Early on, because of problems with MM's ISP, the farewell comment was "Fuck Wikipedia". And the "post-mortem" Austrian School ban that MM expressed had the same sort of "fuck Wikipedia" attitude.) As I mentioned above, even when MM had the opportunity to work on the RFC/U in a constructive manner, the edits made were simply more WP:POINTy nonsense. If there is a majority of editors who have interacted with MM in a positive manner, they should have spoken up. But I strongly doubt that such a majority exists. There was nothing stopping MM's supporters from going off-wiki to recruit positive comments, but now we see one supporter contending that off-wiki recruiting was undertaken to do MM in. If MM's indef is to be reversed, I would hope that normal WP due process be followed. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 05:25, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Why does "normal WP due process" not involve the same 30 days that we give to ordinary RFCs? This looks like an obvious attempt at railroading by Austrian school proponents upset about those willing to call them on the fact that there are no peer reviewed sources agreeing with their niche belief. What is the link to the RFC/U you refer to? I was not aware that there had been one. EllenCT (talk) 05:38, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

There is no 30-day discussion requirement for RfCs. They can be closed quite rapidly when the result is obvious, per WP:SNOW. Roccodrift (talk) 05:45, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Opinions on Miles were nowhere near WP:SNOW. EllenCT (talk) 05:50, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

The 30 day RFCU procedure and the task of TP to assess community sentiment are two separate processes. TP, an experienced volunteer, has done what he thinks best. The community has entrusted TP with the tools and authority to carry out such assessments. The community did not SNOW Miles, but I think TP made the right assessment and I applaud him for his decision. (And here are the links for Miles' last contentious and patently disruptive screw-ups on the RFC/U: [6] & [7]. ) – S. Rich (talk) 06:34, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

EllenCT, I'm sorry that you did not pay more attention to the travails that MM was facing. But you did receive notice back in October about another controversy that MM was involved in. I refer to the message that Specifico left you here. – S. Rich (talk) 06:46, 5 January 2014 (UTC) Striking remark not posted for TParis' attention. – S. Rich (talk) 00:24, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

You were involved with MilesMoney in two articles, Progressive tax and income inequality. I suggest you read the links I provided because however he may have acted on those articles, they were not presented as examples at ANI. TFD (talk) 06:56, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

That is precisely why it is so obvious that the ANI thread was closed in haste after only those Austrian economics fans who had a chance to try to railroad Miles had commented. I continue to lack confidence in TP's judgement, but far more troubling is User:Srich32977's attempt to prevent my appeal on MilesMoney's behalf. There is absolutely no evidence that Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/MilesMoney ever proceeded past Phase 1. Again, I ask that Miles be unbanned and allowed to defend himself at the RFC/U for a full 30 days before such an obviously political banning is executed. EllenCT (talk) 07:19, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

You were involved with MilesMoney in two articles, Progressive tax and income inequality. I suggest you read the links I provided because however he may have acted on those articles, they were not presented as examples at ANI. TFD (talk) 06:56, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

• I strongly suggest you do not use a trout template here nor accuse me of being 'one of the most abusive'. You should definitely save such language for actual cases of abuse. Ellen, your 30 days request makes me wonder if your really here to benefit the encyclopedia or to benefit a person. It's a bit of a silly request because such a requirement doesn't exist anywhere in policy. In fact, WP:CBAN, spells it out at least 24 hours which this discussion had double. An WP:RFC/U is not a replacement for an ANI discussion.

  Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_conduct/Guidance says "What RfC/U CANNOT do is: Impose/enforce involuntary sanctions, blocks, bans, or binding disciplinary measures;" An RFC/U would've had to have been started after the last ANI thread on MilesMoney reached no-consensus, not in the middle of a thread that seems to be leading to a definite sanction. What is also a concern is that Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/MilesMoney is not an RFC/U no matter what it's title says. We have a predetermined and very strict format for RFC/Us that the one here did not follow. It's too late for an RFC/U at that point, only Arbcom could've replaced an ANI thread like that.

  However, if you wish to continue in the appeals process, there are two:

  1. Convince the Community on WP:AN to overturn the block by consensus. You can do this by convincing them that MilesMoney is ready to come back, was never disruptive in the first place, or that there was something wrong with my close. You can try to convince them on your 30 day idea, I somehow suspect that won't work but, and I mean this full heatedly, be my guest. Or you can try to convince them I was WP:INVOLVED. If you go down that route, please be sure to actually read the policy in full because 99.9% of those accusations get ignored because the accuser failed to note that "One important caveat is that an administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role, or whose prior involvements are minor or obvious edits which do not speak to bias, is not involved and is not prevented from acting in an administrative capacity in relation to that editor or topic area." I've never encountered MilesMoney in anything but an administrative fashion.

  2. The second appeal route is Arbcom. They have historically declined cases not opened by the banned party themselves but you could go this route. Same rules as the above apply. Arbcom is not a fun process and you'll be required to back up everything you've said with diffs and policy. Since your 30 day idea isn't backed up by policy, I strongly suggest you do not go this route but its, again, your call. Note that MilesMoney himself was leery of Arbcom for good reason. You might do him more harm than good.

  My last bit of advice for you is that you take a while to reflect on this before doing anything to determine if I am really abusive or if you're just upset that your friend got banned. I don't speak for the community, I didn't ban your friend, they did. I don't have a foot in that door, I don't edit the same areas that he does, his leaving the project doesn't affect me at all. Have a good day, Ellen, and I'm available if you have any more questions about process or if you need additional clarification.--v/r - TP 07:24, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Miles was no "friend" -- I was offended by his coarseness and by his apparent need to share his taste in porn. I am upset because the list of people who asked to ban him are overwhelmingly opponents of his distaste for Austrian economics, which indeed I do share. I am appalled that community bans can close in 24 hours and will indeed try to convince people that there is "something wrong" with that. I would note that you have a message when your talk page is edited that says "If I screwed up, feel free to {{trout}} me." If that is not a sincere request, then perhaps you should consider removing it. EllenCT (talk) 07:44, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

My 2 cents here - Miles may not have been a "friend", but he was a consistent ally of EllenCT in advancing certain views on articles (ie, Progressive tax), that helped her effort. Perhaps that's the source of Ellen's concerns? EllenCT has suggested that had we waited for other editors to come along, the RFC might have been different. While editors from the Progressive tax article were not notified of the this, I can draw your attention to this section Talk:Progressive_tax#Edit-warring where User NK took umbrage at Miles Money's accusation of edit warring for making a sole edit just after Miles and EllenCT had made multiple efforts to insert controversial material.Mattnad (talk) 18:46, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

It is a sincere request, but one should base my wrong/rightness in the context of policy; not personal opinion. The 30 days bit is a personal opinion. On the subject of that, there is another option that I have just thought of and that is to hold an RFC on the talk page for WP:CBAN to change the 24 hours bit to 30 days. Although I think you should adjust your opinion to something more realistic like 7 days if you want to get any support for your idea. A 30 day old ANI thread is just nearly unheard of. The change in policy wouldn't help MilesMoney much, but it'd help to fix something you perceive as a problem.--v/r - TP 07:47, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Done. EllenCT (talk) 07:59, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

• Ya'all please this isn't the place to fight each other. Pointing how who has connected to Miles where is really just an ad hominem way of ignoring their arguments without having to rebuke them. There are plenty of involved on either side but the only one it truly matters is me. Trying to discredit each other just, well it's not helpful. Let's all be collegial. EllenCT's concerned about the time the thread was open, she's opened an RFC on it. I just don't get it why people make these things so personal instead of countering the argument. Focus on the edits.--v/r - TP 18:53, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Another thing you (TP) should be privy to. The group of editors who led the charge against Miles on the ANI have propagated a series of frivolous ANIs and SPIs against Miles. (See the simply comical attempts at statistical 'reasoning' by User:Collect in this SPI for a good illustration of how carelessly and irrationally such accusations were thrown around.) I don't know the rules that well, but don't they say that these sort of factors (i.e. clear personal and ideological vendettas, and WP:canvassing through repeated attempts to sanction a user) must be taken into account when determining if a consensus has been reached? Steeletrap (talk) 23:03, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

There were several editors who have nothing to do with Austrian Economics who supported the ban. I am completely opposed to that ideology personally, don't edit in the area, and had only one fairly polite interaction with MilesMoney. I consider myself uninvolved. To me, though, the evidence was clear that this editor has been disruptive, tendentious and has a battlefield mentality. I conclude that TParis's close was entirely proper. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:15, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Nothing like a nice ad hom attack to make a post interesting, eh? First of all I have no particular interest in Austrian economists whatsoever. My economics professor was a guy named Samuelson, and I spent way too much time in statistical analysis. The SPI report was sufficient to warrant a CU which was done with negative results, but more than half of SPI reports do not get CU confirmation. My record at SPI is at about 95% now, which is reasonably good. You should also note that at the prior ANI I did not support sanctions on MilesMoney so I could not have entered the SPI as a result of that ANI discussion or in any way being out to "get" MM! So much for "vendetta" from anyone. What will happen, though, is that people who see conspiracies behind every corner tend to be rewarded with the same disdain from others they seem to use for others. Cheers and Happy New Year. Collect (talk) 23:47, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

• For the last time If ya'all want to criticize me here or offer some new fact that wasn't already considered, please do so. But please quit the sniping at each other. This is a joint collegial project and folks of different ideologies will need to find a way to appreciate each other. I can't honestly believe that either side of the US political spectrum is inherently evil. Both sides have a good vision from their perspective and in the context of their own world views and it's with that in mind that you need to look on each other. Please do not use my talk page as a battle ground between each other. I'm available for any questions per WP:ADMINACCT but this isn't a battle zone per WP:BATTLE. It's over. Please direct questions and statements at me or take them to your own talk pages.--v/r - TP 00:17, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

User:MilesMoney

As the admin who blocked User:MilesMoney, I would like to clarify what the terms of his ban is, since he has mentioned me on his talk page. What sort of talk page usage is appropriate for a banned editor? I am thinking particularly of edits such as this one. WP:BAN talks about a banned user using his or her talk page for appeals - it doesn't seem to anticipate such an editor using it in other ways. I note also that WP:BANBLOCKDIFF says access to one's own talk page is "usually not allowed" if a user is site banned - is there any reason why MilesMoney continues to have access? — Preceding unsigned comment added by StAnselm (talk • contribs)

As far as I know, MilesMoney is in talks with Arbcom. Until they decline his case, my assumption is that he's in the appeals process now. However, if they do decline it then, no, he should not be using his talk page for anything but an appeal.--v/r - TP 14:36, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

MM RfC

In light of the course events have taken, I'm not sure what to do about the MilesMoney RfC that I started. I have copied the bit of evidence that I had submitted into my own userspace, and since there wasn't really any other significant input from other editors before MM was indef'ed (aside from a bit of tussle between MM and a few of his opponents), I don't know if the RfC has much value in continuing to exist. Perhaps the tussle could be referenced as evidence in an arbitration case, but there's plenty of other material that could serve the same purpose. In any case, I don't think it should remain open, so if you have a moment would you mind closing it and either archiving or deleting as you see fit? Thanks, alanyst 17:41, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

You might just store whatever you have offline and request the page be deleted. In the future, though, there is a very specific format for RFC/Us that you should follow. See this page.--v/r - TP 17:46, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I have had some experience with the standard RfC format and intentionally avoided it because of the ugly mess that tends to result. There's a very good reason user RfCs seldom attract much useful input from the community at large: they tend to devolve quickly into slugfests without serious examination of behavioral histories and inflection points in disputes, just a host of competing narratives put forth by partisans and nobody in charge to keep things focused. I think my approach would have been less susceptible to inflammation of the dispute and would either have helped to resolve some of the issues or at least to get a lot of the evidentiary groundwork laid for an arbitration case. But in any case, since that process didn't have a chance to get off the ground, I'll save the idea for a future time if needed and request that the pages be deleted. Would it be eligible for speedy deletion, or do you think it will need to go through MfD? alanyst 18:06, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

You could try db-u1, and honestly any sysop would probably IAR them, but MfD might be best. Alternatively, you could throw a db-custom on there and say it failed to be certified per the policy.--v/r - TP 18:09, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Please fix

At User talk:ChrisGualtieri#Interaction Ban you had a bit of wording issue, I pinged you, but I don't think you got the message. It reads ".. you may not make any edits related to ChrisGualtieri..." so it says I am interaction banned from myself. Thanks in advance for fixing it. I didn't want to modify your post. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:13, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

ChrisGualtieri clearly violated the interaction ban by signing his post, and should suffer the full consequences thereof. NE Ent 18:56, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

"Tallying" ANI

Hello TP. I was a bit startled to see your use of "tallying" in reference to the closing of TFD/Miles ANI thread. It sounded like vote-counting, which I presume was not the meaning you intended. SPECIFICO talk 00:06, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

That's a bit out of context. What I said was that a precursory tallying shows that a ban of some sort is likely but that I will have to actually read the comments before closing.--v/r - TP 00:10, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

FWIW, I always do a tally of the various positions when I close a large discussion. Not because it controls the outcome, but if you are going to close against the majority you need to be prepared to explain why (for example, this discussion I closed a few years back against a 2:1 numerical majority). Although, it occurs to me that heaven only knows what all the various admins do around this, since there is no class for it, no monitoring, etc. --RL0919 (talk) 00:36, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Pretty much the same. Take a tally of the supports/opposes to get a general sense. Then real the opinions in a more detailed sense. Then figure out which positions early in the discussion were defeated later in the discussion. Figure out who was cited most as influential. Then see how the wording of the policy matches with the application of those strongly held positions. Wrap it all up in a summary and done.--v/r - TP 00:38, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't see any mention there of trying to get a sense of which editors have been long involved, their own behavior in such involvement, etc. per WP policy. Tally ho! SPECIFICO talk 00:44, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't aware I was required to recite the policy verbatim. Is there something specific you are concerned about? Have I closed something poorly previously that you're worried about?--v/r - TP 00:48, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

My concern is limited to what I've stated in this thread. As I'm sure you recall I had a concern once in the past about a closing and I was impressed by your responsiveness and commitment to doing the right thing in the interests of WP. Nothing on my mind except what I stated above. Thanks for your work on this. I know it is not easy, but it is appreciated. SPECIFICO talk 00:57, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

And it's just occurred to me that, yes, there was a previous discussion that you were concerned about. I had forgotten you emailed me about that until just now. In any case, I have a feeling this is going to Arbcom so the close might be moot in a month.--v/r - TP 01:06, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi TP. I see that in your close of the MM thread you state << SPECIFICO's houding of editors in this dispute hasn't been helpful at all. Attempting to tie nearly every editor to MilesMoney in someway is an ad hominem. It doesn't address their argument in any way and attempts to discredit them based on who they are. That's not good dispute resolution.>>

I made clear my interpretation of policy as cited by an Admin at the top of the thread. I stated my opinion that 3 or 4, I forget the count, of the editors were "involved." I'd like to ask you, TP, what is your definition of "hounding", bearing in mind the cited policy reason for ID'ing involved editors, and what is the basis for your assertion that I attempted to "tie nearly every editor" to MM? Is 3 or 4 what you meant by "nearly every editor?" Frankly I think your comment stinks. And the reason, as you should understand all too well, is that many editors read such a statement (particularly from an Admin) and they assume there's lots of fact and truth behind it. But unless you have some explanation (which would greatly surprise me in light of what I've just said) I think your statement was irresponsible at the least and in fact better described as a Personal Attack on me and I ask you to consider it carefully and withdraw it. Because I already responded to a similar baseless accusation from @Adjwilley: within the ANI thread, I can't assume that your statement, demonstrably false though it is, was made casually or without awareness of the issue. So I respectfully ask you to reconsider your statement about me in the closing box. Thank you. SPECIFICO talk 03:52, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm on my phone right now and I started drinking a cheap wine about 30 minutes ago so I can't give you a full answer tonight but RFA when we see someone responding to a majority is those who oppose their viewpoint we call it hounding. We can talk more about it tomorrow. --v/r - TP 04:03, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

When you have the time, please review what I've written here and bear in mind that I referred specifically to the policy which an Admin posted at the top of the ANI and which clearly states the principle which motivated my remarks concerning a few not every editors' involvement. Thanks for the prompt update. SPECIFICO talk 04:36, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello, TP. It's now been well over 48 hours since my message above concerning the statement you made in the closing of the ANI in RE: MilesMoney. I understand that this is a busy time for you, but these are important concerns, and I would like to resolve this issue and put it to rest. If you do not have the time to research or consider this in detail, you could simply redact your comment about me and we can consider the matter closed. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 14:48, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Alright, SPECIFICO, so I've developed this table. You were not as disruptive as my original impression, but can you see where you were constantly pointing out whom was involved and how you badgered nearly 1 in 4 people (9/41) who didn't support Miles? Many of whom you were trying to find anyway that they were somehow involved? According to your interpretation WP:CBAN, only those involved in the underlying dispute get discounted (according to mine, this discussion has to not consist solely of users involved in the dispute). When you use my interpretation, there is 81% support for a ban of some sort (not specifically a community ban, you'd have to go through the comments more specifically than this table represents). With your interpretation, that number goes up to 84%. With the strictest interpretation (anyone who has ever edited an article within a few days of Miles), that number only goes down to 75%. The table is right these, I use Snottywong's editor analyzer to put it together. I'll remove the bit about you being disruptive, but please watch how many times you repeat the same argument over and over again to a number of those who disagree with you. But clearly, the interpretation you and MilesMoney's other proponents are pushing, the literal wording of WP:CBAN, actually hurts MilesMoney's case.--v/r - TP 17:08, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

diff.--v/r - TP 17:14, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Name	Position	Involved in Underlying Dispute @Talk:Pamela Geller	Involved with MilesMoney	Comments	Community Ban	Topic ban	BLP ban	Oppose
The_Four_Deuces	Support	Yes	Yes		X	X	X
Gamaliel	Support/Oppose	No	No	Administrative Capacity Only		X
Nil Einne	Comment	No	No	Left ANI notices that were unmade
Mangoe	Oppose	No	No	Assisted at BLP/N				X
MONGO	Support	No	Talk:Phil_Robertson			X
Two kinds of pork	Support	Yes	Yes		X
Collect	Support	Yes	Yes		X	X	X
Iselilja	Support	Yes	Yes		X	X	X
Safehaven86	Support	No	Talk:Ocean_Grove,_New_Jersey		X	X	X
Johnuniq	Support	No	No		X
Cullen	Support	No	No		X	X	X
Roccodrift	Support	Yes	Yes			X	X
StAnselm	Support	Yes	Yes		X	X	X
Sportfan5000	Oppose	No	No					X
ViriiK	Support	No	No		X	X	X
Hullaballoo Wolfowitz	Support	No	Talk:Scott Rasmussen		X	2	2
RL0919	Support	No	Talk:Ayn Rand		X
John Reaves	Support	No	No		X
goethean	Oppose	Yes	Yes					X
Gaijin42	Support	No	Talk:Gun control		2	X	X
Drmies	Support	Yes	Yes			X	X
Someone not using his real name	Support	No	No		X	X	X
MrX	Support	No	Talk:War on Women		X
A Quest For Knowledge	Support	No	Ludwig von Mises Institute		X
Sportsguy17	Support	No	No		X
I, JethroBT	Support	No	Talk:Ayn Rand		2	X	X
Lukeno94	Support	No	No		X	X	X
S. Rich	Support	No	Talk:Hans-Hermann Hoppe		2	X	X
Capitalismojo	Support	No	Talk:Political activities of the Koch brothers		X
Epicgenius	Support	No	No		X
SPECIFICO		No	Talk:Ludwig von Mises Institute
Georgewilliamherbert		No	No	Acting only as an administrator
Writegeist	Oppose	No	No					X
Morphh		Yes	Yes
Carolmooredc	Support	No	Talk:Gary North (economist)			X
Binksternet	Support	Yes	Yes		X	2	2
Niteshift36	Support	No	Talk:Phil Robertson			X	X
Beyond My Ken	Support	No	No		X	2	2
Steeletrap	Oppose	No	Talk:Hans-Hermann Hoppe					X
MarnetteD	Support	No	No		X	2	2
Darkness Shines	Oppose	Yes	Yes					X
NinjaRobotPirate	Support	No	No		X	X	X
The Devil's Advocate	Support	No	No		X
QuackGuru	Oppose	Yes	Yes					X
Itsmejudith	Oppose	No	No					X
Medeis	Support	No	Talk:Ayn Rand		X
Adjwilley		No	No
Sitush	Support	No	Talk:Ludwig von Mises Institute		X
	All !votes	!Votes not in	!Votes never interacted
		underlying dispute	with MilesMoney
	34/8	26/5	12/4	All !votes	29	23	20	8
TOTAL SUPPORT	81%	84%	75%
				!Votes not in underlying dispute	23	16	13	5
				!Votes never interacted	12	8	7	4

Current CBAN policy

Re: Wikipedia:CBAN#Community_bans_and_restrictions you wrote in close of MilesMoney matter above: A community ban discussion of uninvolved editors means that a group of predominately involved editors in the current dispute cannot determine who gets banned from the project. It does not mean that editors involved in the dispute cannot contribute to the consensus. This interpretation is fairly new and recent.

Obviously it is since I and evidently others never heard of it and then when I looked at WP:CBAN the references were to an inactive community ban noticeboard and an ambiguous reference to uninvolved/involved "comments" which I assumed included support and nonsupport. So before posting to talk-WP:CBAN asking for clarification of policy, I thought I'd see if you wanted to initiate the relevant change at the policy page. Thanks. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 18:06, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

The words have been the same for many years, it's only the interpretation that has changed. In the middle of a community split on meaning is a bad time to go change wording. If the consensus is going to change on what that means, then it'll change. We should be mindful of how this gets applied in the future.--v/r - TP 19:10, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

OK, I'm not pushing for any particular outcome, just seeking clarity. But I have a feeling that this issue will be coming up more in other cases soon enough since there are a lot of editors who tick off others on a number of articles with different editors who will be skeptical of being labeled as "involved". I just don't want to be badgered because my understanding of a somewhat ambiguously written policy differs from someone elses, both of us non-admins. So I'll just ask on talk page in the "Seeking clarification" mode and see what happens.

Even looking at it now, I see that "involved in the underlying dispute" itself is unclear when it's about bad behavior in so many places, including other ANIs which makes any editor only commenting on ANIs "involved". It's almost like rewarding editors for ticking off a lot of people! (Hmmm, so in that case maybe I do see a preferred outcome!) Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 23:02, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

The whole point of that section is to prevent a bunch of editors with a content dispute on Billy from New Orleans to community ban User:FrankieJr because he disagrees with them. It requires a consensus of uninvolved editors, but not a consensus of just uninvolved editors. The idea is that a wider variety of users representing the community, and not representing just those in the dispute, need to be involved in the process. That ensures that community bans are based on behavior and not just content disputes. That level of community input is determined by the closing administrator as are all things of discretion.--v/r - TP 23:23, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

It seems pretty clear to me that CBAN should be reformulated to remove any ambiguity. It's absurd to suggest that aggrieved editors should have no voice simply because they are the victims of personal attacks and whatnot. Since the closing admin is expected to weigh arguments and not merely count votes, it follows naturally that the statements of "involved editors" will be evaluated accordingly.

In the instant case, it is evident that implementing SPECIFICO's interpretation of CBAN would not have helped MM. After all, most if not all of the 9 editors who opposed a sanction were just as involved as anybody else, and if we throw out all of the involved editors from either side we are still left with a near-unanimous consensus to impose a sanction. Roccodrift (talk) 23:37, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I took a very careful look at only counted 2 as participating in the underlying dispute. Though it would be more if we took the wide approach that SPECIFICO took in identifying those involved. Many more of the opposes would've been counted as involved.--v/r - TP 23:39, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

So part of the "problem" that develops in the discussions is the broad range of complaints that are presented in topics along with the complaints about community interaction with particular editors. For example, there could be POV pushing on one particular article, done by a very polite editor. Compare with simple nasty NPA comments from an editor across the board with no particular focus on topics or articles. The first, in my opinion, be an "underlying dispute" type matter while the second does not involve an underlying dispute, only a less than collegial approach to the community. Sometimes we get a mixture of problems – topic disputes with nasty remarks, etc. – S. Rich (talk) 23:49, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

The purpose of the policy, if I read the talk page archives correctly, is to prevent a group of POV editors from banning a neutral editor in order to win a content dispute. That is always going to be a problem. Editors tend to be harsher on people with whom they have content disputes than with those with whom they agree. But this editor has had ample opportunity to seek outside input through notice boards and RfCs, and has done so. Editors who might have sided with him have in some cases voted for a ban and in most cases have chosen not to become involved. TFD (talk) 00:14, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Agreed...And a number of those with the same political leanings that have been previously supportive of being lienient with MilesMoney ended up supporting a CBAN. I didn't get any pleasure out of seeing the guy banned, and would have supported postponing such a CBAN if he had agreed to avoid BLP's and political articles in general for a set period of time. I would have fought to prevent such a CBAN had he agreed to do as I suggested, and its hard to imagine that he didn't have skills that could have been used to improve noncontroversial areas of the pedia for awhile. IMHO, the fact that he had an out but instead wanted to continue on the same trajectory indicated to me that he was indeed only here for one purpose.--MONGO 01:10, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Another reason why your closure was unfair and inadequate: leaving aside the motives and affiliations of users, there was not a remotely strong consensus in favor of a community ban. Only 23/43 were in favor; and since his enemies mostly (coincidentally, I'm sure) voted to ban soon after the ANI opened, the incoming votes were tending towards Miles. If you eliminate involved editors from the picture (as you were supposed to do, per WP:CBAN), the consensus is actually opposed to the community ban. Yet you cut the ANI off while votes were still being counted. Absolutely unacceptable conduct for an admin. Steeletrap (talk) 23:19, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Steeletrap, I think you're in the wrong thread. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:56, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

The facts set out by Steeletrap are incontrovertible, and I endorse Steeletrap's conclusion. Writegeist (talk) 18:47, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

The facts are posted above in a large color coded table I drew up, Steeletrap's opinion isn't supported by them. Steeletrap's version of WP:CBAN actually harms MilesMoney's case. But those details don't seem to be important and you'd rather just continue to throw around baseless accusations. You can read the facts above. Have a good day.--v/r - TP 21:32, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Favour needed

Can you look here to see if I have done it correctly? It seems to be taking a while and I am thinking I muffed it up. Darkness Shines (talk) 23:59, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Looks right to me, I've deleted it.--v/r - TP 00:11, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks mate. Darkness Shines (talk) 00:22, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Climate Change Capital page

Hello TParis, Happy New Year. Please can you let us know what it is about the Climate Change Capital page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_Change_Capital you feel is advertising?

CCC is authorised and regulated by the UK's Financial Conduct Authority and therefore is not allowed to advertise new funds. The information is historical (i.e. funds we have raised and closed and are not open to new business).

By comparison, a commensurate business would be Generation Investment Management https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_Investment_Management who do not mention specific funds but go as far to include a section on funding opportunities (albeit to other networks).

Happy to shorten or make any changes you would recommend. There are some items that need correcting (i.e. James Cameron is now Vice-Chair of the World Economic Forum's Global Agenda Council on Measuring Sustainability and their Advisory Board of the Global Competitiveness Index and he is no longer on Pepsico UK's advisory board). I would also recommend including that CCC is authorised and regulated by the FCA.)

Welcome your feedback. Daniel Danielcremin (talk) 15:43, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

We don't compare articles here. Two articles with problems are still two articles with problems. The problem with Climate Change Capital is that a majority of the article speaks to the companies' products, of a sort. I would cut the Advisory, Carbon finance, Cleantech, Green property, and ThinkTank sections down to 1 section and cut the content by half. Corporate history should be expanded, the company's international impact should be covered, and any lobbying and involvement in passing legislation in any country should also be covered. Sourcing needs serious improvement as well. This article would probably be better suited as a section on an article about James Cameron as there is a lot more sourcing available for him. Or even better, a section of Bunge Limited. Sources need to directly speak about "Climate Change Capital" and not just climate change and James Cameron.--v/r - TP 15:53, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Four Hundred and Four

Doh!. Help!--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 00:07, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

[8] Sorry ;)--v/r - TP 00:27, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Helpful as always! Many thanks, --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 18:45, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello

I am the user Chauahuasachca, who sent an unblocking request. I already unsigned the box "mark every edit as minor" in my settings. Could my account be unblocked, now? I already adhered the site you've sent me.--93.134.238.121 (talk) 10:32, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi, TParis! Could you please, check the edits and especially the moves of pages, who the user Chauahuasachca made, after he was unblocked. They are non constructive, I think. Thank you. Jingiby (talk) 15:10, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I am sorry, I thought edits at 100 bytes are also minor. I learned from my mistakes and won't mark any edit as minor again.--93.133.82.164 (talk) 06:46, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Hm... no answer?--217.189.220.202 (talk) 22:03, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Is the no chance anymore? I said i won't mark any edits as minor again.--93.133.137.133 (talk) 13:58, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

As long as you edit anonymously to WP:EVADE your block, you're simply adding to the number of months required to wait out the block. All unblock requests MUST be performed from your usertalkpage, as per WP:GAB. You've now evaded your block at least 3 times ... try requesting unblock in 3 months from your account ES&L 14:24, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Banning talk page discussion

Finally got around to starting this here and did quote you. FYI. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 20:17, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Userfication

Hello. I would like to request userfication of deleted article named "Insurance Hotline" to my userspace User:BiH/Insurance_Hotline for improvements that will establish notability. Thank you. --BiH (talk) 17:54, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Done. Please have this article reviewed by someone else before moving it back to article space.--v/r - TP 21:25, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Question

Would it be acceptable to remove the stale merge tag from both Ghost in the Shell and Ghost in the Shell (manga)? It has been there for months and over 250,000 readers have had a chance to see it. My last GAN passed and I want to get both of these to GA by March for the anniversary of Toren's passing. I wish I had more on Toren to. I think it might need to be closed, but I can neither request, interact or do anything which might seem to skirt the line here. It's rather degrading to have one of the most trafficked articles remain like this. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:50, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

It wouldn't be appropriate for you to do it, no. But you can request WP:AN/RFC to get it closed.--v/r - TP 12:53, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry to say...

...but I think your good faith with regard to unblocking User:Nightskate has been wasted. Their contributions today have been bizarre (to say the least) and there unfortunately appears to be an element of WP:NOTTHERAPY. Your thoughts?--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 22:28, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

WP:ROPE ;) --v/r - TP 22:42, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

You really are a softie! Since being unblocked they've linked to a rambling Google forum post here and here, not to mention this indecipherable post here which also appears (if I'm reading it correctly) to contain a number of BLP violations regarding Robert Pirsig. I don't think we're doing the editor (or our articles) any favours by allowing them to apparently work through their real life issues here, but If you want to extend them even more rope I'll differ to your opinion. Cheers, --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 23:06, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Ohh no :) I meant that the rope had already been extended and they've hung themselves. :D--v/r - TP 23:48, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank the Lord. I was trying to imagine just how much rope you were willing to extend, and whether Nightskate would be able to use it to bind all the admins and proceed to drive us all mad(der) with their bizarre theories. Do you want me to block, or would you prefer to revoke the unblock? --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 23:57, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I'd prefer you blocked since I'm not really around today. Only responding to talk page notices...--v/r - TP 00:35, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I was offline as well, but have now blocked the account. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 18:56, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikihounding by SPECIFICO

I left this warning about Wikihounding on SPECIFICO's talk page, which includes my previous June warning to him and related WP:ANI when he would not stop. Since you have discussed this kind of behavior with him previously, perhaps you could discourage him from it. This is the kind of badgering that made me angry enough to quit editing in the subject at all twice previously; but I find it difficult to ignore the policy issues in the articles being edited so have managed to return. Also note that all of the articles are regarding libertarians and/or under Austrian economics/General sanctions. Thanks. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 02:29, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: & @Carolmooredc: For the sake of yourselves and this project, can you guys quit it? First off, your warnings to each other mean about diddly squat. Any administrator is going to consider the source when it comes to you two templating each other (or making hounding accusations, don't get bent up on the specifics). What would it take for you two to cooperate? I mean, serious, I don't know anything about Austrian economics. What specifically is the main divergence in your politics on the subject? I thought you guys were mostly involved in American politics, what does Austrian politics have to do with that?--v/r - TP 03:07, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for reply. First, specifics do count and are easy enough to figure out from my reply to each warning, but I won't go into it.

The issue really is Austrian BLP problems in articles about Austrian economists; especially a) ridiculing of BLP subjects and constantly removing WP:RS info that might make the individual look credible and b) support for non-RS SPS blogs that ridicule the subjects of the BLP. I rarely notice or much care what SPECIFICO does regarding articles purely about economics. If SPECIFICO could stop removing so much info in articles where few others edit, it would not be necessary to constantly go to different noticeboards for opinions. I am going to make a chart of all the current issues in 9 BLPs and a couple bios of dead people and try to figure out which noticeboards can be most helpful. I'm also going to see if 3rd Opinion works now a days and do RfCs on the most important issues. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 13:58, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

If SPECIFICO is adding negative information to BLPs with blogs, why haven't you compiled the information and opened an RFC/U or ANI thread? Admin's don't need narratives. Just tell us the page, give us diffs in bullet form.--v/r - TP 14:29, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually, two other editors usually add such material (one now banned) and SPECIFICO tends to defend it; his bigger [Added later: Wiki "]crime" is repeatedly removing WP:RS info that has to be brought to WP:RSN.

Unfortunately I have other people telling me publicly and privately to stay away from ANI cause no one takes me seriously. I have included long listings of diffs and talk page sections several times before at ANI regarding all three editors since the summer. But once the editors in question start yelling about what a horrible person I am, while providing no or bogus diffs, people just seem to ignore my diffs. Also I keep hearing that RfC/User just turns into a food fight that has no positive outcome. However, if you think that a listing of all the listing of the most tenditious edits of the last month or so at ANI would help, I could consider it. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 16:20, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not saying WP:TE edits. I am specifically talking about adding self published sources into biographies of living people. What you consider tendentious editing is going to differ from what an outside perspective is going to think. @SPECIFICO: Not sure if you have anything you want to add here.--v/r - TP 16:45, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

If you think SPS in BLP is the best issue, how far back should I go for adding them. And if SPECIFICO nearly always defends them, does he get added too? (Note there's a discussion on one right now at WP:RSN.) (And there's another one on SPECIFICO's removal of RS material which largely has not gone his way but I'm asking for an official close.)

RE: WP:TE: Why do we even bother to list characteristics of problem editors if people have so many different opinions that it's not worth bringing a list of them with diffs to ANI? Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 18:23, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Carol - we generally let uninvolved editor evaluate whether a user's behavior actually rises to the level of disruptive. The SPS is the biggest content issue and that should be addressed somewhere. If uninvolved editors at RSN determine that the source is good, well there is no use beating a dead horse.--v/r - TP 19:06, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

FYI - I'm about to file an ArbCom request. This has gone on long enough. Let them figure out how best to sort through this mess. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:11, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom

Tom, I apologize if I've done something wrong. I wasn't trying to imply that you were involved in this dispute. The reason why I used the diff to your talk page is that it demonstrates that the dispute is ongoing. IOW, it's not stale. The fact is that involved editors are using your talk page as part of dispute resolution. Maybe they shouldn't be, but they are. In any case, let's see what the clerks have to say. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:52, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello AQFK. I believe that should be "involved editor," not plural? Please consider. SPECIFICO talk 00:05, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

AQFK - Not a big deal, I'm just not sure it's being used for dispute resolution in the sense that it's supposed to achieve resolution. I'm really just providing advice to Carolmooredc on her complaint.--v/r - TP 00:19, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCIV, January 2014

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Nick-D, Zawed and Hawkeye7 look at recent releases

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:25, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Myron & E

Hi, could you take a look at Myron & E, as the current page is based of a copyvio initial G12 deletion request. Another editor has changed a bit but it still largely resembles the original copyvio. Jarkeld.alt (Talk) 08:35, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I deleted it and blocked the user. Yeah, his comment "The article contains original content which is found on multiple website" clearly shows he has no idea what a copyright violation is and shouldn't be editing here.--v/r - TP 14:20, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Jarkeld (talk) 17:35, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Question

As the admin who issued the interaction ban, I have a question of clarification. According to the proposal I agreed and supported stated "Lucia Black and ChrisGualtieri are indefinitely banned from commenting on, at, or mentioning about the other. The normal exceptions apply. Persisting violations will result in escalating blocks up to and including an indefinite block."[9] Two editors said that I did not have to avoid pages that I was working on for GA - I just cannot interact with Lucia, and IBAN says as much. According to IBAN, editors can edit the same pages as long as they do not revert, or undo each other's edits (assuming rollback) as well. Is that correct? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:38, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

That is mostly correct. But let's put in this way, if you are not positive you are well clear of your IBAN, then ask or steer clear.--v/r - TP 14:44, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Extended content

The reason I ask is because I edited the page and Lucia Black broke her interaction ban to revert and both of us were slapped with topic bans and she was blocked for a week. This does not seem right or fair, because its saying if I alter any text of any which she "edited", I am effectively blocked from editing any page she ever edited and the IBAN says otherwise. I did not revert or undo or rollback her edit but I removed the entire bulk of a copy pasted page (not made by Lucia) which was duplicated. I didn't even know Lucia added it, and the first thing I noticed is that it contained my work that was cut down by Ryulong that was copy pasted in. I rewrote a portion and was in the process of pasting in the last section needed before GAN when this happened. It's clear that Lucia did not write it, and I didn't know it was hers. The text was taken from the Ghost in the Shell page and copy pasted right onto the manga page.Here is as the page appeared. Diff for dates. Note the distinct sections for Title, Setting, Films, Video game, Stand Alone Complex and Arise sections. Comprising the bulk of the text. In this diff, Lucia Black takes content from the sections for Title, Setting, Films, Video game, Stand Alone Complex and Arise sections and inserts them in verbatim into the manga article. Minor formatting of the section titles and an organizational switch is done. I thought I was removing something I had added and with good reason, the entire contents were duplicated and it was more than 2 months ago that it was done. I was just going to drop the rest of the development in an nominate it for a GAN when Lucia Black reverted claiming I was undoing her edit - but I didn't "undo it" and it was not even her own work. She just took one page and tacked it on to the other without attribution. I was told by two other editors that I would not be prohibited from working on good articles, and I asked if I had to submit it to a 3rd party or something - they both said I could edit the page without issue. Even before Lucia reverted, two admins (Serge and Sal) suggested she not get involved. She reverted anyways making a big red notification and that's how I learned of it. I need clarification because I've had the content ready for months and I've repeatedly stated for months that I want to get that article to at least GA by March for the anniversary of Toren's death. It means a lot to me and that is why I specifically asked and the ANI said clearly it would not impact my work and now it seems like it encompasses every article Lucia ever edited and I have to check every edit history before doing any edit - including copy pasted content that was not her own. Sorry to make a rambling post, but I am so confused, and upset. Lucia got blocked for a week and I feel that I am being punished and that the "Rules" are changing from what was agreed and explicitly told to me. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:14, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

• (I collapsed and collected my thoughts)Three editors said I was allowed to continue my article work, I was three edits away from nominating it to GAN. My edit on the page removed duplicated content that should not have ever been there. Lucia was upset even prior to this edit, two admins said she should not act. The reason I removed that chunk was because the complete duplication of an existing page.[10] It includes my own work and the condensed work of Ryulong. It is not Lucia Black's work, it was an unattributed copy paste. I maintain that I did not violate the IBan, Lucia's undo(by specific revision through Wikipedia's software) and comment did. Could you please, as the sanction issuer, comment on my removal? It was done after I checked, asked and followed your suggestion with a request for closure - and I acted in good faith to remove the duplication of another page, verbatim. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:39, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
  • My recommendation: Send it to GAN with the duplicated content in there, make the reviewer aware, and let the reviewer make the determination. I can't settle content issues, is all, and I don't think it's wise to edit something that has been disputed by her recently.--v/r - TP 16:56, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
    • (talk page stalker)I'm not sure that sending an article to GAN respects the spirit of a topic ban from that article and I'd hate for Chris to have repercussions on this. @ChrisGualtieri:, I strongly recommend that you take this up with Nick, who applied to article-scope topic ban, because I think you may have a reasonable point and he might agree to remove that sanction in order for you to continue editing it. However, since it is a fact that Lucia was very recently involved with the article, a wiser course of action might be to step away from it entirely in other to mimize any potential of further dispute. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:20, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
      • (edit conflict) Thank you for the recommendation, I'd gladly do that if Nick hadn't unilaterally made a topic ban for both of us after Lucia Black broke the interaction ban. Lucia already got a 1 week block, I think it was punitative to punish both of us when two admins were already handling it. Should I wait or appeal to Nick or somewhere else? I have mentioned since November that I have all the content ready to drop in to GAN it. I just wanted to get this to GA or FA for the anniversary of his death. It's the reason I've stuck with this - his work made a big impact and it was my first book. If the double topic ban is valid - I'll cross that bridge later, but @Blackmane:'s, @Sportsguy17:'s and @Lukeno94:'s comments and @Sergecross73:'s and @Salvidrim!: warnings and action seemed sufficient. I tried to do everything right and got penalized. To Salvadrim (Salvidrim, please!): I'll do that per your request if Tparis advises the same thing. I greatly value the advise and mentoring in this matter and situation, my focus on content can also be my weakness. And I do greatly appreciate the effort in all your kind words and advice. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:23, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
        • No problem; I know it's probably not the answer you're looking for and it might prevent article improvements, but as TParis said above, with IBANs, you're often better off moving away entirely from areas of mutual interest (such a the GITS articles) because the other party might be unable to disengage and it might end up impacting both of you. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:32, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
          • I'd say that Salvidrim's advice is solid.--v/r - TP 17:36, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
          • I chose the route of an individual article ban to try and avoid the necessity of blocking both of you for breaching your interaction ban (which, to be fair, you both did). I'm conscious that both editors are capable of creating excellent quality content and I'd rather treat the underlying cause (GITS) than continually apply sticking plaster treatments (IBAN enforcement) so we can keep two good editors rather than see them blocked frequently, which is what looks likely to happen if you both edit the same problematic article. The editors didn't exactly speak to each other frequently before the IBAN and look where we are. Nick (talk) 17:44, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
• I think Nick's action might be better for the time being. We worked together without issue, just prior to the ANI on the Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Ghost in the Shell (video game)/1. Though a few months of inaction won't kill anything. I got plenty of other work to do. A few dozen more GAs, that are easier then this, make more sense now in terms of effort. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:13, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Interaction ban

I've just closed a thread at the administrator's noticeboard for incidents concerning your participation in War on Woman. While you were not topic banned, you should be aware that the thread was nearly evenly split with a slight majority in favor of a topic ban. You should take that as a definite sign that, at the very least, editors are seeing your participation there as disruptive. That's not to say that you cannot participate, but that you should make an effort to be make clear and concise arguments that refrain from making comments about others and are supported by strong sourcing. On the other subject of Roscelese, consensus is that you are banned from mentioning, replying to, discussing about or otherwise addressing Roscelese in any way. In addition, you may not revert or undo Roscelese's edits in any way. The usual caveats of dispute resolution on appropriate noticeboards apply.--v/r - TP 14:41, 16 January 2014 (UTC

Which means, I suppose, that Roscelese is free to revert anything and everything I do, without me responding except to complain in some administrative forum that she is harassing me. See [11] Badmintonhist (talk) 02:51, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I've left a polite message on her talk page, but I wouldn't go as far as to call it harassment.--v/r - TP 04:32, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, but the potential would be there, no? Badmintonhist (talk) 04:37, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Of course it is, that's why 1-way interaction bans are crappy and I don't like them. But that was the consensus at WP:ANI.--v/r - TP 04:38, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the note you sent her, in any case. Badmintonhist (talk) 04:40, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, TParis. You have new messages at Roscelese's talk page.
Message added 04:41, 17 January 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

–Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:41, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Iban question #2

Can I edit Monster (manga) without violating my Iban? I have been cautiously scanning the history and it seems that the last activity from Lucia Black was back on 11 November 2010‎ and not since in the intervening 3 years. Changes would be required to split the extensive and excessively detailed character section and possibly making a list for the detailed manga volumes which will require a fair amount of work. With the splits a fair amount of additional details and a better summary will be required. This particular title is of fairly mid-importance and needs only 4-5 hours of work to be GA-level. If you decline, I'll see if I can get something else from Madhouse's works that I familiar with. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:01, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I've looked at the article and I don't see why not. As long as your edits arn't solely focused on undoing her work from Nov '09. What I mean to say is, that I expect that in the natural editing of the article you may change things that she has authored but I'd expect that your changes are broader in scope than the contributions that she has made. If that's clear to you, then I think it's fine if you want to edit the article. If it's not clear what I mean, then please ask.--v/r - TP 04:37, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I understand, I'm going to split the page to a List of Characters as it is over-detailed and use a condensed summary on the main page. I was more just making sure that I can naturally edit articles in a functional manner without the "altering" aspect counting against me for doing improvements in preparation for its GAN. Oh! I spent a few hours on some food articles that were in need of some updating and have been working on bringing them to GA. Kinda is terrible when something like Turkey bacon is so deficient... I tend to prioritize higher view counts or importance for updating, but I'm all over the place in general. Lighthouses, fish, video games... I just drift about and I don't want any surprises; as I like clear and understandable rules. Thanks for the quick answer on this. I don't intend to pester you, but I am a bit of a worry-wart about things. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 07:50, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Xtools new article count

Hi! Thank you for maintaining X's tools! For a really long time now (a year at least, I don't remember) I have tried to see the list of articles created by me (in Estonian Wikipedia, etwiki), but the tool shows only the first 100 and when I click the link to see more, it gives 502 proxy error (The proxy server received an invalid response from an upstream server. The proxy server could not handle the request GET /xtools/pages/index.php. Reason: Error reading from remote server.) I am not really so tech savvy to know what to do with it or even if I can do anything at all. Can you say something about it? Is it some "my computer's problem" or is the list too long or there is really a problem with server or what? I apologize if I bother you with silly things, I just thought I'd do sth to get to see the list. Adeliine (talk) 11:45, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Possible breach of topic ban

I saw some edits by User:Pass a Method, and I was wondering if they were in breach of his topic ban for religious articles: [12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21] and the creation of Category:Quranic epics. Some of those may be simply gnomic, but the category at least is possibly controversial. I am mentioning this to you as the admin who notified him of the ban. StAnselm (talk) 20:03, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

explanation

Sorry about the accidental rollback, I was trying to scroll down my Watchlist on my smart phone and the page reformatted as I was about to view the diff on another page causing me to hit the rollback link on you talk page. - Nick Thorne ^talk 21:12, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, TParis. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 22:08, 23 January 2014 (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.

A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 22:08, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Austrian economics opened

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Austrian economics. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Austrian economics/Evidence. Please add your evidence by February 8, 2014, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Austrian economics/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 01:49, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

xtools problem

Hi. There seems to be a problem at https://tools.wmflabs.org/ with xtools. At https://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/ all I see is "No input file specified." — Wbm1058 (talk) 15:41, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Seeking clarification concerning deletion of a particular Wikipedia page

Dear TParis,

In late September 2011, you were credited with deleting the entire Wikipedia page concerning Dr. Punyamurtula Kishore. In that same timeframe, links to the Wikipedia page were also rapidly purged from various search engines. The web metrics concerning this page have become a point of journalistic interest in the weeks prior to, and following, the deletion.

Having a copy of the original Wikipedia page, and using the parameters you suggested for determining what rationale might have motivated the deletion prior to communicating with you, I find myself unable to get an unequivocal sense of the reasoning behind the deletion. To complicate this matter, the deletion came within a few days of a highly controversial indictment of Dr. Kishore. That this could be entirely coincidental, and the deletion made for completely justifiable reasons independent of any other activity surrounding the subject of that Wikipedia page, is certainly what one would hope would be the case. Therefore, understanding the rationale behind the deletion would go a long ways toward establishing the timing to be coincidental, with the one event not having any causal relation to the other.

I am publishing a series of articles about Dr. Kishore's case and have in passing drawn attention to the Wikipedia deletion in light of its suspicious timing. If the rationale for deletion is legitimate, however, I will need to revise any published statements concerning the deletion that would cast it in an unnecessarily derogatory light. The objective basis for the deletion should trump any subjective perception concerning it on the part of the subject, so long as the former is legitimate.

Thanking you in advance for your insights into this ongoing, and growing, controversy,

207.235.13.82 (talk) 21:32, 28 January 2014 (UTC) Martin Selbrede

(talk page stalker) As with all deletions on Wikipedia, this one included a summary explaining it. If you go to Punyamurtula Kishore, you can see the summary, which says "03:15, September 25, 2011 TParis deleted page Punyamurtula Kishore (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Punyamurtula Kishore)". If you follow the link in that summary, you will see the community discussion which decided the article should be deleted. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 21:42, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

The rationale for deletion is based on the deletion discussion linked above by Fluffernutter. Generally, we prefer these discussions to be more significant than 2 people, one of which barely has any edits. However, because the subject is a living person, I generally lean toward delete when notability is questionable or minor. If you have information which would qualify it for restoration, you're welcome to explain it here. Otherwise, I'm unlikely to restore the article. When we consider deletions, the impact on the subject's search engine results is not a factor. If you would like a copy of the deleted article, you may register an account on Wikipedia with an email address and I'll email you a copy of it (we generally avoid posting email addresses on the site). However, the justification for deletion is that the article did not meet our requirements at WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Outside considerations, as suggested in your undertone, were not a factor as far as I am concerned.--v/r - TP 02:01, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Closing

Move Like This
by 28bytes

I translated, duck attack on the German Main page ;) - Thank you for closing threads and "We love you anyway", --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:55, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Why did you threaten me?

Why have you threatened to block me for marking the lightbreather account as a SPA? That account is the very definition of an SPA. It edits Gun Control Related articles exclusively. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 19:15, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

You should also take a look at this: 172.129.246.164 Thanx --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 19:19, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

If you post another SPA message in relation to LightBreather, I will block your account. Your behavior is disruptive. You're not labeling this user to notify others, you're doing it to harass them. Knock it off, I swear an ANI thread will support my action.--v/r - TP 05:20, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I promise you that it is not my intention to harass anyone, and if you feel that it is disruptive, I certainly won't place the label anymore. I am here for Wikipedia and if you say not to use a tag, then that is good enough for me, I must not understand how to use it correctly, or I must not understand what an SPA is. So can you explain what I am misunderstanding? This is very frustrating. The lightbreather account edits only gun-control related articles, Not gun articles, but Gun Control related. Exclusively. The account's edits are so far to one side, that they pass my own, and I am pro-control myself. How is this not an SPA account? Or if it is an SPA, why can't I label it as such? --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 19:50, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

It's same spirit as WP:DTTR. He may be a SPA, but he also has several thousands of edits. Specializing in an area of Wikipedia isn't a crime.--v/r - TP 02:03, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

You make an excellent point, and I'll give LB some breathing room. But LB needs to hear (from somebody besides me) that the SPA label isn't going to simply go away just because mean 'ol Sue backed off for a while. Her behaviour will only draw attention from someone else. I wasn't the first to point out her SPAishness, and I doubt seriously if I will be the last. When I first met her, I thought I'd made a new friend. I tried to help her to not be so...activist, and she wouldn't have it, and her present mentor only seems to encourage her behavior. Perhaps someone like you can explain the issue to her in a way that she won't take as being confrontational. I dunno. Anyhoo, be well TParis. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 06:54, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Each person's behavior and attitude will catch up with them in its own time. When you try to push it, it becomes disruptive. Anything but the natural flow is just going to be seen at ANI as an effort to get rid of an opponent.--v/r - TP 17:52, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Although I was originally in strong agreement that the SPA label applied to LB, they have begun to branch out now (to a small degree). Although gun control is still certainly their focus, it is not exclusive anymore, and the SPA label is just causing drama at this point. Additionally Sue, your editing has crossed the line into disruptive several times now, so I would be wary of bringing any accusations. LB has some major issues and might end up having a WP:CIR action in the future, but antagonizing them, and interfering with other editors work on articles where she happens to edit is not acceptable either. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:59, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

xtools

on:
https://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/
ok links:
https://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/
https://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/articleinfo/
https://wiki.toolserver.org/view/User:tparis/Index
not ok links:
https://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/ec
https://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/blame
https://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/rangecontribs
https://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/ipcalc
try to redirect to:
http://www.tools-webgrid-01.com:4086
should be:
https://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/ec/
https://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/blame/
https://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/rangecontribs/
https://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/ipcalc/

Xb2u7Zjzc32 (talk) 05:05, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Invitation to join WikiProject Freedom of speech

• WP:WikiProject Freedom of speech

There is a WikiProject about Freedom of speech, called WP:WikiProject Freedom of speech. If you're interested, here are some easy things you can do:

1. List yourself as a participant in the WikiProject, by adding your username here: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Freedom_of_speech#Participants.
2. Add userbox {{User Freedom of speech}} to your userpage, which lists you as a member of the WikiProject.
3. Tag relevant talk pages of articles and other relevant pages using {{WikiProject Freedom of speech}}.
4. Join in discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Freedom of speech.
5. Notify others you think might be interested in Freedom of speech to join the WikiProject.

Thank you for your interest in Freedom of speech, — Cirt (talk) 04:13, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Eugh

Now that you mention it, I seem to remember that I promised Worm to stop talking about that. *shrugs* I dunno, willpower, man. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 23:37, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Haha, no good deed ;)--v/r - TP 23:43, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Your comments at ANI

Greetings Tparis, I just wanted to respond to a comment you made at ANI. Your right, accusing someone of abusing the tools is a serious accusation as it should be. What's even more of a problem though is the general attitude of admins on this site to plead ignorance of the problem. Even in that discussion multiple people commented they didn't have an opinion about the editor. Which means they do, but don't want to get involved because that admin has a history of retalitory actions against users who speak out against them. Like confronting them and threatening them with blocks for "Personal attacks". If they supported them or didn't agree with my statements they would have said that. Instad they decided to stay out if it. That is a huge problem for me and it should be for you as well. Nyttend has already been brough to ANI multiple times and has survived a couple Arbcom decisions where he was a party because the processes in place to deal with Abusive admins and editors don't work here. The only thing I have left to do is to be vocal and raise awareness of the problem in the hopes that it will eventually be identified and fixed. 138.162.8.57 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:08, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Is there admin abuse? Sure, no one can honestly deny that. But the real abuse here is the abuse of the word abuse. Cases of 'abuse' where the heat is much bigger than the actual substance. The amount of ANI threads doesn't matter if the multiple ANI threads you speak of against Nyttend were of similar strength of the one there that I closed. I don't know Nyttend from a door knob. I've seen the name but can't think of a single instance where we've ever said a word to each other. In fact, I can't think of a single time I've seen him involved in any issue.

The thing about admin abuse is that more often than actual real cases, it's an angry editor who refuses to acknowledge guilt or responsibility for themselves. I'm speaking from personal experience here. StillStanding-247 who made a very chilling remark and then claimed it was innocent banter, Joefromrandb who edit warred against an IP and then refused to read the policy when he got blocked, and recently EllenCT who accused me of admin abuse despite a very clear table showing that he definition of WP:CBAN actually hurts her argument instead of helps it. And now this most recent example of Nyttend.

Do you think everyone of us with the sysop bit just wakes up in the morning somehow feeling some sense of 'power' because we've got a bit in a database that says we can have extra functions on a website? Hell, the majority of admins regret ever running for RfA and wish they didn't feel a sense of responsibility for having done it and feel bad about quitting. Have you even seen my edit counts in the last 6 months? If there is admin abuse, it's by folks who are burnt out and made a bad judgement call. And we're so happy to ignore years of excellent contributions to condemn folks for a bad call. Those folks need to be forced to take a break, but that doesn't mean we have to crucify them to do it.

It's much easier to claim admin abuse than to prove it and that's all that happened on ANI yesterday and that's all you're doing here now. You again are claiming admin abuse without proving it. You're part of the abuse of 'abuse'. You devalue the word, you desensitize the rest of us to the real thing, and you legitimize efforts to block any kind of reform that would provide more accountability to admins because of how wildly you use the term.

That's not to say that admin abuse doesn't happen, but it's to say that the ratio of admin abuse and 'abuse' abuse is actually much lower than your words admit. I've seen admin abuse, I've been very vocal about it. I was one of the first few people to challenge User:SchuminWeb on the issue that got his tools revoked before anyone even mentioned bringing it to Arbcom. I was vocal about David Gerrard's tool use to win a move war. I've got 3 admins on my watch list at this very moment that I'm keeping an eye on. The difference is that I'm waiting until I can substantially prove a history of admin abuse, whereas you'll run to ANI to make wild accusations with little supportive evidence. I'm direct and targetted, careful, and patient and you want this thing to be fixed overnight. You're incapable of distinguishing between general pissiness because someone rightly got blocked and actual admin abuse. You don't take into account that admins will naturally receive criticism from those who get blocked. You jump at any chance to jump on the admin abuse bus. By railing against one problem, you're actually working against it. You create (you literally are the reason for) the very 'admin shield' that you are angry about.

You want change? Strengthen your arguments.--v/r - TP 18:31, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

You make some good points and I have stated repeatedly that it is a minority of admins who are abusing the tools. The problem is nothing is done about them so that makes the whole group look bad, especially when the stand together and defend an editor who obviously violated the rules. Arbcom has let multiple admins off the hook but then desysopped others for the same or lessor reasons. Whats worse is that Arbcom is the only ones who can remove the tools from an admin who is abusing them and not that many people are going to take the time to submit a complaint to Arbcom just to haev them deny it or spend a month and let them go. That message has been sent clearly and repeatedly that admins will be held to a lower standard than editors. You say its not abuse to bait an editor so the admin can have a reason to block them, I say different. You say that its ok for NYttend to threaten to block anyone who questions him on the grounds of personal attack, but then he can say anyhting to anyone he wants without remorse or consequences...again, I say that's wrong. Look at the case of another admin, one who I am friends with IRL and like very much as a person Sarah Stierch. She violated the rules to the point she lost her job at the WMF and hasn't edited since, still has the admin tools and no one has even asked to remove them as far as I know. There is another similar discussion about an editor on Jimbo's talk page for paid editing COI, nothing will happen to them either. I bet if that was an editor they would have been banned within 24 hours of that message on Jimbo's page. In fact, it has happened in the past several times. Sandstein is an infamous abuser of the tools but he stays close to arbcom and AE so no one touches him. I could list a dozen more off the top of my head where admins used their influence or the tools themselves to gain the upper hand for their own POV. I'm sick to death of it and if I have to go down in flames to bring enough attention to the problem then so be it. I also don't think all admins just wake up abusive, most of the time that get that way over time because they see that their actions are above reproach so they get bolder and bolder. I also want to be clear that I am not looking for admins to be stripped of the tools for one bad decision, but when a pattern of abuse has formed and nothing is done, then that is the admins fault as a group for allowing that to continue...hurting the project. And no matter what arguments are brough forward showing abuse (current case in point with Nyttend) someone always stands ready to justify it or give them a 4th, 5th or 6th chance because they are an admin. When I see admins actively doing something about these dangerous and reckless admins, then I'll let up...or I'll be banned from the project, whichever comes first. 138.162.8.57 (talk) 19:02, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Followup to Last Week's Question concerning Deletion of Wikipedia Page for Dr. Punyamurtula Kishore

Dear TParis,

Thank you for directing me to the deletion page for Dr. Punyamurtula Kishore last week.

From what I can gather, there were two rationales stated for deletion. We’ll take them in increasing order of importance.

First, MelanieN made the following assertion to justify deleting the article:

The article contains many exaggerations and outright inaccuracies, as exemplified by this claim: "He began his medical career as a primary care/family practice physician and then moved into a position as the Medical Director of the Washingtonian Center for Addictions, the first organization in the U.S. to recognize addiction as a disease. Their philosophy was an early precursor to the AA or 12-step program movement." A good trick, considering that the AA movement was founded in the 1930s and the Twelve-Step Program was published in 1939. --MelanieN (talk) 20:43, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Assuming that MelanieN has provided her best example of exaggeration and “outright inaccuracies,” it is easy to show that she is misinformed and providing a false rationale for deletion. In Wikipedia’s own reference to the Washingtonian movement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washingtonian_movement), the launching of the institution in question is asserted in respect to “the Washingtonian Homes which opened in Boston and Chicago in 1857.” The University of Boston Massachusetts traces back the birth of the Washington Center for Addictions to 1857 (http://www.lib.umb.edu/node/1646), describing the evolution of the institution from that point forward through to its final dissolution in 1980 (at which point a large portion of its library was bequeathed to its medical director, Dr. Kishore). MelanieN appears to be unaware of the long, involved history of this institution, and accused Dr. Kishore of attempting to put over “a good trick” on the reader. She assumes that the chronology self-evidently disproves the article’s assertion, because in her view the Washington Center for Addictions was founded well after the 1930s, creating an obvious anachronism. In point of fact, the Center was founded 80 years earlier than that. The original statement in the deleted page is accurate. The “good trick” comment is prima facie sarcastic, I might add, but it wasn’t you who made it, so I will pass on that.

Second, the question of notability (which I assume is the more pressing rationale for deletion) deserves attention. Dr. Kishore is the architect of the Massachusetts Model for addiction treatment. Its notability primarily rests on the objectively documented claim that while opiate replacement therapies (Methadone, Suboxone, etc.) yield a 5% success rate after one year of treatment, Dr. Kishore has a 37% success rate after one year of treatment (750% more lives restored to sobriety). The replacement therapy statistics behind the conventional therapies' 5% figure are “soft” statistics because a significant portion of the raw data is based on addicts self-reporting their sobriety, whereas Dr. Kishore’s 37% statistics are based on actual drug tests (which is why several faculty members at Harvard University’s School of Medicine have been providing testimony in support of the clinical objectivity of Dr. Kishore’s achievement). His clinics grew quickly because his addiction treatment method was both revolutionary and record-setting. Kishore’s approach is non-narcotic, using Vivitrol to remove cravings after the second month of treatment. Consequently, the disastrous shuttering of his clinics in September 2011 (as the media noted in alarmist terms) put his many patients at risk, since no other state doctors knew how to treat with Vivitrol (which cannot be administered to anyone who’s not 100% sober due to drug interaction issues). Two years after the shutdown of Dr. Kishore’s clinics, Massachusetts now has the worst heroin problem in the country.

In light of the above, I would appreciate a fuller explanation for the “non-notability” label being applied to Dr. Kishore’s work. If you require more information, I would appreciate a clear explanation of what you would expect in the way of data that would establish notability.

Thank you once again,

207.235.13.82 (talk) 23:58, 4 February 2014 (UTC)Martin Selbrede

It doesn't matter what you tell us, what matters is what the reliable sources show. Provide third party tertiary sources that support our definition of notability if you want an article on her on this privately owned website. Our standards are what you must meet, not your own. Our standards are WP:GNG and WP:BIO. The basic requirements are clear: multiple third party reliable sources discussing the subject specifically in great detail. The exaggeration that MelanieN hints at is not that the Washington Center for Addictions didn't recognize addiction as a disease first, but that the subject of the article had nothing at all to do with the recognition which happened in the 1930s, well before the subject was born, and so it's irrelevant to an article about the subject.--v/r - TP 02:08, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

HTTPS for UTRS

Hello! I remember the UTRS project wanting to use HTTPS but could not because it required using the User's IP. Having both was not possible with the labs infrastructure at that time, but is possible now! If you have a few minutes to spare at some point, I'd like you to be online at the time I make the transition, to ensure that nothing goes wrong. Do let me know when you can be available? Thanks! YuviPanda (talk) 19:41, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Greetings

I've sent you a response. I almost slapped a {{ygm}} on your talkpage, but I realized that would be a little disrespectful. My response has the same subject as the original that you sent me. Cheers, -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 22:58, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

In response to the request regarding tertiary sources in respect to notability of Dr. Punyamurtula Kishore

Dear TParis,

I'll respond to the notability issue as it is of more importance. In passing, let me add that Dr. Kishore is male and not female.

Here is a first set of tertiary sources that touch on the question of Dr. Kishore's notability. Let me know if these are adequate to establish notability. If not, do I need to supply further references (which I have) or is the issue the quality of the sources (in which case, please advise on that point as well).

Thank you for your patience on this matter. A preliminary list of sources relevant to Dr. Kishore's notability or lack thereof follows my sign-off.

207.235.13.82 (talk) 00:29, 6 February 2014 (UTC) Martin Selbrede

First, note the ASAM Fellow criteria:

http://www.asam.org/membership/asam-fellows

List of 327 physicians world-wide elected as ASAM Fellows since 1996: http://www.asam.org/membership/asam-fellows/current-asam-fellows

Interview chapter in “Drugs Make You Unsmarter” (Winner of Golden Quill Book Award)

http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-547735

http://www.amazon.com/Jill-Ammon-Vanderwood/e/B002BMBRGQ

http://www.jillvanderwood.com/dmyu/about.html

http://heavenonearthsystem.blogspot.com/2011/02/fifteen-year-old-teams-up-with.html

http://drugsmakeyouunsmarter.blogspot.com/2011/10/drugs-make-you-un-smarter-wins-golden.html

LANCET article: Kishore is cited 51 times and 6 times respectively:

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(83)91130-3/fulltext?version=printerFriendly

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(83)91130-3/fulltext

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(83)90568-8/abstract

LANCET: 2 articles: http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/issue/vol322no8349/PIIS0140-6736(00)X4693-4

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/issue/vol322no8363/PIIS0140-6736(00)X7118-8

Google Scholar Citation List:

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?filter=0&bav=on.2,or.&biw=1024&bih=660&bvm=pv.xjs.s.en_US.60Rsr1-mOJU.O&um=1&ie=UTF-8&lr&q=related:az9AhBHn46TY-M:scholar.google.com/

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?filter=0&bav=on.2,or.&bvm=pv.xjs.s.en_US.60Rsr1-mOJU.O&um=1&ie=UTF-8&lr&q=related:MHfKuw0tY8OVIM:scholar.google.com/

Export citation:

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(83)90568-8/abstract/exportCitation

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(83)91130-3/fulltext/exportCitation

New York Times considers Dr. Kishore’s research a breakthrough:

http://www.nytimes.com/1983/09/02/us/alcoholism-tests-back-disease-idea.html

MANY ROADS TO RECOVERY article published in JOIN TOGETHER/PARTNERSHIP FOR DRUG FREE AMERICA (2007)

https://www.drugfree.org/join-together/drugs/many-roads-lead-to-recovery

2012 NATIONAL PHYSICIAN CENSUS: 878,194

http://www.fsmb.org/pdf/census.pdf

http://kff.org/other/state-indicator/total-active-physicians/

Total Professionally Active Physicians in Massachusetts: 13,561 Primary Care doctors + 16,530 Specialists = 30,091

Total membership of the American Society of Addiction Medicine: 2,700

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=American_Society_of_Addiction_Medicine&action=history

http://www.asam.org/about-us

Massachusetts members of ASAM: 66

http://community.asam.org/search/newsearch.asp?txt_state=Massachusetts

Members with ASAM Certification and/or ABAM Diplomate Status: 6 http://community.asam.org/search/newsearch.asp?txt_state=Massachusetts

Of the six doctors on the list:

1. ALFORD: Full time staff at Boston Medical Center (not ASAM certified)

2. BROADHURST: Suboxone/Methadone Doctor (not ASAM certified and not a Fellow)

3. GASTFRIEND: Works full time for drug company Alkermes (not a Fellow; psychiatrist by training)

4. GAVRYCK: Suboxone Doctor (not a Fellow)

5. KISHORE: Developed Massachusetts Model (ASAM Certified, ABAM Diplomate, Fellow)

6. WARTENBERG: Works as expert witness in legal cases (ASAM Certified, ABAM Diplomate, Fellow)

Number of doctors in Massachusetts that are ASAM Certified, ABAM Diplomate, and Elected Fellows of the Society: 2 (Kishore and Wartenberg) Of these two, only one is actually practicing addiction medicine in the state.

AMERICAN BOARD OF ADDICTION MEDICINE:

http://www.abam.net/about/

ABAM is not a member board of the American Board of Medical Specialties (ABMS). ABAM's goal is to gain recognition of Addiction Medicine as a medical specialty, and the creation of a certification process through collaboration with the ABMS and its member Boards.

ABAM DIPLOMATES : 1452 in 2009

http://www.addictionpro.com/article/landmark-recognition-addiction-medicine

Five Hundred Thirty-Seven New Diplomates Certified by American Board of Addiction Medicine

http://www.prweb.com/releases/2013/6/prweb10819492.htm

The American Board of Addiction Medicine (ABAM) was proud to honor and recognize 537 physicians who achieved board certification in addiction medicine during the organization’s recent annual awards luncheon in Chicago, IL. The new ABAM diplomates join 2,557 physicians in the United States who have already been certified and awarded diplomate status by ABAM, an independent medical specialty board.

I'm sorry, this isn't at all what is required. What you have are a whole bunch of sources not about Dr. Punyamurtula Kishore. They may mention him in passing but they are not about him. Look, these two articles are about Bill Gates. They don't just merely mention him, they discuss and describe the person. Not his work, not Microsoft, they discuss him specifically. This is what we need. If you want to make a claim that his Fellowship meets #4 of WP:SCHOLAR, well you'd need to hold a discussion at WP:DRV and get a consensus among editors for that.--v/r - TP 01:52, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

ANI Ret.Prof

It seems there is now consensus. How does this come to an official end? Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 04:40, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Why no talk page message?

You recently blocked my home IP but you didn't leave a message on the talk page of the IP you blocked giving instructions about how to request an unblock. Is it not still the standard to leave a message on the talk page of the blocked? Or should people be left guessing as to what to do? Of course I know, and didn't bother with it, but it still would be nice to have had that. We shouldn't be making them guess about how to unblock themselves or that they are even blocked. I didn't even know until I went to RFA to respond to the below comment. That my friend is piss poor admining. I always though higher of you than that, don't let the bad habits of bad admins rub off on you too. Oh and its worth noting that there has been an error on the Cannot create account message for months, might be nice for someone who is "trusted" to take a look at that so its not still pointing to the toolserver. 138.162.8.59 (talk) 17:06, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

UTRS oddness

When you have a moment could you pop in to UTRS? The appeals are now coming in with the WMF Labs IP address listed as the main (proxy) address of the appellant. This obviously messes up the tracking of repeated requests. Thanks!--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 18:32, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

I see, oops. I approved the Labs folks to make a slight change to the IP forgetting that we hard code the IPs into the config. The check user data is getting the right data but only the CUs and Devs have access to see that so...for now I'll handle all of the IP requests and I'll see if I can get someone to fix the code. I dont have access to labs at the moment. My certificate is on a boat on the pacific ocean right now.--v/r - TP 00:26, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

At a loss how to proceed

Tom, we let the ANI filing against Ret.Prof peter out under the assumption this dispute is headed to formal mediation. However, despite PiCo's best efforts (and my own and Davidbena's), Ret.Prof has temporarily "stepped back", as he has done so many times before, and now there is no request for formal mediation. Where should we go from here? (Please reply here.) Ignocrates (talk) 19:15, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

@Ignocrates, do not try to "interpret" my taking a break. I am an old guy who is tired of all the conflict. I need a rest. Nothing more! - Ret.Prof (talk) 19:33, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Maybe so, but you have managed to evade two RFC/U filings prior to this ANI case by "resting". It has to stop. Ignocrates (talk) 19:38, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

That certainly was not my intention! I do step back when thing get heated. I find it good to let people cool down. However in this case, I have been through a lot. I am exhausted. I need a rest, that is all. Some people thrive on conflict. I am not one of them. Please do not read anything into my taking a break. I do appreciate all the good work you do. - Ret.Prof (talk) 20:09, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

As PiCo wisely pointed out on his talk page, if nothing is done now, you will be back in a few months, or a few weeks, doing the exact same thing, just like all the other times. This has been going on for over 3 years and counting. People are worn out. I'm concerned that other, extremely productive, editors and going to burn out and leave Wikipedia because of your actions. Despite all the discussion on the ANI page and preliminary work of others to prepare a request for formal mediation, you have so far not indicated the slightest interest in participating in the mediation process. This needs to stop right now. Ignocrates (talk) 21:52, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

I have looked through my edits of the past two days and I don't think I have said or done anything to indicate I am backing away from mediation. Yes I have asked questions. Yes I have sought advice. Yes the ANI I found unsettling. I could have been banned. Not so with mediation. There really is nothing to fear! My decision to take a break is not about you or about mediation...it is about me. When I get tired, I can get snippy, make mistakes and look incompetent. Read nothing more into my break than that. I do appreciate all you do for Wikipedia. Please do not take my break the wrong way. - Ret.Prof (talk) 22:17, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

In all honesty, I don't think the community can take another round of passive-aggressive behavior. We are at the end of our rope. Ignocrates (talk) 22:30, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

"Passive-aggressive behavior!" "Lack of good faith!" I feel I being unfairly harassed for taking a break after a terrible ordeal. _ Ret.Prof (talk) 22:51, 7 February 2014 (UTC) PS TOM, I will end my break immediately and start mediation right away if you feel it is necessary. Hope everyone has a good weekend.

I do think it's a bit unfair to take a break immediately after the ANI closed after suggesting Arbitration or Mediation yourself and after these guys already brought up the issues of your breaks coinciding with heated ANI discussions. I think it's important to move forward with Mediation and get this thing hammered out while memories are fresh. @Ignocrates - I haven't seen a bit of passive-aggressive behavior from Ret.Prof at all. Passive aggressive behavior would be disingenuous politeness thinly veiled with contempt or ulterior motives. I think Ret.Prof is genuinely polite and well intentioned, though he disagrees often.--v/r - TP 23:50, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Ret.Prof does see himself as the victim of a WP:CONSPIRACY, but you are right that is not the same thing as disingenuous politeness or having ulterior motives. He genuinely wants to make a positive contribution to Wikipedia. Ignocrates (talk) 00:20, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Done, My break is over. - Ret.Prof (talk) 00:45, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Ok, we are now back on track. Thanks Tom! Ignocrates (talk) 01:11, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Ditto - Ret.Prof (talk) 01:13, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

recall

I am contacting you today as one of the users listed at User:Secret/recall. In case you were not aware, Secret has once again resigned his admin status and is once again about to ask for it back. I am concerned that this behavior constitutes the sort of erratic behavior that this recall mechanism was designed to deal with and am asking all other users listed there to add their opinion at the talk page of the recall subpage. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:12, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Looks like, you were closing it while I was adding a comment. I don't know that it matters but technically my comment came several minutes after the close. I think the subject could have done with a more thorough discussion and was really just getting started but I'm not going to make an issue about it. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:52, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

I could revert myself. It's no biggie to me. I just felt that we'd come to a solution that addressed everyone's concerns and half of the original 10 agreed to it with no opposition so far.--v/r - TP 04:53, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

.If we were at any normal noticeboard I would feel compelled to point out that not everyone on the list may have even had a moment to comment yet, but as you say there really aren't any rules for these types of proceedings. (Or there are rules but the person who set them can just change them whenever they want, which would be why we pretty much stopped doing this a long time ago

In any event, while you were reverting I was telling Secret I was just going to drop it, which I still intend to do. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:18, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

• Shrug* Either way. I wasn't trying to stop discussion, I only assumed the issue was wrapped up and I wanted to archive it so it wouldn't be confused with later issues. --v/r - TP 05:23, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

February 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Kamehameha Highway may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• ] and [[Hickam Air Force Base]]. The highway runs north past the Pearl Harbor historic sites (the [[USS Arizona Memorial|USS ''Arizona'' Memorial]], the {{USS|Bowfin}}, the [[Admiral Clarey

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:25, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Searching ArbCom

In this edit you stated, "Arbcom already heard MilesMoney's appeal and gave a solid rejection back at him."

I would like to read that appeal.

I tried searching this page for "Milesmoney", which returned three pages, none of which were the appeal.

So I am interested in knowing how to search for something in ArbCom, as my approach failed, and I would be interested to see the appeal, so if you have a link, or a way to find the link, I would appreciate it.--S Philbrick(Talk) 03:08, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, you can ignore this request. I was puzzled that ArbCom would entertain such an appeal, because it was my understanding that BASC rather than ArbCom had jurisdiction. I see that it was BASC who dismissed the appeal.--S Philbrick(Talk) 03:36, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

As BASC is a sub-committee of Arbcom, I just referred to it in general.--v/r - TP 04:12, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

FYI

Greetings, while browsing Category:Username_internal_link_templates, I tried out {{IP_summary}}, and the "count" link went to http://toolserver.org/~tparis/pcount/index.php which after awhile redirected to http://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/pcount/index.php ...
Shouldn't the proper behavior be to go directly to the wmf labs url like the {{User summary}} template? I didn't check any of the other templates in that category which may have a "count" option. FYI. ...172.162.77.52 (talk) 15:15, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Looks like someone saw your message and updates the links already. Thanks for pointing it out.--v/r - TP 18:11, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Opinion

As you were the closer on the ANI-set editing restrictions [22]) for Lucia Black, I need your opinion if this might be a problem.

Specifically, in long discussion on the MOS:TM talk page, Lucia stated that "You know who you're really calling an idiot Gaijin? the people who are for the MOS". (Note that Gaijin commented before that "It appears that people that pronounce the "five" [in Deadmau5] are generally considered idiots and called out for it widely." - as this was not a comment to goad Lucia in any way). I suggested to them they may want to retract that comment. They replied on my talk page, saying they weren't going to do that and that they were only under an IBAN (which seems wrong), and then proceed to expand on that comment on MOS:TM's talk page. And they did wipe that warning I gave too.

I've not been involved in the larger issues with Lucia so I don't know how serious this, hence why I ask for a check. If you believe this is a problem, I can handle the larger report to ANI if that's needed. If this is nothing to worry about, I'll let it drop. --MASEM (t) 17:23, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

There are several restrictions on Lucia but they all relate to ChrisGualtieri for the most part. There is a specific restriction that allows any administrator to ban her from a page if she is causing disruption. I've looked over Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Trademarks and I don't see any particular disruptive behavior. Even the comments you quote above, it's just a snarky parody of Gaijin's own comments. I'm not sure there is anything actionable here. She's certainly being rude and scratching the surface of WP:CIVIL. For someone who is recently under new sanctions, she should be careful in how she acts. But again, nothing actionable at this time. Sorry, Masem.--v/r - TP 18:26, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, just wanted to make sure instead of jumping to a pointless ANI report. But if she happens to get more aggressive I will let you know. --MASEM (t) 18:34, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

A Voice for Men AFD

Hi TParis, I know your fairly busy now, but could you take a look at the contributions of user Photon lloyd, Their only edits are to put A Voice for Men up for AFD, and to call it a hate group at the same time. I've got no real comment as to whether the article should be deleted or not, but I'm fairly certain the article falls under the Mens Rights Movement Article Probation. What's more, the group is fairly small, and calling it a hate group can run afoul of WP: BLP. I'm not saying stop the AFD, but this type of AFD posting just leaves a bad taste in my mouth. --Kyohyi (talk) 14:43, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't see anything sanctionable under the article probation, which includes edit warring, personal attacks, incivility and assumptions of bad faith. I think you should just let the AfD run it's course. There are plenty of reliable sources to support the article's notability and the new editor will learn quickly that "I don't like it" isn't a deletion rationale.--v/r - TP 18:00, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

re: Withdrawal

Yes, I don't think there is much point in keeping this up. Assorted shenanigans are now threatening to cause trouble to other editors; I don't want to see people bickering about edit waring, or causing trouble for MONGO, FSP, you or anyone else unlucky enough to get involved in this mess. Let this end here and move on. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:09, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Clarey Bridge

Sorry to delay responding ... I meant to do so last night but I was up late watching the Beatles tribute with my wife and that turned out to be more tiring than I thought, so after it ended the next thing I really remember is waking up on the couch an hour later.

But enough about me ... I was thinking about your request and what exactly you want to do and how I could help you. What sort of help are you looking for? What are your ultimate goals for the article? Those are the questions we should begin with. Daniel Case (talk) 18:47, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I would like to get this article to GA level. I have exhausted my search for sources and being that you have experience writing bridge articles I wasn't sure if you had more resources to check. I know I can expand the design section and public use section, and I need to source at least one paragraph. Your experience writing GAs would also be helpful on formatting and the criteria. I have one other lead that I am trying to follow, I made contact with a former Navy engineer on the project and I'm trying to see what sources he has access to. What do you think?--v/r - TP 02:37, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

OK, it's listed on structurae. There might be some technical information there worth adding (and it might be worth looking up that journal article linked). And here's the NBID listing, with some more things that could be filled in in the infobox.

Some more things later. Daniel Case (talk) 03:19, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I found the article here but it's $28. I sent an email to the company to see if they'd give it to me for free. Thanks for the other two links, they will be helpful.--v/r - TP 03:58, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	Thank you for taking a stance aiming to diffuse the conflict by taking over a certain protection, and helping to close another dramu-fuelling discussion. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:52, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I thought AfDs were supposed to follow policy

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Apache Continuum didn't. None of the sources listed were reliable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:02, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Why not? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:41, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

They get closed by consensus. You didn't gain a consensus that the organization didn't have a presumption of notability. If it were a BLP, I'd have more discretion to supervote but it's not.--v/r - TP 18:32, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Krishnaballesh

As Peridon noted in denying the unblock request, it seemed from the edit history to be likely that there were multiple people behind the account, editing to promote the ostensible account-holder's interests. It is now being asserted that Ballesh himself is behind the account. This would, if true, exempt him from the username block (bit not a block for COI reasons). Daniel Case (talk) 17:38, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Okay, perhaps I suffer from foreknowledge because the UTRS ticket makes a claim of being Ballesh upfront. I'll explain how COI works and if he can understand that, because there seems to be a language barrier, then I'll send him to OTRS to verify his identity.--v/r - TP 18:34, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Email being rejected

Hey TParis,

I'm having a problem responding to your email via the URTS. The error I'm getting is a 550 5.1.1, "Recipient address rejected: User unknown in local recipient table." It looks to me like a server configuration error, any ideas? Nevermind, I just missed the link to respond. N^oformation ^Talk 02:03, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

You're not supposed to reply to the email. You're supposed to click the "Reply" link in the email which will take you back to a reply screen on the UTRS system.--v/r - TP 02:05, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

An editor

has asked me on my talk page to help him out on an article that falls within my banned scope. Am i allowed to edit there? Pass a Method talk 04:00, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

You'd be allowed to explain the editing restriction to the editor, or if you wanted to avoid that, you could simply decline. But you wouldn't be able to participate on the article until your topic ban expires.--v/r - TP 04:03, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

RfC

TP, I don't believe that BullRangifer ever tried to resolve his dispute with me. I simply cannot accept his proposal that we should biased sources to promote the WP:TRUTH. You may as well close that discussion because I will not agree to his demands. Arzel (talk) 18:50, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Arzel, I think your opinion of the use of bias sources isn't in line with policy. Per WP:IRS, "Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject."

Essentially, as others have said in your support in the RFC/U, while biased sources can be used, they need to be balanced with the opposing viewpoint to create appropriate WP:WEIGHT. Biased sources are all over Wikipedia. If you go into WP:LGBT topics, you'll see the argument made going the opposite direction. That Fox News & conservative sources are biased and should not be used. The problem is, bias is subjective. There is no objective measurement of bias at all. And so, we don't exclude sources based on "bias", we exclude them based on "weight". You may be right that there is an over-dependence on left-leaning sources, you may be wrong as well, but your argument should be WP:WEIGHT which supports your view in policy and not biased which policy opposes your view.--v/r - TP 18:55, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

All sources have some bias, and I have never argued against the use of all biased sources, and not against mainstream sources which are biased. The problem is when individuals use extremely biased activist sources, such as the Daily Kos, MMfA, Media Research Center, ect. Especially when this sources are opinions being presented as facts in BLP related articles. One of BullRangifer's arguments is that the Koch brothers are protected by Fox and don't get mainstream reporting on the bad crap that they do, therefore it is perfectly acceptable to use highly partisan and biased sources so that these truths may be known and not "white-washed" from their articles. You would be very hard pressed to see me use these types of sources from the right and have removed such crap from articles on the left (like John Edwards) in the past. I agree that weight should be a policy to use, but I have learned over my years here that it is mostly ignored so long as a source is viewed as RS. This is largely academic because I have largely stopped editing. I am still watching pages, and have seen dozens of BLP violations and other policy violations go unchallenged (personal web pages used for sources, misrepresentation of sources, selective quoting). Activist have largely taken over editing on WP, which is unfortunate. Best Arzel (talk) 19:14, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

I was very troubled by that quote you gave from BullRangifer about the Koch brothers. But, you haven't made much of an argument about MrX's POV. Have you considered what he had to say about your editing?--v/r - TP 19:20, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

MrX has roughly the same view as BullRangifer. What really predicated this RfC was the use of MMfA as a primary source in the FNC Controversies article. MMfA is a perfect example of an extremely biased source which should not be used. Their animus against FNC is well known. I have argued in the past that if something is really notable (weight) then it will be covered by mainstream sources negating the need for MMfA. My other argument has been that MMfA calls out FNC on a daily basis, sometimes several times a day. If the argument is that biased sources are fine and dandy, then what is the limiting factor? If one thing from MMfA (that had little or no secondary coverage) is ok then everything from MMfA is ok. It would be quite easy to create an article that was little more than MMfA view of "X" (and very likely an attack page). When I first started editing WP this was often the case with various conservative BLP's. They were little more than a collection of MMfA (and related websites) issues with said subject. Several editors had work to create a more reasonable approach to these kinds of sources, where if they were accompanied by main stream sources (weight) then that was something that editors could work with. However, this standard appears to be going away. Unfortunately some admins (like DougWeller) hold the same view. I will admit that my patience has diminished and as a result I am probably not as civil regarding these issues as I have been in the past. Arzel (talk) 23:37, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Your argument is mostly about the use of MMfA as a reliable source. I can't help you with that, it's content and admins don't determine content. What is a concern here is behavior. If you want to make a counter argument, you need to demonstrate use one-sided sources and removal of counter sources; not just assertion of it. Perhaps an MMfA Arbcom case might be in order. But thus far, you are far lacking in actual evidence to support your assertions and I've read your comments in the RFC/U. BullRangifer's own comments are about as damning as you have so far. You need to step it up.--v/r - TP 00:08, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Question

Hello Tparis. I apologize for bothering you with this but it looks like CensoredScribe is, one again, ignoring the community. Today the editor is adding this [[Category:Fictional weapons of mass destruction]] to several articles. A quick check of CS's edit summaries [23] shows that WP:OR and WP:SYNTH is still part and parcel of their edits. The guidelines regarding "Defining factor" and "Sourced info about the cat must be in the article" are also being ignored. I tried to leave this at AN/I but it is having problems at the moment and I have to go off-wiki in a couple minutes. If you would prefer not to have to deal with this please feel free to remove this message. In any case thanks for your time. MarnetteD | Talk 21:22, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I saw this on my phone and I forgot about it by the time I got to my computer. I see you opened an ANI thread for it so we'll just see how that goes.--v/r - TP 03:02, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Admiral Clarey Bridge

Hello! Your submission of Admiral Clarey Bridge at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:26, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

DYK of The FP

I've replied to your comment here. Thank you for reviewing me! Corvoe (speak to me) 20:22, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Bremen Cotton Exchange

Thanks for loading DYK. I was hoping to save this for a meeting in March (the 30th) is it possible to leave this? I will move it to a safe area. Thanks anyway Victuallers (talk) 09:23, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Mail

You've got email from me. Cheers -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 22:02, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Editing Warring at United States presidential electionpart012

Hi, you blocked me, and took a rather rude and hostile tone toward me, as if I've been an unruly and disruptive editor when I've put in a lot of good faith work in to improve Wikipedia and have never received so much as a warning during six years of editing, making me feel rather disvalued as an editor. I'm sorry for whatever I've done to have personally offended you. I reverted edits on United States presidential election, 2012 that were considered disruptive by 75.91.224.24 a grand total of only 3 times, spread out over three different days, then I stopped. I note that the rule on Wikipedia:Edit warring is that editors must not perform more than 3 reverts within a single 24-hour period, so I still don't think I deserve that edit warring block on my permanent record as an editor, so I still hope you will reconsider it. But the only one edit warring was 75.91.224.24. And he is at it again. He has been reverted a total of 9 times now by 5 different editors. Since admins have said what the IP is doing doesn't meet the strict definition of vandalism, then he can't be reported as a vandal, so what exactly can be done? Thanks. Inqvisitor (talk) 23:14, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Read that entire policy again and don't just skip the part you think supports your complaint.--v/r - TP 00:10, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Now that I am at a computer, I can give you a fuller answer. First off, per WP:EW:

• "The three-revert rule is a convenient limit for occasions when an edit war is happening fairly quickly, but it is not a definition of what 'edit warring' means"

The three revert rule isn't what determines what is edit warring. You were involved in a series of reverts as follows: First revert by you, Second revert by Gilliam, Third revert by you, Fourth revert by you, Fifth revert by Vanamonde93, Sixth revert by Newbreeder, Seventh revert by Vanamonde93. Edit warring is defined as follows:

• "An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions, rather than trying to resolve the disagreement by discussion."

By this definition, you were involved in an edit war. You were part of a team of 4 editors reverting a single IP. There are two sides to every edit war. One side cannot edit war alone because if the other side stops reverting, the one side has nothing left to revert. There is no requirement that content stay on your preferred or original version before discussion happens. Tag-teaming, so each editor in an edit war doesn't ever reach 4 reverts, is still edit warring and what's worse is that it is gaming the system. Finally, if you read WP:3RR, you'd see that:

• "Even without a 3RR violation, an administrator may still act if they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring, and any user may report edit warring with or without 3RR being breached. The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times."

So you see, what I did was completely in policy, you were edit warring, and you were rightly blocked. I wasn't rude, either.--v/r - TP 02:01, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Admiral Clarey Bridge

Thank you Victuallers (talk) 16:02, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Gnomish

Am i allowed to correct a redirection error? Its not technically on a page so. Pass a Method talk 23:33, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

The point of a topic ban is that you don't edit that topic area at all and completely disconnect. Why are you concerned with a redirect? I'm going to start working on a new article, Admiral Clarey, would you like to try to get it to GA with me instead?--v/r - TP 02:47, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Admiral Clarey Bridge

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Admiral Clarey Bridge you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 06:11, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Admiral Clarey Bridge

The article Admiral Clarey Bridge you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Admiral Clarey Bridge for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:52, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm ready!

User:ТимофейЛееСуда/RFA -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 16:23, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

I think I put it on the main RfA page correctly. Let me know if I messed something up. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 20:19, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCV, February 2014

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Rabaul in World War II and Australia in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:31, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Pass a Method's topic ban -- violations

I'm not sure if you and JamesBWatson are aware, but Pass a Method keeps violating his topic ban, usually in subtle ways, as recently as today. Well, actually, I'm sure that if either of you did know, you would have acted in that regard by now. One recent example of Pass a Method violating his topic ban before today is the Hezbollah article, which is definitely a religious topic; he's been editing that article regularly since his topic ban. I don't think that Pass a Method is editing religious topics in subtle ways because he misunderstands his ban (despite seeming not to understand when he asked you this); I think it's being done in subtle ways so that he is not caught. JamesBWatson already caught him, but when the edit was not so subtle, as noted on Pass a Method's talk page; that example was not the only violation on that day. And when Pass a Method violated his topic ban just a day after he was informed of the ban, I knew that he likely would not take the ban seriously or as seriously as he should. And for the record, I consider Pass a Method a problematic Wikipedia editor for various reasons. Flyer22 (talk) 14:40, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

An article about a "political party in Lebanon"/"Pro-government factions of the Lebanese Civil War"/"Political parties established in 1982" is hardly a "religious article". Pass a Method talk 17:56, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Anyone with good sight and comprehension skills can see that the Hezbollah article is a religious article. And if one does not want to state "religious article," it is most certainly a religious topic...and concerns a religious topic you have frequently concerned yourself with -- Shia Islam. Flyer22 (talk) 18:03, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Hezbollah is currently busy supporting the secular Ba'athism political and arab socialist/nationalist party in Syria. So even their religious nature is extremly foggy. Pass a Method talk 18:18, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Alright, hang on guys. I wouldn't call Hezbollah a religion topic by itself. It's a topic with religious elements like Santorum would be a topic with a religious element or section. As long as Pass a method is not editing the part about religion, I don't see a topic ban violation. Pass a method, Sharia law is a religious law. It's not at all secular. If that's not clear, we may need to extend the topic ban to give you more padding between you and the topic you shouldn't be editing. Flyer1 (and @Halo Jerk1:), User:Halo_Jerk1/User:Pass_a_Method violates WP:POLEMIC. It's should be deleted.--v/r - TP 18:24, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

TParis, maybe we should wait and see what JamesBWatson has to state on this? Or even what editors who regularly edit religious topics and who have regularly interacted with Pass a Method, such as StAnselm, Middayexpress and In ictu oculi, think about it? To me, the Hezbollah article is indeed a religious topic and Pass a Method has edited parts of it that relate to religion. I didn't call it solely a religious topic, but much of it does concern religion, and Pass a Method should not be editing any article concerning religion. And either way, he has been violating his topic ban with regard to other articles, like today's example that I presented above.

As for User:Halo Jerk1/User:Pass a Method, that was linked to quite a few times during the WP:ANI discussion that got Pass a Method topic banned from religious articles, and no administrator there saw a problem with it. It is a page that is meant to be used for a WP:RfC/U on Pass a Method, and so I do not think that it accurately applies to WP:POLEMIC in this case. Highlighting his problematic behavior is expected to be addressed in a WP:RfC/U. There are similar user pages regarding different editors that are preparing for a WP:RfC/U. That stated, if my bother's draft needs to be fixed up in an appropriate way because it does violate WP:POLEMIC, then I vote for that option -- it being fixed up instead of deleted. In the aforementioned WP:ANI discussion, he welcomed others to help him mold/build it. Like I mentioned at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tommy Oliver, my brother has not been editing Wikipedia lately. And I don't know when he'll fix up that draft and start a WP:RfC/U on Pass a Method. Flyer22 (talk) 18:55, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

"As for User:Halo Jerk1/User:Pass a Method, that was linked to quite a few times during the WP:ANI discussion that got Pass a Method topic banned from religious articles, and no administrator there saw a problem with it." Because ANI is dispute resolution. The ANI thread is now over. If you are planning an RFC/U in the imminent future (weeks) then that's fine. But if it's at some vague point in the future and you don't have plans but some eventuality, then it needs to go.--v/r - TP 19:12, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't know many religious groups that physically fight for a secular cause. Bashar al-Assad for instance is a staucj secularist. But thats just me. Pass a Method talk 19:14, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

"ANI is dispute resolution"? That is the exact opposite of what administrators who regularly deal with WP:ANI matters state. And if that was a typo and you meant that WP:ANI is not for dispute resolution, that draft would have been deleted by any administrator at WP:ANI if it is indeed something that "needs to go" because of WP:POLEMIC.

As for addressing me as "Flyer1" and directing me to what I need to do about the WP:RfC/U draft in question as though it is mine, if you have any doubt that I and Halo Jerk1 are two different people, TParis, you can take that up with Alison; otherwise, you should be addressing the "What should be done with the WP:RfC/U" matter to my brother, not to me. Flyer22 (talk) 19:28, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Excuse me? Now you are assuming bad faith. I don't know you from Jack and I have no idea who Halo1 is either. You're being a bit testy, and I don't really care for your attitude. The page violates WP:POLEMIC and I'm happy to delete it myself as such. As far your original dispute, you're really throwing mud and hoping it sticks. And your accusation just now makes me all the less inclined to try to understand your complaint. And then asking for James' opinion is admin-shopping. Have a good day, gents.--v/r - TP 19:35, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

TParis, I did not mean any insult. It was hard for me not to assume that I'm being mocked when you called me "Flyer1" and addressed "planning an RFC/U" in a way that suggests that the WP:RfC/U is mine; your wording there acts as though it is my WP:RfC/U and that I should do something about it. Understand that I have had bad experiences with regard to being mistaken for my brother before he got a legit Wikipedia registered account, and even accused of being him after he got one, and I'm still sore from those experiences. As for being "a bit testy," I don't believe that I was. But I apologize if I came off that way. It is hard for me not to feel frustrated when I continue to see Pass a Method violate his topic ban and nothing being done about it. Of course I expected that coming to the administrator who imposed that topic ban would ensure that Pass a Method is warned and/or temporarily blocked by that administrator for these violations. But above, you even stated that I'm "really throwing mud and hoping it sticks," when I don't see that as the case at all. Pass a Method knew that he was making a topic ban violation at the Incest article today, just like he knew that he was violating his ban in other cases.

As for the WP:RfC/U draft applying to WP:POLEMIC, I obviously disagree with that, just like I'd disagree if someone called the User:Viriditas/draft a WP:POLEMIC violation; I would prefer that my brother's WP:RfC/U draft is designed the way that Viriditas/draft is designed. He needs help on that, being a far less experienced Wikipedia editor, and I encourage you to inform him of your concern with regard to his draft and that there is a better way to design it. I don't think that asking for JamesBWatson's opinion on these matters was forum shopping since he has involved himself with Pass a Method's topic ban in a way that suggests that he should be informed of any further violations in that regard.

Anyway, thank you for your time. Flyer22 (talk) 20:14, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Alright, well I haven't run into you and your brother and I was unaware of any relation until you said something. What I meant by you making an RFC/U is that your aware of the content there and you are in a dispute with Pass a method and you did link that page. You are defending it's legitimacy as possible dispute resolution in the future. So I suggested that if you wanted it to be dispute resolution, or your brother, that ya'all get on with it. Viriditas's 3 week old RFC/U draft is a lot more legitimate than a 4 month old list of grievances. But that distracts from your original complaint. I'm not convinced by the complaint except for the diff on Sharia law. That indisputably originates in the Islamic faith and the edit itself deals with a specific religious belief in the Islam faith. My comment to Pass a method above about expanding the topic ban should make it clear that it's not acceptable.--v/r - TP 20:21, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Okay. Yes, thank you for mentioning the Sharia law mater to Pass a Method. I see your point about my brother's WP:RfC/U just sitting there. It should be deleted if he doesn't get on with that WP:RfC/U soon. Flyer22 (talk) 20:29, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

On a side note, since this experience with me has left a bad taste in your mouth, I point to our previous, very brief but positive interaction: User talk:Flyer22/Archive 13#I wasn't aware.... I remember everyone; that's why I remember you. Though, really, I'd seen you around before because WP:Administrators usually get noticed by a lot of people sooner or later. Flyer22 (talk) 20:44, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm terrible with faces in real life and names on Wikipedia. I rarely remember people I've interacted with good or bad and it has gotten me in a tight spot when I've closed discussions about people I don't recall interacting with (HiLo48 for example). I do remember events well, though, and I do recall that one specifically. It was very helpful. To be honest, I can't even recall if Pass a method was pro or anti religion, I even forgot I was the one who closed his topic ban. It wasn't until he pinged me a week ago, or two, that I looked it up and realized it was me.--v/r - TP 20:50, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

LOL, you sound like my parents. Though I guess they have a better excuse since they are twenty or so years older than either of us; and they do blame their not remembering on "old age" often enough (though my mom is good at remembering some things, such as errands). Flyer22 (talk) 20:52, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Pass a method's assertion on incest that "in sharia law, incest is forbidden between first degree relatives" is indeed a breach of the topic ban. It's also somewhat disquieting, as it implies by omission that sharia law does not forbid incest between non-first degree relatives. User:Flyer22 is therefore being rather generous when she describes the phrase as a subtle topic ban violation. That said, the obvious dif breaches above up notwithstanding, I personally have witnessed a general improvement in Pass a method's wiki behavior since the topic ban. How much of this is due to editor vigilance or a conscious decision on his part to edit more neutrally, I'm not certain though. Middayexpress (talk) 15:48, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Middayexpress, for that case... By "subtle," I not only meant that he added sharia law, which, unless a person knows what sharia means, they wouldn't know that it's a religious matter, but I also meant the way that he added it -- with the vague edit summary style he often employs. As for Pass a Method's behavior in general... If he is perceived to be showing better editing behavior, then it may be because he has been editing significantly less since his topic ban. In my experience, whenever his behavior is seen to have improved, it goes right back to being the same problematic behavior that it generally was before. For example, he often takes a break from a contentious topic that he was not able to achieve WP:Consensus on...and then revisits that topic in a disruptive way as though the WP:Consensus has suddenly changed in his favor. But, anyway, I generally try to stay away from Pass a Method, as he well knows. Flyer22 (talk) 21:56, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Good observations User:Flyer22. I was trying to give Pass a method the benefit of the doubt, but that was probably naive/myopic on my part. Your remarks and links have certainly helped put the matter in its proper perspective. I can personally attest to the consensus averting, break-taking behavior you describe; it is definitely a common pattern he follows. Pass a method has been editing less overall, and that's indeed likely the main reason why the disruption has relatively decreased. That and increased vigilance on the part of other editors since the topic ban, which may have a deterring effect. Best regards, Middayexpress (talk) 15:09, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

CloudKade11

FYI, he has removed the sanction notice on his talk page again. [24]. 107.15.200.87 (talk) 16:46, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, TParis. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 20:41, 1 March 2014 (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.

-- TLSuda (talk) 20:41, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, TParis. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 17:53, 2 March 2014 (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.

Nikkimaria (talk) 17:53, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

IPv6 range contributions

Hello, TParis. I frequently use the range contributions listing tool which used to be at http://toolserver.org/~tparis/rangecontribs and is now at https://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/rangecontribs/index.php. It is a very useful tool, and I should like to thank you for it. However, as far as I know there is no such tool for IPv6 addresses. If you know of one, I would be grateful if you could point me to it, and if there isn't, I wonder whether you would consider providing one? I don't know how your tool works, but it seems likely to me that a few minor tweaks would be enough to get it to work for IPv6. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:21, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I didn't write that. I inherited it from X!. X! may not have written it either as he inherited some of his scripts as well. I don't know a whole lot about IPv6 but I can see if I can convert the existing code/logic to IPv6. It wouldn't be anytime soon though, I just moved and I have a lot of catching up to do on paid programming jobs.--v/r - TP 04:56, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

OK, thanks for being willing to consider it. Alternatively, I wonder whether i might be able to do it. Would you be willing to let me have a look at the code? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk)

You can find the repository for xtools here.—cyberpower ^Chat_{Temporarily Online} 15:20, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Insurance Hotline

A brand new account (User:Johnsagarika) just created this: InsuranceHotline. It looked a little odd, and I then spotted Insurance Hotline, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Insurance Hotline and User:BiH/Insurance Hotline. Worth a closer look? Blackberry Sorbet (talk • contribs) 20:46, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

• Update: Tagged CSD under G4 per the previous AfD. Blackberry Sorbet (talk • contribs) 20:52, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Looks like it's been deleted too.--v/r - TP 21:11, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

pcount?

I noticed that the edit count tool you had worked on (at tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/pcount/) is currently unavailable. Does that mean it was dropped, or is it being upgraded? Just curious. --Pereru (talk) 03:51, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Next steps?

TP, before I head off for a much-needed Wiki-break, I want to give you a brief update on the Ret.Prof conflict and ask your opinion on where to go from here. Briefly, Ret.Prof was taken to ANI for repeated disruptive behavior on the Gospel of Matthew article. ANI closed with a recommendation that the content part of this dispute be resolved in formal mediation. Mediation commenced, but Ret.Prof abandoned the mediation midway through the process. In his absence, we were able to negotiate some compromise wording which I incorporated into the article here and here. We have taken the dispute resolution process for content as far as we can, but I don't think any of the remaining parties expect Ret.Prof to accept this compromise wording upon his eventual return. So, where do we go from here? AN? ArbCom? What option or options make the most sense to resolve the behavioral aspects of this dispute? Please advise. Ignocrates (talk) 15:46, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

If he left in the middle of formal mediation, then he loses the ability to contribute to the consensus.--v/r - TP 19:47, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree. I think the point is that the remaining editors used their best efforts to achieve a consensus in Ret.Prof's absence, a consensus which was implemented and appears to be holding; therefore, that consensus shouldn't be nullified when Ret.Prof eventually chooses to return by arguing that he was excluded from the mediation process. Ignocrates (talk) 00:14, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Lucia Black

Unless I am mistaken, Lucia Black's interaction ban is still in effect and it didn't even take 24 hours from my first re-entry into the topic space for her to already follow my edits and act inappropriately by altering the flow of content in relation to another issue she has with Ryulong and DragonZero and whomever else she constantly has problems with. Every time I do anything, Lucia Black promptly shows up to mess with whatever I am working on and the last time it was taken to ANI as gaming. There is no valid reason for this edit, a mere 4 hours after my first return to A&M space in a long time. [25] The edit itself is actually wrong to begin with - the swap was not even in line with the "primary or original work". Lucia Black has a demonstrated a deliberate willingness to continue involving herself in my pages and I think it is time it be dealt with. I took a break from the area for two months and my first content edit results in Lucia Black showing up within 4 hours and making a controversial changes in relation to other disputes with other users. I want action on this, because she is a real problem and she's going out of her way to involve herself with me - repeatedly. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:59, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Chris - I closed the discussion as an uninvolved administrator on the outside. I know very little details of the topic area at all and I'm not sure I could form fair assessment of the situation. You'll have to take it up with an admin with knowledge of the area or ANI. Sorry.--v/r - TP 18:17, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I've done just that. I've taken it to Salvidrim! per your request. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:27, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

AN/I discussion regarding Providence (religious movement)

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive833#Large amount of properly sourced content is being continually deleted from Providence Religious Movement Article. ... Since you previously responded in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive785#Looking for uninvolved admins to watch Jung Myung Seok, I thought your consideration of the case would be of value. Sam Sailor ^Sing 11:19, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Milneg

Hi there TP. You reverted your comment on my talkpage, but I thought I'll respond anyway. The IP 81.153.161.127 is User:Milneg. [26], [27] & [28] contained threat to report WMF for alleged breach of charity laws, tax laws and whatnot. And then there's the bit about criminal offence etc. The last one came after a warning by Gaijin42. -- KTC (talk) 17:42, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Yup, I generally turn a critical eye to user accounts being blocked for actions that weren't explicitly done from that account. But after reading more of the IPs comments, it's just impossible to doubt that they are the same person.--v/r - TP 17:59, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

UTRS project in labs

Labs is in the middle of a migration to a new datacenter. Part of this migration required active participation on the part of project admins -- I have now shut down and set aside those projects which went unclaimed or unmentioned during the pre-migration period. The UTRS project was among those mothballed projects.

I see now that at least one person was still using it, based on a recent comment on the village pump. If you are still willing to maintain this project and would like it to be revived in the new datacenter, please contact me. Email or #wikimedia-labs will get you the fastest response.

A bit of context about the migration can be found here and here. Andrewbogott (talk) 02:17, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

I got an email about UTRS but it seemed like it related to toolserver and not labs. Yes, I run the UTRS project. I'll hop on IRC.--v/r - TP 04:04, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

OK, I've brought utrs back up in eqiad and moved the proxy to point there. Let me know if you run into any trouble. Please don't restart or rely on the pmtpa instance, as it will be deleted without much notice in a few weeks. And, please subscribe to labs-l so you get advance notice of future changes like this one. Andrewbogott (talk) 20:01, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCVI, March 2014

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Hawkeye7 on military command and Nick-D on F-111s in combat

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:07, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Recurring glitch

Hey TP - inbound UTRS tickets are again showing the wmflabs IP instead of the sender's.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 20:11, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Ah right, they changed the servers again. I need to update the IP.--v/r - TP 20:17, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Okie dokie. With my witchy CU powers I could see the originating IPs and cleared almost everything out.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 21:09, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I hate to be a pain, but do you know when you might be able to do this? It's making it difficult to review the incoming requests (especially those from IPs). I cleared out the IP appeals, but won't be around for a couple of days and I'm not sure other reviewers will be able to see the actual true originating IP as it's buried in the UA data.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 22:26, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

It should be done.--v/r - TP 22:46, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Cheers!--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 23:02, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Texas Wikimedians user group and meetups

Hi TParis! I'd like to let you know about, and invite you to join the proposed Texas Wikimedians user group. Also, on more of a national scale, perhaps you would like to participate at WikiConference USA.--Pharos (talk) 04:31, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I've already moved away from Texas. Sorry :( --v/r - TP 04:44, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	Hey thanks dude! MONGO 21:03, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Heh, uhh, no problem? Can't recall what I did thought.  :)--v/r - TP 21:43, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

The Banner

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. I've left a message there for you. Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:26, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia tools

TP, I'm getting an error message when directed to this link at tools.wmflabs.org and the page says that you monitor it...you might already know about this but just in case, here's notice. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:07, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, it seems to be okay now but I'm leaving this message just so you know there was a problem. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:09, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi T, I'm getting the same error. Thanks. --Gerwoman (talk) 18:38, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Same here TParis. I've been having a problem accessing your tools for about a week now, and even before that, there were long periods when it wasn't working. Can you fix it? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:12, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

"Disruption" claim at the Hillary Clinton move request

One of the participants in the Hillary Clinton move discussion has proposed that the move request is disruptive and should be closed early, on the grounds that he can't see any legitimate reason for the move to have been proposed. In full disclosure, I disagree (and I think it is surprising that such a request would come after we are halfway through the discussion, and only after 40+ editors have supported the move), but I think he deserves an answer as to this serious charge that the discussion is disruptive and should be tossed out. Since you are apparently heading up this closing panel, I hope you can address this. - WPGA2345 - ☛ 18:45, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any serious calls for closure. Best to just ignore it, there isn't much that is going to stop the discussion from continuing 3 more days.--v/r - TP 18:58, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Okay, just so long as you know it's been raised. I expect that you guys will have a lot of issues to cover when the time comes - thank you for volunteering to do this. - WPGA2345 - ☛ 02:46, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Hey

I haven't been around much lately (what's up with this new font?), but some emailed this to me the other day. What the hell? I don't the full story, but it appears that toddst1 screwed up, and rather than face the music, he has run off (à la bwilkins...). This should be reviewed anyway, and if there's any correction to be meted out, then let it be done (just like with Kafziel).

My 2 cents. - ^theWOLFchild 04:23, 5 April 2014 (UTC) (btw - howz things?)

When he comes back I'm sure it'll be sorted out. Things arn't good for me, that's why my editing has gone down.--v/r - TP 18:41, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Autoblock finder tool...

...appears to be on the fritz. Help! --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 23:09, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Cyberpower might be more helpful. I'm pretty busy for the next week.--v/r - TP 23:12, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

@Cyberpower678:, could you take a look? --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 23:21, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

What's wrong with it exactly?—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 00:48, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

@Cyberpower678:, well it appears to no longer exist. If you click the link I provided in my initial message it attempts to connect for some time and then provides an internal error message that includes "The URI you have requested, http://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/autoblock/index.php, appears to be non-functional at this time."

I actually havent been able to open any of the "XTools" at all in about a week.--v/r - TP 18:42, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

ANI thread you may be interested in

As you were the admin who enacted the topic ban, you may like to comment here: [29]. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:39, April 9, 2014 (UTC)

Ohh, I try not to get interested in things when using my admin tools. I don't hold an opinion on the topic ban one way or the other. Thanks for taking the time to notify me though.--v/r - TP 22:38, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Dear TP, it appears that in order to appeal, I should have contacted you here first. It appears I made a mistake and went instead directly to AN. I assumed (apparently incorrectly) that that's OK to do, since I recalled seeing several other editors applying for lifting of their topic ban on AN. However, I now understand it was an error on my part and I should have come here first.

Please advise whether I should keep my request to lift the topic-ban at AN, or whether I should remove my posting from AN and post it elsewhere, or whether I should take some other action. Thanks and regards, IjonTichy (talk) 23:07, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Consider it discussed with me and feel free to continue at WP:AN. There is very little I can do to address a 2 year old issue that I only knew enough about at the time to make an informed closure. However, if it helps, you can move forward at WP:AN knowing that I believe that 2 years is long enough to give anyone a second chance.--v/r - TP 23:12, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

A bug on xtools.

Hi . can you check plz,why this tool is not working ? thanks --מלאחווז (talk) 21:57, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Your piechart

Hi, TParis! There used to be a very useful piechart at https://toolserver.org/~tparis/pcount/ , from which URL I assume you created it. Now when I click on it I get a message that it has been moved to wmflabs, but the new link https://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/pcount/index.php doesn't load for me - just spins and spins. Can you tell me how to reach this tool nowadays? Thanks! --MelanieN (talk) 19:33, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

That one was old and buggy. Cyberpower created a new one at https://tools.wmflabs.org/supercount/index.php?user=MelanieN&project=en.wikipedia.--v/r - TP 20:47, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. That's the link for my own piechart; what's the link for a fill-in-name-of-user pie chart? (Sorry, if I were more technically savvy I could probably figure that out for myself.) --MelanieN (talk) 20:56, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Never mind, I found it. https://tools.wmflabs.org/supercount/ Thanks again. --MelanieN (talk) 21:12, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Module:ISO 639 name

What it be possible to have Module:ISO 639 name and its subpages restored? Thanks — lfdder 22:33, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

It's possible, but it's a lot of work. I can probably do it tomorrow.--v/r - TP 22:51, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Okay, thanks — lfdder 01:44, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Done.--v/r - TP 19:37, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

ta — lfdder 21:37, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Your close of the AN/I discussion concerning "Jews and Communism" article editors

I knew from the first couple of hours on that week long discussion involving DIREKTOR, USChick and others that it would end with an admin saying "no consensus, that's enough of that." That article was nominated for deletion (I only found out about the article through the AN/I, so I missed that), result, no consensus, there was a deletion review, (I didn't know about that either), result, no consensus. There are some horrifically anti-Semitic themes being pushed in that article, I just have to hope that it is being done through ignorance and not malice, the whole idea that Bolsheviks were Jews and Russia was in the grips of a Jewish plot to take over the world is constantly put forward by many many Russian nationalists,particularly poisonous in that article is the suggestion that Jews killed the Tsar, that is untrue and it is a central theme of extreme anti-Semitic Russian Orthodox nationalists. I have sources that compare that idea to holocaust denial and other central anti-Semitic themes. WP processes have resulted in being told repeatedly "there is no consensus not to become an anti-Semitic website." That isn't good enough, I don't know what to do about it, but it cannot be accepted.Smeat75 (talk) 12:26, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

What is likely going to happen is that this is going to end up at Arbcom sooner or later. It looks to me like enough dispute resolution processes have been tried and Arbcom is the perfect location to root out long entrenched issues like this. Unfortunately, administrators are not equipped to respond to these sorts of issues unilaterally. Without consensus of the community, all we are are users with additional buttons. We have no inherit authority by ourselves. So there isn't anything else I can do other than to clean a stalled discussion off of ANI.--v/r - TP 17:42, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

xtools tool

[30] pcount tool is showing some internal error when trying to access, please look in to the matter. thanks in advance Irvin calicut (talk) 10:05, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Mark Tufo

Hi, TP, I think you should have asked me before unblocking Mark. As you know, it's customary to at least consult with the blocking administrator, and in this case, there is still an open report at SPI. I'm not saying Mark is lying, but there are certainly instances of a user admitting to meat puppetry but denying sock puppetry, but a later CU proves they lied.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:57, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I think there is a difference between a 30-something year old author and a 15 yr old 9/11 truther/scientologist/birther/homeopathy/whatever. I genuinely believe this guy. But I understand your concern and I'm sorry, I'll consult you next time. Went with my gut on this one.--v/r - TP 03:15, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

The article about him has been deleted after a discussion. He hasn't edited since April 12. The SPI report is still open. Until it closes, he's your responsibility. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 22:35, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Figured that when I unblocked him. I've no trouble blocking him again, but I also hate to see people hit the stereotypical brick wall of Wikipedia that constantly gets spread in the news. I'm sure he won't cause more trouble.--v/r - TP 22:40, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Meatpuppetry

http://i.imgur.com/gomp0UJ.png

WP:MEATPUPPET. It's handled in the same section as Sock puppetry. Tutelary (talk) 22:44, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

And how does a checkuser tool solve a meat puppetry claim? Please, feel free to explain to me in technical terms. I've got my BS in Computer Science and my A+ cert and I'm all ears.--v/r - TP 22:46, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Their edit activity and names of their accounts, as well as age of account. Tutelary (talk) 22:49, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

...has nothing to do with checkuser. SPI is for the checkuser tool. We do not need checkuser to solve a meatpuppetry case. Those can, and this one was, handled at the Administrator's noticeboard. In fact, the very top line of WP:SPI says, "This page is for requesting that we investigate whether two or more Wikipedia accounts are being abusively operated by the same person." The definition of meat is "recruiting new editors to influence decisions on Wikipedia". Do you see the problem? WP:SPI is for looking at private technical data such as IPs and user agent data to discover if an account is being used by the same person. Meat puppetry isn't one person using two accounts, that's socking. Meatpuppetry cannot be proven with technical checkuser data. So again, how is SPI supposed to solve a meatpuppetry case? The answer: it doesn't. That's for the administrator's noticeboards.--v/r - TP 22:53, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Could you remove the line of text then, from that page? So other editors don't try the same thing? Tutelary (talk) 22:56, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

What line of text? In your screen shot? I can't see imgur.--v/r - TP 23:02, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Nevermind. I'll find it and remove it on my own. It was a different page than WP:SOCK, though. Tutelary (talk) 23:07, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

That's fine. In this case, the user hasn't socked. They've admitted to meatpuppetry and they were blocked and unblocked already. There is nothing left for a CU to do, or SPI for that matter. Case should be closed.--v/r - TP 23:10, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton

Hi, TP, and thanks for taking on the closure of the above article. As you saw, there is confusion about the status of that closure. That's because there is nothing there (at least nothing visible) to explain it. There used to be an explanatory comment from you at the top of the page. But when Adjwilley posted an update, both your comment and his update became invisible; I don't know why. The comment is still there (viewed in edit mode) and looks like this:

{{discussion top|Suspending discussion while the closing admins discuss the consensus.--v/r - [[User:TParis|T]][[User_talk:TParis|P]] 01:19, 8 April 2014 (UTC) <small>Status update: we have determined a consensus and are in the process of writing up a final draft to post here. Apologies for the delay. <span style="font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af">~[[User:Adjwilley|Adjwilley]] <small>([[User talk:Adjwilley|talk]])</small></span> 06:40, 15 April 2014 (UTC)</small>}}

But it doesn't display when looking at the page. Can you figure out why? Thanks! --MelanieN (talk) 19:21, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I've fixed it. Thanks for pointing that out.--v/r - TP 19:25, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCVII, April 2014

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Hawkeye7 looks at Britain's War Machine Interview: Article writers discuss German military history

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 14:32, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Answer to your questions

Hi, sorry for the delay. Seems you got my main account blocked as a sockpuppet of an Irish politician who was reporting himself for some reason? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=prev&diff=601264794 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Selfpublishing

I used to be a wikipedia editor a long time ago. Here is my old account https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Eccentricned A post appeared on reddit that showed an account named after the politician removing controversies which I felt should be reported. I forgot my password to the old one and knew that I needed to be logged in to report so made a new one.

I am not a volunteer or employee of any political groups or organizations. I'm just a programmer who doesn't even have the time to log in to wikipedia more than once a month. :)

I hope that clarifies the situation and this weird accusation that I'm a member of a politician's campaign reporting myself as a vandal can be removed.

Selfpublishing2 (talk) 10:05, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't think we ever thought you were related to the politician, you just showed all the signs of having a prior account. I see your blocked for socking. If you want me to look into the details to see if the accounts were used abusively, I can. Otherwise you shouldn't be registering new accounts.--v/r - TP 17:07, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Shaa listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Shaa. Since you had some involvement with the Shaa redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. – Allen4names (contributions) 05:25, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Request to lift 1RR on Ayn Rand article

I wanted to ask you to consider removing the 1RR restriction you placed on Ayn Rand back in October. The primary provocateur of edit warring on the page was User:MilesMoney, who as you well know was community banned in early January. Since his departure, the primary effect of the 1RR restriction seems to be restraining editors from fixing obviously bad edits when they have recently fixed some unrelated bad edit. It would be better to restore more normal editing conditions (bearing in mind that discretionary sanctions are in place indefinitely). Thanks. --RL0919 (talk) 21:57, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Hillary Rodham Clinton‎

Hi TP, I read your analysis (with Adjwilley) and I wanted to tell you how much I appreciate the careful thought you put into it. This was a very difficult decision to make in assessing consensus as understood on Wikipedia and the only way to do it correctly was the way you broke the problem down into its various subcomponents and assessing policy together with empirical evidence. I know you are going to catch a lot of heat for this decision, but you made it using a thoughtful rational process, which is all one can ask for. --I am One of Many (talk) 17:30, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I came here to say exactly what IaOoM just said. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 17:48, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

As did I. Thank you. Tvoz/talk 23:38, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

• I must confess that I will likely be joining the move review if it moves forward, but that does not diminish my respect for the difficult work you did and the thoughtful way you analyzed the outcome. We happen to disagree but I appreciate that you took the time nonetheless.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 03:16, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I missed that closing and didn't see the comment left at the top of the discussion when you added the final decision. While you did exactly as I had hoped: "No consensus means that the last stable version should be upheld" I have to say I was more than prepared to thank you had the decision gone against my opinion. it isn't easy making these closing statements after you decide what the outcome is, but it seems your argument was made well enough that the article remained stable enough that I didn't even notice that a decision was made.

While I have a bit of a bias when it comes to you because of your username being so close to a favorite Star trek character....I have noticed that your remain very neutral when it comes to these political discussions and you deserve a barnstar. Do we have one for good closing? If not...I need to make one just for the three two of you administrators! Well done and thanks again!--Mark Miller (talk) 00:57, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Figured it out!

		The Half Barnstar
		For your work on a complicated closing on a yet another move request at Hillary Rodham Clinton. The other half goes to Adjwilley. Thanks again for all your hard work! (Mark Miller)Maleko Mela (talk) 05:53, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

re your question

Thanks for asking, I have considered it but not sure I have the stamina right now for the process. Maybe I should do a request for editor feedback and work on some things for a few months or so to build up a better record? I want to focus on more content creation mainly. Also I'm afraid some admins don't like me much... I was heavily slammed by a lot of people for closing HC a year ago and called all sorts of nasty names. What would you suggest?--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 03:14, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I'd suggest not "build[ing] a better record" in any sort of attempt to succeed at RfA. Just legitimately try harder to put the project first and seek productive outcomes in disputes and let your record speak for itself at RfA. Preparing for one is always a bad idea.--v/r - TP 03:22, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

interesting. I havent watched many of them to know enough. Dont you have to at least study key policies? And, perhaps, address weaknesses through edits that demonstrate those are in the past? Welcome further thoughts...--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 03:50, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, in the course of normal editing. The point is that adminship is a service industry. If you look at it as a badge, you're the wrong type. Not saying you are, just describing how it works. So folks are, a lot of time, looking to see whether a candidate wants to serve or get a badge. It's generally easier to see "badge" attitude because folks will try to line their ducks in a row to get to adminship. So, any appearance of that is best avoided. The best thing you can do is just edit appropriately, and demonstrate knowledge of policies in any discussions you naturally would be involved in and when you feel like you've sinned and need a week of repentance (religion joke), I'm up for nominating you - even if you criticized the HRC close :P.--v/r - TP 04:23, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

ok, that makes sense. Thanks for the tips and support. Ive never considered it as a badge, rather as (1) access to a few tools, so I can help at CFD and RM mainly, and (2) a (minor) sign of the faith of the community in my judgement.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 05:16, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Riddle me this

What are the copyright implications of using UTRS response templates verbatim to respond to on-wiki unblock requests? Is the content of wmflabs covered by Wikipedia's CC BY-SA license, thereby only requiring attribution?--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 21:07, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Well most of the templates fall under Wikipedia's license since they originated from [User:DeltaQuad/Unblock-en-l_Templates]]. The rest are licensed under the GNU General Public License Version 3 or Later. Feel free to use them on-wiki.--v/r - TP 23:24, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

That's what I wanted to hear! Cheers, --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 18:55, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Blocked For being a giant homophobic dick

You know, that's priceless. Thanks again. Drmies (talk) 17:12, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Carriearchdale

I am (unsurprisingly) more than a little disturbed by your abrupt closing of the ANI discussion regarding User:Carriearchdale and the dismissive comment in your closing statement. This is the second time in two months ANI discussions regarding "Carrie's" editing have been concluded without action, despite strong evidence of bad behavior. I have been a target of groundless retaliatory complaints since I filed this ANI report last month, a report that concluded without action even though every experienced editor who commented supported the complaint and almost all called for substantial sanctions. I am hardly the only editor who has expressed concerns about Carriearchdale's behavior and general WP:COMPETENCE, and Fram's points that "Carrie" had actively encouraged an obvious copyright violator and misrepresented the simple facts about an editing dispute in order to denigrate editors she disagreed with should not have been dismissed as a mere personal disagreement. Please modify your closure to reopen the discussion regarding Carriearchdale's conduct. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:35, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Carrie may be inexperienced, but her behavior hasn't been blockable. So no, I can't do that.--v/r - TP 01:36, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

(Talk page stalker comment) Not that I know much about this, but just not being blockable doesn't mean it isn't something needing some intervention.--Maleko Mela (talk) 01:39, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Probably. I'm certainly not getting in the way of someone addressing Carrie or starting a thread on here. But the way Fram did it seemed retaliatory from an outside perspective.--v/r - TP 01:45, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for replying in such an honest manner....like you have ever had an issue with honesty. :-)--Maleko Mela (talk) 02:56, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Heh, I'm not sure how to take that, but thanks?--v/r - TP 04:28, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

"Carrie may be inexperienced"; not really, she has been here for more than 6 years, and has made more than 2,5OO edits. As for "the way Fram did it seemed retaliatory from an outside perspective."; I have never encountered Carriearchdale, and haven't had much interaction with Hullabaloo either. The only "retaliation" was for someone coming to an unrelated ANI thread not to give useful opinions and perspective, but to get an opponent into trouble, and by making completely incorrect statements to boot. I don't think such behaviour is acceptable. Fram (talk) 17:18, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Question about transclusion on a user page

Hello. The talk page for User talk:Snow Rise has a transclusion of the Signpost in the heading. For some reason, I believe this is preventing users from editing the section headings on the user talk page (as they appear when the transclusion is removed). Is there a tag that should be added to prevent this from happening? Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 03:27, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, it looks to me that the signpost is invoking the __NOEDITSECTION__ magic word but I can't figure out which template it's on and there isn't a way to 'override' it. I'm not sure what to do other than talk to the guy.--v/r - TP 04:40, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. In the interim, the user has now removed the transcluded page. Viriditas (talk) 09:18, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry

Sorry it was me. Chasing a vandal, took all from Dennis Brown s page over to Drmies, so you got alerted, my fault. See at Dennis talk page. AAAh, now he is having dessert. (Drmies). I need an admin. Hafspajen (talk) 00:30, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Climate_Change_Capital

Hi TParis, thanks again for your recommendations for improving the Climate Change Capital page earlier this year. Please could we now remove the advertisement warning? Kind regards, Dan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danielcremin (talk • contribs) 10:06, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I've removed a bit more of the fluff and I added some citations. It still needs a ton more work. Do you have citations on the actual company instead of it's activities?--v/r - TP 04:06, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Our friend is at it again

More edit-warring, more personal attacks. Why the heck hasn't he been indeffed? pbp 16:40, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't know, but I'm not in a position to deal with it. I'm very obviously personally involved with regards to Joe at this point and I couldn't possibly block him even if I knew he deserved it. But regardless, I'm happier just not thinking about him or engaging with him anyway and I'm happy to avoid him. And to Joe's credit, he's done the same and he seems happier having nothing to do with me as well. You should do the same with regards to him.--v/r - TP 17:45, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

False accusations

Hi. Your accusations of canvassing and meatpuppetry are just plain burning me up and are distracting me from getting on with my off-wiki life. I really don't have much rational to say but that your behavior strikes me as borderline abusive and certainly unbecoming of this fine community. I can see the basis for a little suspicion, but didn't you learn in WP 101 not to act on every suspicion, let alone to levy such cocksure accusations as "obvious canvassing is obvious?" That sort of nastiness is toxic. Please consider settting a better example, putting down the battleaxe, and AGF.

{{trout}}

--Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:57, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

I learned in Wiki 101 that folks will do anything to push their agendas on Wikipedia to include meatpuppetry and that we WP:Call a spade a spade. You said yourself that you see cause for a little suspicion. Take into account your bias, being that you are the one standing accused, put yourself on the outside and you might see reason for a lot of suspicion. Here is my suggestion: avoid the appearance of off-wiki coordination in the future whether it happened this time or not.--v/r - TP 06:26, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Please accept this as a sign of my good faith. Not perfect, but it's the best I can think of. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:29, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

It's a pretty good gesture, but if you all are already in contact off-wiki then you already have your email addresses and no longer need the on-wiki email function. But I appreciate the gesture nonetheless.--v/r - TP 06:31, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Exactly, that's one of the reasons it's not perfect, and it's meant as a substantial gesture of good faith. I hope you are sincere in your acceptance of it in that respect. Look at things from my perspective, I lurk back onto WP after six weeks to find that I've been dragged through the mud, and I immediately get bonked by an admin. No fun at all. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:37, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

It's a big image. I don't know your perspective, I haven't followed the dispute. I patrol ANI daily and monitor the threads closing what I can. When I see something that sticks out, like you two springing out of nowhere, I investigate.--v/r - TP 06:41, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Ha ha, nice investigation. You yourself admit you don't know my perspective and you haven't followed the dispute. As it turns out my interactions with John have been minimal. But you didn't bother to look into that. The other thing you didn't know is that I'm extremely sensitive to canvassing issues. IIRC I've turned down requests to participate in discussions because I felt I was being improperly canvassed. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:43, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

And if I had blocked you instead of just pointing it out, I'm sure I would've dived deep enough to satisfy you. But as I opted instead to point out the 'cosmic magic' instead, and move on to more interesting things (an article I'm working on), I didn't.--v/r - TP 06:50, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Everyone needs a diversion now and then. It's been good building trust with you. Cheers. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:56, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Hmmmm

"UTRS is sort of a 1-admin ballgame".--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 05:03, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Most unblocks are only reviewed by a single admin. And single admins don't really have the authority to overturn a community block. Those sorts of blocks would need to be handled at ANI.--v/r - TP 06:22, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Gotcha. I though perhaps the "1-admin" comment was a reference to me (ha!).--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:25, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Your Misbehavior

I want it noted that your accusation of meatpuppetry aimed at me is unfounded, uncivil, and offensive. It's likely that the only reason you have made this accusation against me is so you can accuse another editor you are currently involved in a dispute with of canvassing. Your conduct in using this to provoke drama at ANI in order to further your personal dispute is unbecoming of an administrator...among many other things. It is a failure on your part to assume good faith. It is a display of ignorance and an apparently inability on your part to engage in logical reasoning. I don't care what your beef is with other people, but let it be known that I want nothing to do with it or with you. Geogene (talk) 19:26, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Obviously, I've hit a guilty nerve.--v/r - TP 19:43, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

No, you've made a pointless and unfounded accusation against a user that has gotten one too many pointless and unfounded accusations over the last four months. You did this just because you're pissed off at Valeron, and you lack the maturity to pick your targets. Again, I don't know how you got the tools, but that's just a popularity contest anyway, right? Geogene (talk) 19:53, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Interesting who is failing to AGF now? Actually, JoshValeron and I arn't in a dispute, have never been in a dispute, and because we don't edit the same topic area I can't imagine we ever will be in a dispute. The facts were laid out clearly, within an hour of each other, two editors who are sympathetic to John managed to come to his defense after weeks of inactivity. That's either meatpuppetry via email or sockpuppetry. I was being polite when I didn't call it socking and open an SPI. But regardless, John is angry at me, I couldn't care less about him. I care about people coordinating off-wiki in discussions, though. Your name calling and rapid-fire defense is a pretty good sign that I'm right and you're afraid someone is going to dig deeper.--v/r - TP 20:13, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Who failed AGF first? The "facts" are that another editor and I posted in the same thread under an hour apart. It's also a fact that that editor and I have both been inactive. It's also a fact that you are having some kind of argument with that user so you're motivated to connect the dots. Everything else is just your supposition. If you had actually read the guideline WP:MEATPUPPET you'd know that you're being uncivil by throwing that crap around. Open a SPI if you like. That would be in more of an alignment with the correct procedures than your random accusations over at ANI. I wouldn't be complaining about your behavior either. Plus, you'd be documented as having made the accusation after it wasn't substantiated. Your pop psychology about guilt is just more nonsense to cover that I caught you in a fallacy. But yes, I don't mind anyone digging deeper into this, as long as you're on the hook for it when the results come back. Get a spine, open a SPI, or leave it. Else I'm tempted to make a big deal of this myself--we can't have admins pissing on the rules like you are. Geogene (talk) 20:24, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Feel free to make a big deal of it. I'd love for editors in the topic area to opine and provide behavioral evidence. John and I arn't in an argument. John is upset because another admin said that they don't care if they are an admin or not. John found that surprising and I let John know that it's a common perception among the admin corps. There is no dispute there and never has been.--v/r - TP 20:34, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't care why you and Valeron are in an argument, but if it's about don't-give-a-fuckism I really don't see the issue myself. But now that you've involved me in your effort to get somebody else banned, I demand either a SPI or a public retraction. Geogene (talk) 20:42, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Demand all you want, I still think it's meatpuppetry and I won't be retracting a damned thing. You can leave now.--v/r - TP 20:47, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I demand either a retraction or a SPI. I wouldn't push you this hard, but you're an admin. I must insist that you act like one. Geogene (talk) 20:51, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Geogene, I always say "file your SPI or STFU", but sometimes WP:DUCK-ish behaviour or what appears to be easily WP:MEAT-type behaviour is strong enough - it's not misbehaviour in the least. The best way to counter claims of SOCK and MEAT is to not do anything that appears to be SOCK- or MEAT-like. Nobody's going to retract anything that appears obvious, nor should they. Take the high road and don't be meaty. the panda  ?’ 21:17, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Funny, Geogene. Instead of providing evidence that you are indeed not the same people, like I have provided evidence that you are, you resort to demands instead. Sorry, ain't going to cut it.--v/r - TP 23:44, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I demanded that you take it through the proper channels instead of casting aspersions. But I guess you have a low confidence in your accusations. I don't feel a need to prove I'm a different person from anyone else. Even if I did, you would not be convinced, because you are not reasonable. Geogene (talk) 17:14, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Meat, not sock, if my experience counts for anything. The areas of interest are too dissimilar. (This type of response is so familiar. Welcome to my world.) petrarchan47tc 00:25, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Panda, I agree that avoiding the appearance of misconduct is a good habit. But in this case, that would require me to look at every timestamp in a thread, and then judge whether someone like TParis might come along and decide that not enough time had elapsed between my reply and somebody else's. I think that would be unreasonable, just as I consider his accusations unreasonable, and I won't do it. It's also contrary to the idea of AGF...I really shouldn't be sitting here trying to think of ways that somebody might jump out at me and shout "Gotcha!!". I don't think that would make a good practice, nor would that mentality be consistent with correct practice. Thanks to Petra above for pointing out something that should have been obvious to TParis in his "investigation". Then again, he only escalated from "meatpuppet" to "sockpuppet" today, in order to try to be even more obnoxious than he already has been. I have a feeling these things will catch up with him eventually. Geogene (talk) 17:00, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

TParis, you keep referring to "John" as "Josh" for some reason, both here and on ANI. Just wanted to bring it to your attention. Viriditas (talk) 00:37, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Got it - thanks for noticing that.--v/r - TP 01:16, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Malke 2010

She seems to have taken it up a notch to 11.[31] Viriditas (talk) 05:33, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree but it'd be shaky grounds at best. Unilateral action to deal with Malke's behavior would only cause more drama. I'd say give it a week to see if she calms down and then you or I should try again to get her to remove it. If not, then we could take it to ANI then. I get why she's pissed, but she's not handling it appropriately at this point.--v/r - TP 05:41, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure you are right. :) Just in case I wasn't clear, as far as I can tell, she is violating WP:UP#POLEMIC by using her Wikipedia user page to attack the University of Michigan, their professors and students, as well as a named individual.[32] I don't think it is appropriate for Wikipedians to use their user pages for this purpose. As you know, in this instance, she is using her user page in a vindictive manner, solely for personal attacks. I think this sets a bad precedent. Considering her block log for personal attacks, it seems she is transgressing after approximately a year or so of refraining from personal attacks.[33] Viriditas (talk) 05:45, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I get that. I just think that if we remove it, she's just going to edit war it back. Talking hasn't shown any success these last few days. If we block here, it's going to cause Sue Gardner to blog about how we're insensitive to gender issues and bias on Wikipedia. But on the opposite side, by leaving it alone, we're doing exactly what you said: allowing her to bash a University and named professor. It's a lose - lose. Maybe Malke will be more approachable in a week. If not, we need to do what's right for the encyclopedia.--v/r - TP 05:47, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree. It just looks really childish and immature on our part. It almost seems like she is taunting them to blog about it even more, in which case Wikipedia will get even more negative attention. BTW, she's been accusing everyone who disagrees with her behavior of "trolling", including myself. I guess she's having one of her "fits" again. Happens to the best of us, but she's on quite a bender this time. Viriditas (talk) 05:53, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

She's definitely wearing on everyone's patience; even over at Talk:Super-spreader. You should also ask User:Georgewilliamherbert about this.--v/r - TP 06:00, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

No, I'm confident your opinion is the correct one. Thanks, I'll wait it out. Viriditas (talk) 06:15, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, at least they fixed it now. --Kim Bruning (talk) 08:05, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, seems it worked itself out.--v/r - TP 08:18, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Agree. And relevant to some of the above, the gender issues and bias started this (the professor contacted Sue but nobody realized initially that Malke was female herself), but I was the next poster on-thread on the gendergap mailing list and pointed out at that time that Malke is a woman. The gender issues are more or less neutralized in that sense, but the BITEing new users remained, and what has followed. Malke didn't appreciate being made a focus of this external attention, and reacted badly. Fortunately it seems to be calming down overall. I am hopeful that people getting involved can continue to try and focus on de-escalation. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 18:23, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm actually mildly worried about Malke. Their behavior could also be caused by something in back-channel. (more than just the blog, I mean).

--Kim Bruning (talk) 20:29, 9 May 2014 (UTC) Sometimes when someone seems to be reacting illogically to inputs you can see, perhaps they are reacting logically to inputs you cannot see.

Can you be more clear on what you're asking or would this be a better conversation for you to have with Arbcom or User:Philippe via email?--v/r - TP 20:49, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, it's just an alternate hypothesis at this point. <scratches head> Not sure I want to bother anyone. Just wondering if others have similar suspicions at this point. --Kim Bruning (talk) 21:30, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

I've been the target of off-wiki harassment before, I'm not really that surprised. It's a terrible feeling to be targeted by people who have an axe to grind and very little interest in the facts.--v/r - TP 21:53, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Ok, given more information, I now think we've had a complex of on- and off- wiki bloopers. (so yes, backchannel was involved). I think User:Georgewilliamherbert is the best person to work on this, as Malke seems to trust them. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 00:09, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Pride: Houston

You are invited to participate in Wiki Loves Pride 2014, a campaign to improve coverage of LGBT-related content on Wikipedia throughout the month of June. On June 21, there will be a multi-national edit-a-thon, if you wish to participate. Here is the project page for Houston: Wikipedia:Meetup/Houston/Wiki Loves Pride 2014. Ways to help? Create or improve LGBT-related articles, host an edit-a-thon at a local coffeeshop, library or other location, or photograph LGBT culture and history in the Houston area. Visit the project page for more information, and if you are interested in contributing, just add your name to the list of supporters or add the results of your work. Thanks for your consideration! --Another Believer _(Talk) 20:49, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't live in Texas anymore or else I'd make the drive. I'm trying to get established with other Wikipedians here in Hawaii. Sorry - good luck.--v/r - TP 21:06, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

copy

Hi ... can you pls send me (or create a userfied version) of the article that was the focus of the AfD here ... Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kenneth Brander? Also -- it was a complex AfD, both in the discussion and in the SPA involvement .. a more detailed close may well be helpful there, so editors know how you weighed both points made and SPA !votes. Tx. --Epeefleche (talk) 07:23, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

I felt that there was a reasonable GNG argument but that there was a stronger argument that he didn't meet other more applicable notability criteria. When removing the SPAs, the argument largely fell to no consensus and I err on the side of delete on BLPs. I can userfy it for you, probably tomorrow, I didnt actually mean to pop onto Wikipedia on mother's day and I dont have time to help ya here.--v/r - TP 20:08, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

No worries on timing. As to your close -- my thought is that it would be helpful if you were to indicate your reasoning in the AfD close itself. I find that it is often helpful for the community, where the reasoning is such as yours, to have a transparent view of the closer's reasoning, as it may not be intuitive where, as here, there was significant SPA involvement (and editors may not know how the closer viewed it), and significant discussion of notability principles (with different views expressed). BTW -- where there is a reasonable GNG argument, there is zero need to meet other notability criteria -- if your thinking was as you indicate, I would urge you to reconsider on this point. I think it is well accepted that if a subject meets GNG, they are notable even if they don't meet more specific notability criteria. (And if it is no consensus on this point, then a close is no consensus). Happy Mothers' Day. Tx. --Epeefleche (talk) 01:33, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Depends. Take WP:BLP1E for instance. We can get tons of coverage for an event to meet WP:GNG and still not pass an AFD. GNG is one guideline, but it only gives the presumption of notability. And when notability is in doubt about a living person, I err on the side of delete. If it were an org, I might've called it no consensus instead.--v/r - TP 02:38, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree that BLP1E is a policy that provides an exception to GNG. Of course, however, BLP1E does not apply here. And there is no other policy I can think of which applies here that provides an exception to GNG.

Nor do I see here any reason to not comply with the "presumption" of notability that follows this meeting GNG. We don't have closes that assert: "Meets GNG, but its just a presumption, so let's delete it" ... we in addition need something such as BLP1E to overturn that presumption. Which we don't have here.

See also Masem's comment in another notability guideline discussion just today in which Masem said: "The reason we state [presumed notable] is that there can be exceptional cases where even though the condition ... is met, if there's no significant sourcing, that presumption can be fairly challenged via AFD or other means....".

Nor am I aware of any policy or guideline that says that where a subject meets GNG, or there is a no-consensus !vote as to whether it meets GNG, we keep it as non-consensus if it is an organization, but delete it if it is a person.

I would urge you, after the weekend, if you would be so kind and with all due respect, to reconsider the close. Many thanks. Epeefleche (talk) 05:54, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure you understand why 'presumption' is in our notability guidelines. There is an intention there. It's so a notability guideline cannot be black and white. It allows room for interpretation by the community. That's the whole purpose of it. 'Your description of GNG doesn't require 'presumption' to even be written in there. We presume something to be true based on these guidelines, but upon further discussion it turned out to be sketchy.' I used BLP1E as an example, not as the only one. We often do not keep subjects who are only subject to trivial or routine coverage. We don't keep football players (soccer) who haven't played a pro-game despite ample coverage of them in high school. These are only examples, it's not all exhaustive.--v/r - TP 06:28, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

OK, I guess we have a different view here, which is fine, but I would like the input of others. Thanks for your thoughtful responses. Epeefleche (talk) 07:00, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Deletion review for Kenneth Brander

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Kenneth Brander. 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. Epeefleche (talk) 07:00, 12 May 2014 (UTC)