Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:02, 13 September 2014

This administrator has volunteered for an administrator review. You may comment on his or her administrative actions at Misplaced Pages:Administrator review/TParis 2.

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.

Image

Please restore the link and first sentence of my comment removed at . It is part of my comment: It is the first sentence. It is not a polemical statement meant to piss people off. There is no comparison with drunk driving. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 04:23, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I beg to differ. It is a major ad campaign against drunk driving and you've tailored it to COI editing.--v/r - TP 04:31, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I've tailored a major ad campaign to COI editing? That's impossible—I've never seen this ad campaign. Maybe it is major in some locales, but not in mine. Please return my comment, or let me return my comment, to the state I left it as per WP:TPO. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 05:03, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

You've never seen it? It's been a major ad campaign since 1983. Well now you know. I'm sure now that you know, the idea of writing anything that associates COI editing to drunk driving and killing people should be reprehensible to you.--v/r - TP 05:08, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

No, I have not seen it. May I return my comment to its original state now? --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 05:22, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

No. Why don't you come up with some other clever insult that isn't related to drunk driving and use that instead with your picture?--v/r - TP 05:49, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Misplaced Pages talk:Conflict of interest comment regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 06:19, 21 July 2014 (UTC) 06:19, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

30 year old campaign and still running.

So. Fucking. What.

Please explain to me what prevents Atethnekos from coming up with some other non-drunken-child-killing insult, which violates WP:NPA anyway, to use against COI editors and why this particular insult is needed

Please explain to me how you overlooked the following: "...a thirty-year-old phrasal construction -- imitated, parodied, and reused countless times of the last three decades -- automatically implies that the user meant the thirty-year-distant original reference?" Please also explain how you managed to draw that direct connection to conjure up your imaginary comparison when there is not the slightest context that even hints at such a thing,

And to repeat, since you probably missed this, too: " I don't know about "too young", but there's someone in this conversation in need of growing up -- and it's not User:Atethnekos. If you want to be taken seriously, try to not pretend to be upset at imaginary slights. --Calton | Talk 13:02, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Excuse me if I don't find your insults persuasive. That phrase has a root and the root isn't thirty years old - it is still used in commercials today. If you want to address my question, then address it. Try a DH3 argument at the very least. Your insults say much more about you than me.--v/r - TP 13:07, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)I think the "friends don't let friends" thing has gone through a cultural osmosis. Its a meme used in many contexts now - I grew up with the drunk driving version, but I don't think ive seen in anywhere in years or decades. One of the more common takes on it I see these days is friends don't let friends skip leg day, but there are many many more I agree with you on many things TP, but I think you may have taken a wrong turn on this one. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:33, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Ford Island

I've finished the copyedit. Although I always learn something from the articles I copyedit, this one was a particular pleasure. Good luck with FA, A-class or whatever :-) and all the best, Miniapolis 22:55, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you so much for all that you have done. I saw the one "not in ref" tag you placed and I've been looking all afternoon to find the ref for that. I found a few for the HAARP conspiracies but I don't see the cell phone one anywhere. I know there was a video I watched about it as well, perhaps that's where I got it. Either way, I'll correct it as soon as I can before it goes to FA review. You've done substantial work on this article, I'll be sure to include your name as one of the submitters in the FA nom.--v/r - TP 23:05, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

GG project

I just saw that someone proposed TBing two others and myself from the project. I said I wouldn't respond there, and unless someone thinks its needed I probably still won't. I'm kinda miffed at this whole thing. The only reason I even learned about this project is because Carol posted a query at RSN about "TERFS". I gave an opinion then went to take a look at the context in which it was being used. That's where I saw the proposal that I labeled asinine. This has now turned into a coordinated attack to ban people she thinks are opposed to the project. In my case nothing could be further from the truth. I'm opposed to some of the claims being made on projects discussion space that are not backed up by a modicum of evidence. I'm opposed to remedies suggested that will never ever get implemented. Two kinds of pork (talk) 13:37, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

(shrug) Anytime you are dealing with a controversial social topic area, you have to be sensitive and delicate whether you agree with the platform or not. It can be frustrating, but everyone here is on the same side. Gotta remember that when things get rough.--v/r - TP 18:33, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Gender Gap Task Force Issues -- thought you should be aware. Two kinds of pork (talk) 21:03, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Draft TParis for Arbcom

and many others ... where do I sign up for the "Draft TParis for Arbcom" committee? --GRuban (talk) 03:16, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Actually I should probably expound. You seem to be dedicated, intelligent, civil, and tough. There are plenty people with one or two of these qualities, but the combination of all four is highly rare, and outright needed on our highest court. --GRuban (talk) 03:20, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I'll second that. Memills (talk) 03:31, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the vote of confidence, but I don't have the temperament for Arbcom. I appreciate it, though.--v/r - TP 03:37, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Re TIAYN, South Yemen

As I'll write in the ANI thread: since the filing, he has written https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=624716502 this] on the ANI and this on the article talk page, and still presumes to carry on non-nuclear arguments on other talk pages. Suggest a temp block. bridies (talk) 06:16, 9 September 2014 (UTC) .

Measure of "working"

TP, the logic is flawed, I assure you. "You never 'see' evidence IBAN that is working; you only 'see' when isn't working." (Paraphrase.) That standard can be true under a twisted/unhealthy def of "working". (Patient goes to doctor due to sore throat. Patient leaves clinic no longer w/ sore throat. Treatment "worked"! ) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:45, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

That's a red herring. A doesn't work because B doesn't work. In the context of an IBAN the logic is correct. You will not see a topic ban that is working because it's nature when working is to be unseen. The only IBANs you will see on ANI are the ones that are not working.--v/r - TP 06:55, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

There's an implied presumption that if one doesn't 'see', that's indicative of "working". (What if IBAN is applied, but was falsely/inappropriately applied? Silence. Is it 'working'? We don't know. But it's behaving as though it is from within limited idea/def of 'working'.) There's more attention to the end result than gauging (or even considering) collateral damage of imposing a technique. My post questions the wisdom of tunnel vision re the limited goal/value of "working" which drives thinking and application of the technique. (I think your response reverted to that limited def.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:30, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

It probably took someone 2 seconds to conceive of the current IBAN. ("You break that, you pay for it. Editor X or Y refer to one another directly or 'indirectly', we sanction them for it." Simple solutions to complex problems. Implemented and even institutionalized because easy for the implementors. Who cares to give a thought about affect on editors on whom imposed. They have about as much respect or thought as people in prisons. ) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:46, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

This isn't therapy. We are here to build an encyclopedia.--v/r - TP 08:51, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

I never suggested "therapy". If you read my meaning instead of offering cliches, you'll see I'm talking about under-cover editor loss or retention, and various grays in-between those points. (Might makes right on the WP. This is an example. And there are many others.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 09:14, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

"Who cares to give a thought about affect on editors on whom imposed." Priority 1 is the encyclopedia, it's content, and it's stability. Editor retention is important, but not when compared to the encyclopedia itself.--v/r - TP 17:34, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Ford Island

A note to significant contributors to the Ford Island article: it's been nominated for promotion to Good article status. The nomination is listed at Good article nominations - Geography. Thanks for your work to improve the article! NorthAmerica 12:16, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

It's already going through an A-class review, which is a higher standard.--v/r - TP 17:32, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

IBAN question

TP, you and Newyorkbrad are two admins whose opinions usually seem logical and fair to me, but your position on one-way interaction bans - can you revisit your thinking on that, please?

If you remember, I have been hounded by two editors, and when two-way bans were suggested it really upset me because banning the victim of harassment just seems unfair. (IRL, if someone is being stalked and seeks a restraining order, do judges typically make them 2-way? I honestly don't know.)

Also, 2-way is an exception to your own good advice about "least amount of sanctions." For someone who has been harassed, a 1-way ban is an acknowledgement of their suffering, not "idealistic nonsense." I especially think this would help with retention of editors who have been stalked IRL and are sensitive about harassment.

If, after issuing a 1-way ban, the originally harassed editor exploits the situation, they could then be added to the ban. That would be an AGF reaction to such situations.

It is because I respect your ability to consider a problem fairly that I ask you to reconsider your opinion on this issue.

Thanks. Lightbreather (talk) 16:51, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not outright opposed to one way interaction bans and I don't know who what is giving anyone that opinion. I'm opposed to one in this case. Though I do think my "two way or no way" would make a great userbox for those who do opposed 1-ban bans altogether.--v/r - TP 17:35, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

First, thanks for the reply. I'm working from my phone and didn't see that a similar discussion was already started here. Sorry. Maybe the reason some think you are opposed to the 1-way is because, in the current case, there is no evidence that the hounding/harassment has been anything other than 1-way - unless one considers asking the harasser to stop, or bringing the problem to ANI, an act of harassment in itself. Having gone through this myself with two different editors, it seems that objecting to being harassed and asking for help is considered just as offensive as the harassment itself. As if ignoring unacceptable behavior (which is ostensibly forbidden by policy) is not really the suggested, preferred response, but in fact the de facto, expected response... Subject to sanction if you choose not to use it - even if it isn't the published policy. Lightbreather (talk) 18:30, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

The loudest is not always the victim. CarolmooreDC is not a victim at all. The evidence is every ANI complaint CarolmooreDC has ever opened. Do you need links? I don't dislike CMDC, I just don't think she's a victim. She has participated in this feud happily. Imagine if EllenCT were to bring you to ANI, would you feel it were one sided? You're SPECIFICO. Except CMDC hasn't ignored SPECIFICO nearly as well as EllenCT tries to do with you.--v/r - TP 20:01, 13 September 2014 (UTC)