Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by TParis (talk | contribs) at 13:56, 22 February 2013 (→B2C close: Let's move on). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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.

You might get a kick out of this TP

Check this out. — - dain- talk    22:13, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Haha, I've seen that photo. That angle doesn't show you his desert combat boots.--v/r - TP 23:26, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Twinkle

Tom, as you probably know the TW rollback vandal feature, more specifically the abuse thereof, is a pet peeve of mine. I've requested the feature be removed here and would like to invite you to comment.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  12:49, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

From the frequent messages I see here, you appear to be a database guru. How could I get a query to give me a list of the first 500 diffs starting at date/time X that have the TW vandalism message in the edit summary? I'd like to go through that list manually and identify the percentage of actual vandalism reverts vs "other" so I have some statistics to present for a possible RfC. Thanks.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  15:34, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Tom, thanks for the spreadsheet. I posted my findings on the TW talk page in case you are interested.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  06:00, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Reply

Hello. You have a new message at Talk:Human rights abuses in Kashmir's talk page. Mr T 16:55, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Please go through my latest post. Thank you. Mr T 07:12, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

There has been no modification to change the context. - I didn't accuse of anything if that is what you thought. BTW, you might want to go through my latest post on RegentsPark's talk. Thank you. Mr T 17:39, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't intend to accuse you of accusing me of doing that. I just meant that it's all together and I wasn't piecing together different parts of the source. I'll go read that in a sec, working on a close for something else atm.--v/r - TP 17:42, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I replied there.--v/r - TP 17:55, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry about the ANI glitch. I think I got my hands on a source that claims Indian Security Forces are employing and arming groups that use children (reportedly teenagers) would you mind taking a look? Thank you for your efforts so far BTW :). Mr T 06:32, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Mail

--Cúchullain /c 23:03, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Replied.--v/r - TP 23:57, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

B2C close

Seems like a fairly rational call. Hate when that happens. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:59, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Ditto. Both counts. :) --regentspark (comment) 18:04, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I think this was a very well thought out call. --MelanieN (talk) 18:12, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

On the first sentence ("preempt") did you mean "preface"?North8000 (talk) 18:32, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I did, thanks.--v/r - TP 18:31, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Just wanted to pile on and compliment you on the close. It's not what I would have preferred, but it's fair and well thought out. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:21, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Since I never hold back when I have an issue with an admin, it seems only fair that I would compliment a particularly astute action. Of course, life's not fair. NE Ent 18:40, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I think you should place a time limit on the sanction be in months or years. -- PBS (talk) 20:15, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes. North8000 (talk) 20:28, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, I hadn't though of that. But couldn't B2C just ask that the sanctions be removed in 6+ months if they are no longer needed?--v/r - TP 20:30, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, though you didn't mention that. Maybe just say 1 year and can ask to have it removed earlier? North8000 (talk) 20:45, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Sure, I can do that. I just figured it was expected.--v/r - TP 20:49, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

• Interesting and creative close. I hope that a lesson can be learnt all around as a result of this episode. Thanks, -- Ohconfucius  03:30, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		Accolades all around, for sure. Thanks for the kind and wise words and brilliant decision... not to mention putting an end to this quest with a very reasonable expectation from me. I don't believe we've ever crossed paths, but you jumped straight to the top of my list of favorite WP people with this one encounter. Thank you for your diligence in working this out. Born2cycle (talk) 22:56, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm glad to see that the close has received positive feedback from both sides. I hope this settles the matter.--v/r - TP 23:10, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi TParis. I've noticed what good work you do on en.WP; thank you. However, I couldn't help thinking that your acceptance of this barnstar was inappropriate, given the need for admins to maintain a professional distance from matters in which they will make or have made decisions. You can't stop B2C acting inappropriately (it's entirely inappropriate to "thank" someone in the way he has done—both the fact of the barnstar and the content of the accompanying text). But it would have been consistent with the conflict-of-interest expectations in the admin policy to have at least ignored it, and at best to have removed it and/or to have responded in a way that indicated you were unable to accept it. By analogy, patients can't be unethical, but doctors can. Please let me know if there's a conceptual query about what I've said here. Cheers and best wishes. Tony (talk) 12:10, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

TParis's actions on the case were completed at the time. I personally would not give a barnster to someone who just closed something that I was the subject of, but that's me. I see nothing wrong with TParis accepting it, but after that if I were TParis I would probably not have further involvement on the case as an admin or closer. North8000 (talk) 12:33, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I understand your concern, Tony, by like North8000 said, I anticipate having no further involvement. I said in my close that I was putting a burden on my fellow admins. I think the opposite, to ignore, is a bit rude on my part. But I also want to make clear that I refrained from acknowledging any sort of compliment until I was sure both parties were satisfied. Other than addressing a concern North8000 had about a mistype and PBP about a time frame, I hadn't responded to anyone else. Once I saw bi-partisan approval, then I felt it was ok to respond to the above. I certainly did not want to give any appearance of favoring any side nor do I really want to get involved in the matter. My primary interest was cleaning up WP:AN and involved me archiving about a dozen RFC close requests as well. You words do ring in a part of my mind about professional distance, though, and I'll remember to distance myself appropriately next time.--v/r - TP 13:50, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Really? I figured you would be the administrator we would ask, if we thought B2C's contributions to a thread needed attention in the future. Precisely because you DO know all the background and wouldn't have to spend half an hour bringing yourself up to speed on the issues. No? --MelanieN (talk) 14:17, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I know the background in as much as I read everyone's comments in that ANI thread, the previous ANI thread, and the Arbcom case. But no, I am not intimately aware of what B2C does. I've never personally been witness to it. It would be better for another admin to enforce it in case clarification is ever needed about the close. If I were to act on the close and then there was a question about interpretation, who would be responsible for clarifying it? I would be my own watcher.--v/r - TP 14:20, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the explanation. In case of future enforcement need, then (and I'm hoping there won't be any such need), should we ask some individual admin to look at it, or post the need somewhere? --MelanieN (talk) 14:26, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Ask an uninvolved admin or post on WP:ANI and reference the close. As you said in your OP post, though, B2C is receptive to being asked to step away. I don't think an administrative discussion ban will ever be necessary. What I strongly recommend is to do this: if B2C has explained his point, kindly explain to him that you've received his message and you'd like him to step away so uninvolved editors can weigh his opinions without anyone's involvement. Try that before approaching an admin. No one needs an admin with a gun to their head. My close empowers other admins with a new tool but it is not meant to be a first step. Give B2C a chance, on each discussion, to step away before asking an admin to make him step away. Seem fair?--v/r - TP 14:38, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Definitely. Thanks again for a solomonic decision. --MelanieN (talk) 15:03, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Now my thank you is "inappropriate"? Baffled, again. Is the morality by which I'm judged documented anywhere? I sure would like to see it. --B2C 21:41, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

One person said that. I wouldn't read anything into it beyond that. Time to move on and have some fun. Same goes for the folks that have been butting heads with B2C if you are watching. Send each other a wikibeer, don't give up your principles, just keep 'em shorter, and butt heads in a friendly way with people who are friends first, fellow Wikipedians who are sincerely trying to make Misplaced Pages good second, and opponents third. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:06, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Of course B2C was in his rights to give out barnstars. However, bestowing for the reasons given clearly, IMHO, traverses into what I would call "creepish" if not potentially corrupting behaviour. It's not unlike giving a police officer a "thank you" red packet for not issuing you a speeding ticket or not slinging you into gaol. OTOH, I wouldn't call the close a "Solomonic decision" either, for it may turn out to be as ineffective as a trouting. The proof will be in the pudding of whether it will stop the objectionable behaviour. As I noted above, it's interesting and creative, and I reserve judgement about how complex its administration will be or how much workload or 'admin involvement' it will engender (although TP stated clearly he appreciates there will be a burden). Once again, as I said at AN, what I care about the most at the moment is for the noise to stop. -- Ohconfucius  01:56, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you is inappropriate? Absurd. NE Ent 03:08, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

A 'thank you' is never out of place. But there are many ways of saying that "thank you". -- Ohconfucius  03:43, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

In this case, I believe the "thank you" was out of place, given the inappropriateness of the original post here. Tony (talk) 06:41, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

• Ladies and gentlemen, we're spending far too much time debating this rather minor issue that Tony brought up and I acknowledged already. Shall we move on to more important and productive things?--v/r - TP 13:56, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/JoshuSasori for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. elvenscout742 (talk) 01:42, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Obviously you aren't under investigation yourself. Just I mentioned your name in my comment and I figured I should let you know. If you want to post a comment I'm sure it would be welcome! (Especially considering I made reference to a private e-mail exchange I had with you.) elvenscout742 (talk) 01:42, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/China's University and College Admission System (CUCAS)

Hi Tparis again,

As we talked on delection of CUCAS in Misplaced Pages on 5 feb 2013. First of all, Thank you for your early reply. I just want to explain what kind of company we are and Misplaced Pages is important to us because lots of our students told us they could not find CUCAS in Misplaced Pages. We do not want to use Misplaced Pages as a method to make advertisement because we have our own marketing and advertising channel. As you know, some companies, like IBM, also list in Misplaced Pages, if they are using Misplaced Pages as an advertising means? So we want to know what kind of contents will be regarded as advertisement-making and what kind of contents are permitted. In fact, we just provide the basic information about the compmay,such as when the company founded, which universities are our parternership ones, introduction to the location and so on. All in all, we need not use Misplaced Pages as a means to make any advertisement. So We hope you could restore our CUCAS in Misplaced Pages. Thank you very much and looking forward to your early reply. Sue — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suexiu (talk • contribs) 05:39, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Sue - IBM did not come to Misplaced Pages and write their own article. What are your independent sources?--v/r - TP 13:52, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Imagemaps....

Hey TP, do you know if WP supports the use imagemaps? If so I'm going to have to waste a few hours making some. — -dainomite   20:25, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I feel like I've seen them somewhere, but I really don't know.--v/r - TP 20:27, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Review requested

Mathsci (talk · contribs), under injunction here here actually, is insisting posting an accusation that The Devil's Advocate (talk · contribs) is violated their interaction ban. Please review and take whatever action, if any, you feel appropriate. NE Ent 22:45, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

NE Ent has been refactoring, or suggesting the refactoring of, other people's edits today (yours on WP:AN, Timotheus Canens on an arbcom page and mine on FPaS's talk page). He has just invited TDA to comment here despite knowing about TDA's WP:ARBR&I interaction ban. I don't know whether NE Ent's account is somehow compromised today, but his edits seem both disruptive and unhelpful. Mathsci (talk) 22:55, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Hang on guys. Mathsci - NE Ent is usually right in his AN/ANI hats or at least does it in good faith. Unfortunately, I can't help right now. I am on my way out the door to my 5 yr old's bday. If you want me to take a look when I get back, then everyone needs to step away from Misplaced Pages in the meantime so the situation doesn't get worse. Otherwise, another sysop will have to intervene.--v/r - TP 22:58, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I'm not at all in a position to handle this. I once told TDA to f- off, which I later apologized for. And I once blocked Cla68, which I also apologized for I think. Anyway, I'm involved with those two editors so it'd be best if someone else stepped in. Sorry.--v/r - TP 23:00, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

A good response. Enjoy the birthday event. Mathsci (talk) 23:06, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) NE Ent, maybe I'm misunderstanding you, because if you're saying that Mathsci has violated a restriction (per your first diff), you appear to be wrong. T. Canens's comment in that diff says that TDA et al are not allowed to comment on/interact with Mathsci, not that Mathsci can't comment on them (I haven't looked into whether Mathsci's saying that TDA violated anything is correct, I'm just trying to figure out what you're saying is the problem with this situation). A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 23:12, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Posted the wrong diff, fixed now; I'm not saying Mathsci has definitely violated the restriction but rather providing it for context. My viewpoint is it's an unfounded, inflammatory action which doesn't benefit the encyclopedia. I decided to ask TP at Mathsci's suggestion on their talk page but personally would be just as happy to have The Sandwich review the situation. NE Ent 23:23, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

All this disproportionate bluster about this edit? On a previous occasion, after a Mikemikev ipsock had posted a death notice on Ramdrake's page, this was what NE Ent posted on my talk page, having reverted the ipsock tagging. Fortunately Deskana intervened. Mathsci (talk) 00:07, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Joshu's back, back again

As 123.225.56.62 (talk · contribs · count) and 123.224.195.138 (talk · contribs · count), re-opening several RMs, such as this, that were previously started by other socks. Could you block these? I wonder if we should look into a range block.--Cúchullain /c 13:29, 22 February 2013 (UTC)