Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:36, 20 October 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)

Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2014 September 28#VideoPad

Hi TParis. Thank you for your detailed close at Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2014 September 28#VideoPad that summarized the arguments well.

You wrote at User talk:Randykitty#Are you around? (permanent link, bullet points changed to numbers for easier reference):

• So, I see you're not around so I'll lay out some thoughts I had:

1. You could just restore the edit history. Sure, you are technically on solid ground and you are not required to. But, it doesn't harm the encyclopedia to have a redirect with edit history behind it and it would be an easy way to solve the drama. The advantages of appeasing the people upset over this far outweigh the nonexistent disadvantages.
2. You could restore the page and then userify it or move it to WP:Draft namespace. Then leave a redirect at the article space link. The draft or userfied page could still have a redirect on it.
3. Perhaps Cunard would be happy with receiving an emailed copy of the page.

• What are your thoughts? I personally like #2 best.--v/r - TP 22:20, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

My thoughts:

1. This is the best option. I hope Randykitty will agree with this, but he did not change his position at the DRV, so I don't know if he would do that now.
2. I would not support userfication or moving it to the draft namespace. The content as preserved at http://web.archive.org/web/20131021185643/http://en.wikipedia.org/VideoPad could be merged selectively into NCH Software#Software products. Giving attribution for a selective merge is required by the guideline Misplaced Pages:Copying within Misplaced Pages#Attribution is required for copyright. I would rather link to the article rather than a draft, which if not worked on would eventually would violate WP:STALEDRAFT.
3. An emailed copy of the page would leave the history hidden to other non-admins and would not satisfy the attribution requirements of Misplaced Pages:Copying within Misplaced Pages#Attribution is required for copyright.

I understand that this was a difficult close to make. I would have preferred a close of "restore the history" since no one opposing restoration in the DRV could answer Unscintillating (talk · contribs)'s question: "How does keeping the edit history deleted improve the encyclopedia?"

But that would have been a controversial close since the community was divided, so "no consensus to overturn" close is understandable.

I propose a fourth option:

4. Misplaced Pages:Deletion review#Closing reviews states:

   If the administrator finds that there is no consensus in the deletion review, then in most cases this has the same effect as endorsing the decision being appealed. However, in some cases, it may be more appropriate to treat a finding of "no consensus" as equivalent to a "relist"; admins may use their discretion to determine which outcome is more appropriate.

   Would you consider using your discretion as DRV closer to revise your close to "no consensus to overturn, default to relist"?

   Reasons in support of a relist:

   • Paraphrasing from the eloquent November 2011 close of Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive228#RFC close review: Category:Anti-abortion violence:

     At this level of abstraction, we are far removed from considering the actual underlying question (whether keeping the edit history deleted improves the encyclopedia). The purpose of AfD is to establish consensus, and consensus is found through discussion and collaboration. The five commenters here who expressed opinions related to retaining the redirect's history should have done so (and should have had the opportunity to do so) during that original discussion; they would have caused a nearly 50% increase in its level of participation, and probably an increase in its clarity. In a relatively low-participation discussion such as that (or this, for that matter) an obvious way to gather more data is to extend and advertise the discussion. There is no value to the project in extending this discussion, we need to get down off our meta pedastal and get back to the coal face where the actual issue is. To benefit the project, the original AfD needs the opportunity for more editors to get involved, and with the prominence this discussion has given it, it stands every chance of doing so. To benefit the project, this discussion needs to get out of its way.

   • As SmokeyJoe (talk · contribs) noted, "there is no evidence that the earlier participants even read Cunard's 11:28, 28 September 2014 post. I guess that 5 minutes just wasn't long enough?" Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/VideoPad was closed at 11:33, 28 September 2014 (UTC).

If Randykitty disagrees with option #1, I hope you will consider option #4.

Thank you for taking the time to review and close this contentious discussion.

As a side note, would you consider closing some of the discussions at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure, which currently does not have a regular closer? Your diplomacy and aplomb in contentious discussions would be very helpful in resolving disputes.

Cunard (talk) 23:37, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what a relist would do. I think what has happened here is that you've found a hole in policy that should be addressed somewhat. I think the next step, and perhaps RandyKitty would agree, is to hold an RFC on Misplaced Pages talk:AFD about whether defaulting to keeping the history for a redirect is desirable except in cases of copyright vioations or BLP issues.--v/r - TP 23:42, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

The DRV discussed two questions:

1. Was deleting the article's history an accurate assessment of the AfD's consensus?
2. Does undeleting the edit history under the redirect improve the encyclopedia?

At the DRV, "endorse" participants found (1) correct so did not feel the need to address (2). If only (2) was considered at the DRV, there would be a clear consensus to restore the redirect.

A relist would allow the community to answer (2) without (1) being in the way (paraphrasing from the close at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive228#RFC close review: Category:Anti-abortion violence).

The issue of a redirect's history has been discussed at an RfC in the past. It was discussed at Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for deletion/Archive 61#RfC: Merge, redirect in January 2011, where the closer wrote:

There is no consensus for automatic deletion of page history when an outcome is "redirect" (though there's also no consensus against that deletion when appropriate)

The close indicates that there is no consensus against history deletion when appropriate, which I interpret as referring to the "cases of copyright violations or BLP issues" you mention above. It was also discussed at Misplaced Pages talk:Deletion review#History undeletion underneath redirect (permanent link) earlier this year.

Cunard (talk) 00:03, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

• The January 2011 RFC is old and not definitive and so it's pretty weak in making your argument. Misplaced Pages talk:Deletion review#History undeletion underneath redirect looks a lot better. Is RandyKitty aware of that discussion? If I were to read that in his position, I'd probably be convinced to change my stance. There are a lot of respected users giving very informed opinions there. In any case, I think an RFC on the desirability would be most beneficial. Even King of Hearts question is about what should happen and the answer is that it is dependent on the situation. So, then it's a matter of what is the desired outcome in case by case situations when there is no overwhelming reason to delete the history.--v/r - TP 00:15, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, thank you for your thoughtful (re)close. When I commented at DRV I was unaware of the discussion you linked to immediately above. Thincat (talk) 10:01, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree that an RfC on the desirability would be most beneficial. But creating a neutral, clearly worded RfC on the matter will take considerable time and energy. I do not have the time or inclination at the moment to draft such an RfC. A relist, as I noted on Randykitty's talk page, would be a good test case for any future RfC on the matter. Cunard (talk) 21:09, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Courtesy notice

I just realized that I mentioned you on this report but I forgot to ping you. Viriditas (talk) 04:19, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

"revision history statistics" link

forgive me if I have the wrong person, the other day I asked at the "help desk", when the "revision history statistics" link would be up, but I didn't get a straight answer(the page is very useful). If I have the wrong person please forgive my intrusion, thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:00, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CIII, October 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 review: Nick-D on Britain in the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars Timeline: This month 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) 14:32, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CIII, October 2014, Redux

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 on Britain in the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars Timeline: This month in World War I

NOTE: This replaces the earlier October 2014 Bugle message, which had incorrect links -- please ignore/delete the previous message. Thank uou!

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) 01:52, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Gamaliel

I'm not sure how to proceed here. Gamaliel (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has unblocked, but with a petulant edit summary, and still refuses to provide diffs of the serious accusations that have been leveled at Andyvphil. Now Gamaliel has blanked and protected their talkpage, so that no further queries can be lodged. I just don't see how Gamaliel can keep the bit after this meltdown. Am I wrong, do you think? LHM 04:14, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Let's just wait and see what happens tomorrow. Gamaliel is clearly upset and being that I am a Caucasian male, I just have no idea how it must feel to be in his position. It doesn't justify his actions, but it certainly calls for some compassion. He's not infallible. I think he knows that. I'd like to avoid the usual course of blowing these things up and causing more lines to be drawn. Let's try to solve this amicably with Gamaliel, without calls for his bit, and see if we can just make sure this doesn't happen again.--v/r - TP 04:45, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Probably the best course of action. But Gamaliel has to drop the "racist/racism" accusation if he is unwilling or unable to provide diffs to prove it. I've been following the kerfuffle at the NDGT article and, while I've not been pleased with Andyvphil's discussion style, I have seen nothing to justify such accusations. He made a somewhat inappropriate insinuation regarding affirmative action with regards to Dr. Tyson getting into a second PhD program after being kicked out of UT's, but other than that, I have no idea what Gamaliel might even be referring to. LHM 04:56, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but we're approaching this front a life experience of white privilege (assuming yours). Our perception of racism is entirely different. Gamaliel may legitimately have seen racism but he feels that he cannot demonstrate it in a way that our life experience would allow us to see. We also don't want to undermine his feelings whether there is legitimate evidence or not. On the other hand, we also cannot excuse tool use in this manner either. So, at the moment, we've expressed our concerns and the best we can do is hope that Gamaliel has something to add tomorrow.--v/r - TP 05:11, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

You might feel differently about this, but I'm not swayed by the long note he just posted at his talkpage. He still hasn't provided any diffs for his serious accusations and, though he seems to admit what he did was wrong, still seems to be attempting to justify both his actions regarding Andyvphil, as well as what went down with Gamergate. (I am unfamiliar with the latter, so that's just a sense I get from the tenor of the post.) I hope you have success in getting him to produce diffs to support his accusations of racism, or that you're able to get him to retract them, because just as we wouldn't allow an editor to make such accusations against a living person without being well-sourced, so we can not allow an editor to make such accusations without very solid proof, in the form of diffs. LHM 06:08, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Gamaliel's talk page comments are a great sign that he is at least open to discuss the matter. Let's let him sleep on it. As a fellow admin, I have sympathy. I've hit my breaking point too, we're human. This is out of character for him. Andyvphil is unblocked, there isn't any sign that Gamaliel has any intention of doing anything we'd not want him to do, so there isn't any urgency here. Let's let tempers settle. We'll all feel better about ourselves if we make calm rational decisions. Especially because both Andyvphil and Gamaliel feel backed into corners. They are both going to be defensive. Two years of marriage counseling tells me that feeling defensive never solves anything.--v/r - TP 06:24, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

(TPS)From what I can tell, someone is accusing an academic of not being qualified for their job, which makes it a BLP issue. Might not be too cool if the guy's current employer thinks there's fire if there isn't even smoke. The talk page protection is not necessarily out of anger, but to prevent the unblocked person from posting on their talk page--solves that problem so they don't get spammed for the next 16 hours while they're sleeping and at work. There's nothing that can't wait. Someone should probably keep an eye on the unblocked one to make sure they don't try to reintroduce the controversial BLP material before everything can get sorted out. —Neotarf (talk) 06:01, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

The tools should not be used to protect the admin's own talkpage, simply because another editor might post questions, comments, or whatever on it. LHM 06:08, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

• @Andyvphil: Feel free to discuss the facts of this case, but please do not repost the redacted material until and unless you are asked to for dispute resolution. The material was sent so you could formulate an argument in your defense, not so they could be reposted.--v/r - TP 06:21, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not seeing the issue with the fragment, but I see the formal argument. Please enlighten me on the next step in attempting to undo the redaction. Andyvphil (talk) 06:27, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

You could start an RFC on whether NGDT's education should include the tidbit about not finishing a particular school. I'd include ample sourcing on both the actual academic progress as well as about the news about the progress. If you have sources saying "this is important," you'll convince more people. Formulate a neutral RFC with neutral wording. That's one way. The other way is that you can start an WP:AN or WP:ANI to gain a consensus to reverse it. Other sysops will read the diff and leave comments. I wouldn't recommend you do that, I have a feeling that other editors are going to take issue with your style of communication and editing. But it is available to you. The final option, also not recommended, is that you file an WP:AE appeal because this redaction was done under the BLP discretionary sanctions. I think this approach will also end poorly for you. We're here to write an encyclopedia, not to be fair to everyone. While you may have a strong argument that Gamaliel acted inappropriately, your editing style is going to be strongly scrutinized and your style of arguing with become a major factor. My suggestion is the first option I laid before you. Take it to the talk page, change your approach, change your style, assume good faith, try to work collaboratively, and try to gain consensus.--v/r - TP 06:36, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Would you care to comment?

Would you care to comment at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/DangerousPanda-EatsShootsAndLeaves? Msnicki (talk) 04:51, 20 October 2014 (UTC)