Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:25, 14 December 2013

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17

This page has archives. Sections may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

The close

This is why I find him(?) strongly nuanced. The depth of perception and thought that went into that decision is a level of wisdom and intelligence I could never achieve. Dlohcierekim 21:58, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

You're being pretty ambiguous on the subject of the first sentence and the subject of the second sentence but I think I know both and I know why you're being ambiguous.--v/r - TP 22:00, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Maybe exhaustion precludes a more exhaustive statement. Dlohcierekim 22:08, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Re: Jclemens unblock request

Hey TParis, this is more of an academic thing because I'm not disputing your action in any way, but I would think that any administrator has the authority to put a talk page unblock request on hold pending resolution of a noticeboard discussion. If they do that, there's no reason to prevent them from commenting in that discussion unless they plan to close the discussion later (which I didn't). Would you disagree? I'll be happy to take your advice into consideration for the next time. NW (Talk) 23:10, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, I'd disagree. I think changing the status of an unblock request is an 'admin action' which should only be done by someone uninvolved. But on the particular context of changing it to "On hold", well, I don't think that I could honestly say I'm in any position to declare my opinion superior to yours. We'd have to get some more opinions.--v/r - TP 23:14, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

In the interests of not bothering too many people about this, I'm going to ping User:Floquenbeam and User:Black Kite (both of whom have commented in the discussion) to see what their thoughts are. NW (Talk) 01:35, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, but keep in mind that "uninvolved" usually refers to content disputes. Most of the people who have expressed an opinion on ANI about the Jclemens-Earl incident were not actually involved in the underlying content dispute, and NW was among those uninvolved in this sense (unless I've missed something). Whether NW expresses his opinion about the block on ANI (by !voting) or on Jclemens' talk page by taking some admin action doesn't change his status of involvement (as in involved-only-in-an-administrative-capacity). Honestly, it would have been better had you (TP) had waited for the ANI discussion about the block to conclude. It looks that might be headed for one of those famous "no consensus to block" cases, which (with the exception of AE cases) even ArbCom hasn't figured out how to handle. Someone not using his real name (talk) 02:13, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with what you've said. WP:INVOLVED gives a list of things that doesn't make someone involved and !voting to block someone isn't one of them. "Warnings, calm and reasonable discussion and explanation of those warnings, advice about community norms, and suggestions on possible wordings and approaches do not make an administrator 'involved'."--v/r - TP 02:25, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

• I have lots of wise, wonderful, productive opinions on this whole affair, NW, but due to a certain... exuberance... on my part a year or so ago, I thought it best to comment once and then walk away. But since you're asking: I don't think commenting in an ANI thread makes you too "involved" to put it on hold, and I would not have over-ruled you on it myself. I actually toyed briefly with the idea of unblocking him myself, so he could draft his arbcom thing if he really wanted to, as long as he promised not to go back to the article, as the only person here who would be 100% guaranteed not to be accused of favoritism. And I commented in the thread. But ultimately I figured he'd take it as an insult that I got involved - and, since I suspect an arbcom case might result in a desysop, I didn't completely trust my own motives - so I didn't. But "on hold" is pretty milquetoast and harmless. I can't see much different in any response, though, to be honest. At this point, there is no way you're going to get a productive resolution at ANI, so I think "on hold" and "declined" are more or less the same thing. And I don't think anyone besides me would be prepared to just unilaterally unblock. So while I agree with NW, I don't know that it makes a practical difference. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:32, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi TParis, just a small point of procedure here. You recently closed the ANI discussion about whether or not JClemens should be unblocked. However, since one of the things that was being discussed was your own rationale for denying the unblock request, it probably should not have been you who closed that discussion. It would have been better to let someone else do it, or to leave the discussion open. Especially since it's such a hot discussion right now, and it involves admins disagreeing with admins, it's probably best to keep everything as strictly by the book as possible. Of course, what's done is done at this point, and I'm not asking you to re-open the discussion... Just thought I'd point that out! --Elonka 14:45, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I saw that you briefly mentioned me, but I wouldn't say I was being discussed. WP:INVOLVED says "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 sincerely doubt anyone would interpret that as saying I am involved. Besides, it was more of a procedural close than anything else, his block was near expiration. I do intend to continue acting as an uninvolved admin in this area, I've been monitoring the ANI thread.--v/r - TP 20:22, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, that's true about WP:UNINVOLVED, and I do agree that you can continue taking actions in regard to Jclemens, unless a consensus develops that one or more of your administrative actions was not gaining the approval of the community. But that's kind of what was happening, only you closed the discussion early. Specifically, the discussion at ANI was about whether to unblock. Look at it this way: If the consensus would have been to unblock, it basically would have meant reversing your own decision to not unblock. So your early closing of the discussion could be regarded as jumping the gun, saying, "Well, ANI agrees with me, I'm closing this," rather than allowing another admin to make the determination on community consensus in regards to the block. Do you see the distinction? --Elonka 20:46, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure I agree. The unblock discussion on ANI wasn't about Jclemens unblock request. I believe the two were separate. Or at least, that's how I saw it. Closing the ANI thread the other way wouldn't have been me reversing myself (which I do frequently, btw, see User:TParis/My Pride), it would've been me employing a different route to an unblock.--v/r - TP 22:01, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

FYI, I have added you as a party to the case currently being discussed at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Jclemens. No action is required on your part, but you are welcome to offer a statement if you like. --Elonka 22:25, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Re: Big pimpin' rename

That was my 2nd warning. See User talk:JamesMoose#Inappropriate username. The first was Nov 24 which was quite a while ago, and the user ignored my message. You may feel that there is some ambiguity in referring to treating women as sexual property, but to me this is unambiguously offensive. Andrevan@ 02:16, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that attack, but the ambiguity isn't in treating women as property. It's in what "Pimpin" means. Ever heard of Pimp my ride or P.I.M.P.? In the US especially, pimp has become synonymous for wikt:Suave. So before you go assuming you're right, ask the guy what's going on. Try http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=pimpin. And don't go accusing me being agreeable to violence against women either.--v/r - TP 02:23, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

While our American rap(e) culture may have appropriated pimping as a "positive" term, the story is out that Misplaced Pages is a male-dominated culture and quite frankly pimping is offensive to women. Our username policy is very broad and if some significant group of people could feasibly be offended, the user should be renamed. This is pretty open and shut. If you are going to argue that pimping isn't potentially offensive, you are turning a blind eye to objectification of women. Andrevan@ 02:27, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

You don't get to decide that unilaterally. That's why we have WP:RFC/N. You're a minute from ending up at ANI if you don't quit with the misogynist accusations. I'm a father of two little girls. You don't get to go block good faith editors or bully them around. You can discuss it with the community. Obviously you know that, which is why your threat was empty and never happened, so I don't know what crummy objective you think you'll achieve by trying to defend yourself.--v/r - TP 02:31, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

You'll note that I did not block or rename anyone, even though under the username policy I could have simply blocked this user. I don't understand why you are objecting to my comments or getting hot under the collar about this. I am merely trying to explain why "pimpin" is an offensive thing to talk about so that perhaps you will keep it in mind next time it comes up. I do this not because I am angry at you, but out of a moral imperative to make the point on behalf of those who are passively discriminated against with tolerance of this kind of language. Nor have I said you are a misogynist, methinks thou doth protest too much, although having daughters does not mean you are not passively enabling our patriarchal culture. I don't know if you've ever taken a sexual harassment seminar or structural racism course, but allowing for dirty jokes and slang that might be offensive to women or minorities creates an unwelcoming environment, which is what a username like BigPimpinBrah does. Similarly, we could not permit a name like YourLocalNigga even though this is using the "friend" meaning of "nigga" and not the pejorative slur - it's a question of whom might take it the wrong way. Perhaps this is falling on deaf ears, but I think it's worth explaining. Andrevan@ 02:36, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Whether or not you find "Pimpin" offensive does not change the fact that this is a good faith editor whom you could have simply explained why you felt it was offensive and how it harms Misplaced Pages. Because his understanding of the word and your very strict definition of it arn't the same thing and he's likely scratching his head. In fact, if you read the RFA, many folks are assuming the "Brah" is the offensive part; meaning a brassiere. At the very most, a RFC was appropriate. I get hot because this isn't the first time I've been accused of such and apparently ignoring the implication only fuels the accusations so I'm going to nip it in the butt early. My user page is very clear on my life views and if it isn't clear, I'm a Libertarian and I believe every human being has a right to liberty, life, and happiness. Threats arn't the way to solve discrimination and oppression. Education and open discussion is how you solve it. You should've educated him, not threatened to force a name change. Do you not see how he (and I) could feel that your last comment (not the Nov 24th one) comes off as bullying? And if bullying is too strong of a word, then at the very least intimidation.--v/r - TP 02:47, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

TParis, don't waste your time talking to him. I just came from Pedro's talk page, and had no idea Andrevan was such a worm. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:50, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Seems like admins nowadays don't know about no personal attacks. Andrevan@ 02:53, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Puh lease, "You may feel that there is some ambiguity in treating women as sexual property" is a egregious personal attack.--v/r - TP 03:01, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

You are choosing to interpret that statement as reflecting on you personally. I am simply saying that the word pimping means that primarily, which is offensive. Andrevan@ 03:05, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

How the hell else would TParis interpret it Andrevan? Rather like Floquenbeam and myself it was interpreted for what it was. A disgusting personal attack. FWIW I also have a young daughter. And a wife, who read your comments on my talk (the same filthy accusation you make above) and also interpreted it as a misogynist accusation by you. Pedro :  Chat  17:00, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Don't forget that the policy says "Usernames that are likely to offend other contributors," it has nothing to do with the intent of the author. Because lots of people were likely to be offended, I could have simply blocked him on Nov 24, but instead I left a polite comment that acknowledged he was a good faith editor, which he ignored. My subequent "threat" to rename, not block him, was after he posted his RFA. People are subject to the username policy here because the Wikimedia Foundation has decreed thus on its website, this isn't the public forum. I agree with your view that this guy should be allowed to say whatever he wants - using an appropriate username doesn't conflict with that. I think it's a real problem to have someone being considered for adminship named BigPimpinBrah. If people hadn't piled on to oppose, I would have renamed him. Luckily he had the good sense to request a rename, which is exactly what I was hoping would happen the whole time. Andrevan@ 02:53, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

You do not get to unilaterally rename him or block him. It's not in the username policy, of which I have just read to make sure I wasn't wrong. It says that if you feel a username requires an immediate block, you may bring it to the UAA noticeboard. WP:UAA says, "If, after discussion with a user, the problem still seems unresolved, a username request for comment may be in order" for usernames that are less-serious. Obviously you must have felt it was less serious if you left him a message on Nov 24th and didn't report him then. As a 'crat with the tool, though, and one of few who do have it, you should be relying on discussions for cases where there are multiple meaning to a word. Except for blatant violations, immediate blocks and renames should not be used. This wasn't blatant, which requires an element of bad faith and intentional disruption, this was inadvertent immaturity and juvenile humor. That warrants a polite request and then an RFC/N.--v/r - TP 02:59, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

"Certain disruptive and offensive usernames (for example ... those that are clearly abusive towards any race, religion or social groups) should be immediately blocked by administrators" - from the username policy. But as I keep coming back to, I never blocked him or threatened to block him. Andrevan@ 03:02, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

We're not going to come to an agreement here. I feel your view is too bitey, you feel mine is too permitting. Either way, my bottom line is to try educating folks next time and explain why you feel the way you do before you get aggressive with them. Then seek an RFC/N. Take my advice or not, I don't particularly care. But if I see it, I'll call it out again. You know where I stand, I know where you stand. As you've backed off the sexism accusations, or rather claimed to have never made them, I think we're as wrapped up here as it's going to get. Time to part ways.--v/r - TP 03:06, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

That's fine. I'm sorry if you felt that I was attacking you personally, that is certainly not my intention. I don't even know you. I also think we aren't that far apart on this issue. I did use polite diplomacy, and my "threat" was to rename, not block. Anyway, good day. Andrevan@ 03:10, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I have added the words "referring to" to my comment above to clarify what I meant, which was not to insinuate that you are personally OK with the sexual trafficking itself - what we are discussing here is its reference in a username. Hope that helps slightly. Andrevan@ 03:54, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate the gesture.--v/r - TP 03:56, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Friendly Reminder

Just a reminder to you. If you can possibly replace all of the index.php files in the tools with the redirector script, it'd be greatly appreciated. Can you also renew your toolserver account to keep them redirecting until toolserver shuts down? Here's a big juicy steak just for you.—cyberpower _Online 14:50, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I thought it shut down on the expiration date. But okay, I can renew it. I'll get them set up tonight when I get home. I promise!--v/r - TP 16:19, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

CatScan2 tool doesn't work for Russian wikipedia

Hi. It stopped working some 2 days ago. When you try to scan category it says "Could not connect to ruwiki.labsdb : Access denied for user 'p50380g50536'@'10.4.1.120' (using password: YES)". Can you handle this? ~Nirvanchik~ 21:16, 13 December 2013 (UTC)